I also did some scientific research. I wrote a similar program, and printed it out from both a 1 GHz Pentium III and a 500 Mhz G4. I then threw both copies of the printed program out a window. I was surprised to find that they landed at approximately the same time. This just goes to show that Intel is obviously counting its clocks TWICE instead of ONCE. I think this is backed up even further by the fact that the copy of the program printed out from the Pentium machine, fluttered as it fell a lot more than the G4 copy.
"It seems to me that the consumer would be better served by AMD advertising in plain language why their chips are better than the competition's."
Hah. These are the same users that choose iMacs for the pretty colors (as opposed to choosing them for any other reason, or choosing something else).
"Look at it this way, if you went to the gas station and the pumps were only listed as "Formulas One, Two, and Three" instead of octane ratings, you'd likely buy the cheapest one instead of the one best suited to your needs."
And millions of people always buy the most expensive gasoline even though their car engines were designed to run perfectly fine on the cheapest (by law). They just think that since it's more expense (or "higher octane") it must be better. And anyway, how does "Octane 83", "Octane 87", and "Octane 94" really differ from "Formula One", "Formula Two", and "Formula Three". I'm so sure people are solving stoichiometric formulas at the gas pump to figure out their "ideal" fuel. Bah.
The entire post was a quote from the submitter, so it should all be italicized. Or conversely, quotes from posts should be normal, while commentary from editors is italicized. Whatever.
Bash c#,.net, etc, all you want. But don't tell me an interpreted language with garbage collection and bullshit container classes and 1970's i/o is as fast as c++.
A Java program runs much faster than a C++ program sitting in GDB while you wrack your brains all night trying to figure out what the hell is going on and why is GCC implementing this obscure feature of C++ this way for the love of god.
It's all about *complexity management* man. It's dead simple to throw money/hardware at the performance problem once you have a robust system. It's not so straightforward to solve the complexity problem (at which, IMHO, Java is much better than C++).
"cuz it doesn't know from multiplexing, at least in 1.3"
Not sure what exactly you are talking about here. I believe asynchronous IO is coming in 1.4. But whatever your beef is, Java has already proven itself as imminently qualified for heavy duting enterprise computing "multiplexing" or not.
...so now maybe some PHBs will take notice instead of being afraid of using hippie commie software to manage their projects...I sure know it would help around here...
The difference is, if it's on the internet, the information can be found out *anonymously*. If some creepy guy comes into a public office and wants to know all about John Smith, and you find John Smith dead the next week, you may be able to trace that person. There is no such (well, very little) thing online.
That's ridiculous - everybody knows that you make lots of money in real estate - you buy the houses with someone elses money! No risk! Even twin midgets can do it!
1. Interactive (but not-computer) devices being banned from preschool/Kindergarden/grade school children.
2. Middleschool/Highschools banning HP-type calculators and handheld-type devices.
GOOD. All us tech-heads are having orgasms falling over each other trying to get kids hooked on our ghee-whiz useless device of the week. Kids don't need goddamn PDAs for crying out loud. Kids don't need damn LAPTOPs in the classroom (well, except maybe computer-related classes) for chrissake. I mean, the teacher is RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. What next, give each student VR goggles! Hey it's VIRTUAL SCHOOL! Whoopdeefuck. My god, all kids did in my school was fucking goof off all the time - I mean, even *hats* were disallowed because they are too distracting to the attention deficit generation. Now we want to give them handheld video game/chat devices?
Schools need high quality teachers, and full funding for adequate (legitimate) supplies (like, um, textbooks [no, not eBooks], lab equipment, etc., not expensive toys. Man, everybody needs to get their head out of the fumes of the tech bong.
I found out about Grandaddy...they rock. Also try Ladytron, and The New Pornographers. Listening to New Indie on Spinner pays off;) Tons of good stuff playing there. All hope is not lost, it's just not being marketed and hyped.
Is the cost of disincentivization of pharmaceutical companies (and therefore the risk of future products not being developed) in wealthy countries greater than the cost of millions of lives of those in poorer countries who cannot afford the drugs?
To prove that this is the case you first have to prove to me that these drugs companies 1) will not break even without massive sales outside of the top few wealthiest countries 2) knew this *before* they started research/development (after all, you can't be disincentivized *before* you actually know what you want to do). And yes, taking into account that a fixed amount of money has to be spent for "ongoing" research not tied to any given product. Seeing as people in third world countries can't afford (and therefore are not buying) these drugs in the first place, I think it would be hard to make the above argument.
And no...I don't mean that LITERALLY drugs should be developed under an "Open Source" model. I mean that profit is not the only motive for human endeavor and even *if* private for-profit pharmaceuticals become disincentivized, inevitably someone somewhere will be developing drugs (probably governments).
Here's a less dramatic scenario: the companies decide not to bother developing drugs that save the lives of lots of poor people, preferring the safety of products to help wealthy people live another two years.
Which will free up pharmaceutical industries in other, poorer countries, to develop and sell these drugs at-cost to its own population. Yes, great.
Look at the range of quality on Freshmeat. Is that what you want to find in the drugstore?
If the option is not being able to afford sactioned Microsoft software ("proprietary drugs"), then yes, the benefit/cost ratio fits the bill. Lessee, would I rather 1) be doomed to die a slow miserable hopeless death because even if I worked the rest of my natural life I would not be able to afford the drugs I need, or 2) settle for a cheap and perhaps lower quality alternative. I think I'll take option 2 thank you.
I paid $1200 or so for my computer, $40 for LinuxPPC and nothing for Qt, KDevelop and gcc. Do you you see a problem in your extrapolation that researchers will therefore be eager to drop $100 million out of their pockets for compound screening and clinical testing? (Hint: I code for free, but I damn well don't pay the $100,000 a year that my research costs...)
Ok, you're taking my statement a little too literally. What I mean is that even if a given pharmaceutical fails because society deems that the benefit offered the those who cannot afford one of its products is greater than that of the profit attained by the pharmaceutical, I don't think that pharmaceutical research will just stop, and that humans will never ever do it. That's ridiculous. Brazil and India are *glad* to produce drugs at-cost for their own population. Certainly these researchers (or at least the companies or governments they work for) aren't making the megabucks that their US counterparts are. But they are still doing it? Why is that? Wouldn't they be disincentivized? Profit is not the only reason humans do things.
Oh, and by the way, if you conclude through extrapolation that the failure of pharmaceutical X to make lots of money because society decides there is a greater cause, immediately disincentivizes the whole industry (leading of course to the collapse of civilization as we know it...or something), I suggest you reexamine your assumptions about the motives for doing such work - for example, it's taken for granted that people *will* work without compensation on many things, e.g. Open Source software. In an extreme case, I'm sure the death of one given pharmaceutical company is not going to destroy the entire future of human research into pharmaceuticals.
The pharmaceutical companies are hardly screwed. There was no guarantee that after they made the drug they'd get rich from epidemics in Brazil and Africa. Profits are not a *right* (something MPAA and RIAA are also having a hard time getting their heads around...they continually are going to Washington whining, "hey, it's not *fair*...we *expected* to make lots of money and now we're not, boohoo"). Anyway, patents are useful insofar as they benefit the society (and extended to international patents, the whole global society) as a whole. If some pharmaceutical makes less money because the global community decides that millions of lives are more important, guess what? - Tough shit for them. The benefit to society of saving millions of lives in this case far outweighs the benefit to a very few of making lots of money.
CVS has well earned it's hate. I'm all for version control, but CVS is an ugly hackish piece of crap. I sure wish Subversion would get completed (or at least releasable). As it is, CVS has too much momentum behind it because it "just works" (or "sorta" works). One of the curses of the Unix mentality (have separate tools which only do one specific thing), is tools that just *barely* do the job enough to scratch the particular developer's itch. Unfortunately version control is not that sexy.
Funny how all the cultural fears of technology come from books and movies like Frankenstein, Brave New World, Colossus, (remember that one?) and 2001.
Most (good) science fiction is NOT about scary things from the future. It's about human nature itself. Frankenstein was not about a scary monster that was going to come and get us...it was about man's desire to be something else, and fear of the nonconformant. Cultural fears of technology, etc., don't/come from/ those books - they are the basis for those books. Throw the Martian Chronicles in there too...
Hey hacker! Yeah, you. You like electronic stuff, right? Well, we at MPAA know how l33t and kewl you are. And we see that you love the quality entertainment we produce. So we're introducing a whole new delivery mechanism just for you. eShit! Instead of going to the movies, or renting a video, subscribe to our new eShit! program. Here's how it works:
1) we give you a bucket of steaming shit
2) that's it!
Of course, if you are unsatisfied with our shit, you can always go out and purchase our products through sanctioned retail outlets. But we're sure you'll love this innovative new delivery mechanism, sucker...er, Dude!
Typical libertarian argument. Everybody is a free agent and the mysterious phantom hand of free will will eventually knock down, or relegate to irrelevance evil entities. WRONG. If we learn *anything* from history, free choice alone does not preserve a free society. Tell me this: when there is only a monopoly producing a given product or service what "choice" do you have? What if there aren't monopolies, but just many many companies who are all *equally* as bad? What if there simply isn't any choice at all? You can't merely wipe your conscience clean by naively saying "oh, we have CHOICE! I'll close my eyes now and just *assume* based on that premise that everything will work out OK". Well things don't work out OK. Bad people join together to screw the rest while the good blindly go about with their hands to their ears singing "lalalalala" comfortable thinking that the choices they make put them in control (we have always been at war with east asia). We need both free choice, AND fervent independent watchdogging. Given the state of the market, I think the FSF's "overzealousness" is not entirely uncalled for in this watchdogging role. We certainly don't need ESR bitchin about FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
It IS full screen. A *FULL* 2x2 pixel screen ;)
Geez...what a stretch for such a weak joke...and the point of lzip is??
Yes, because compression works wonderfully on a corpus of massively redundent data...
I also did some scientific research. I wrote a similar program, and printed it out from both a 1 GHz Pentium III and a 500 Mhz G4. I then threw both copies of the printed program out a window. I was surprised to find that they landed at approximately the same time. This just goes to show that Intel is obviously counting its clocks TWICE instead of ONCE. I think this is backed up even further by the fact that the copy of the program printed out from the Pentium machine, fluttered as it fell a lot more than the G4 copy.
"It seems to me that the consumer would be better served by AMD advertising in plain language why their chips are better than the competition's."
Hah. These are the same users that choose iMacs for the pretty colors (as opposed to choosing them for any other reason, or choosing something else).
"Look at it this way, if you went to the gas station and the pumps were only listed as "Formulas One, Two, and Three" instead of octane ratings, you'd likely buy the cheapest one instead of the one best suited to your needs."
And millions of people always buy the most expensive gasoline even though their car engines were designed to run perfectly fine on the cheapest (by law). They just think that since it's more expense (or "higher octane") it must be better. And anyway, how does "Octane 83", "Octane 87", and "Octane 94" really differ from "Formula One", "Formula Two", and "Formula Three". I'm so sure people are solving stoichiometric formulas at the gas pump to figure out their "ideal" fuel. Bah.
The entire post was a quote from the submitter, so it should all be italicized. Or conversely, quotes from posts should be normal, while commentary from editors is italicized. Whatever.
A Java program runs much faster than a C++ program sitting in GDB while you wrack your brains all night trying to figure out what the hell is going on and why is GCC implementing this obscure feature of C++ this way for the love of god.
It's all about *complexity management* man. It's dead simple to throw money/hardware at the performance problem once you have a robust system. It's not so straightforward to solve the complexity problem (at which, IMHO, Java is much better than C++).
"cuz it doesn't know from multiplexing, at least in 1.3"
Not sure what exactly you are talking about here. I believe asynchronous IO is coming in 1.4. But whatever your beef is, Java has already proven itself as imminently qualified for heavy duting enterprise computing "multiplexing" or not.
Sail to small island. Go to coconut tree. Turn right. Walk 10 paces. Climb out window. AAAAAHH........**SPLAT**.
...so now maybe some PHBs will take notice instead of being afraid of using hippie commie software to manage their projects...I sure know it would help around here...
The difference is, if it's on the internet, the information can be found out *anonymously*. If some creepy guy comes into a public office and wants to know all about John Smith, and you find John Smith dead the next week, you may be able to trace that person. There is no such (well, very little) thing online.
That's ridiculous - everybody knows that you make lots of money in real estate - you buy the houses with someone elses money! No risk! Even twin midgets can do it!
(P.S. No offense to twin midgets)
Schools need high quality teachers, and full funding for adequate (legitimate) supplies (like, um, textbooks [no, not eBooks], lab equipment, etc., not expensive toys. Man, everybody needs to get their head out of the fumes of the tech bong.
...are belong to us?
I found out about Grandaddy...they rock. Also try Ladytron, and The New Pornographers. Listening to New Indie on Spinner pays off ;) Tons of good stuff playing there. All hope is not lost, it's just not being marketed and hyped.
In the end the question is:
Is the cost of disincentivization of pharmaceutical companies (and therefore the risk of future products not being developed) in wealthy countries greater than the cost of millions of lives of those in poorer countries who cannot afford the drugs?
To prove that this is the case you first have to prove to me that these drugs companies 1) will not break even without massive sales outside of the top few wealthiest countries 2) knew this *before* they started research/development (after all, you can't be disincentivized *before* you actually know what you want to do). And yes, taking into account that a fixed amount of money has to be spent for "ongoing" research not tied to any given product. Seeing as people in third world countries can't afford (and therefore are not buying) these drugs in the first place, I think it would be hard to make the above argument.
And no...I don't mean that LITERALLY drugs should be developed under an "Open Source" model. I mean that profit is not the only motive for human endeavor and even *if* private for-profit pharmaceuticals become disincentivized, inevitably someone somewhere will be developing drugs (probably governments).
If the option is not being able to afford sactioned Microsoft software ("proprietary drugs"), then yes, the benefit/cost ratio fits the bill. Lessee, would I rather 1) be doomed to die a slow miserable hopeless death because even if I worked the rest of my natural life I would not be able to afford the drugs I need, or 2) settle for a cheap and perhaps lower quality alternative. I think I'll take option 2 thank you.
Ok, you're taking my statement a little too literally. What I mean is that even if a given pharmaceutical fails because society deems that the benefit offered the those who cannot afford one of its products is greater than that of the profit attained by the pharmaceutical, I don't think that pharmaceutical research will just stop, and that humans will never ever do it. That's ridiculous. Brazil and India are *glad* to produce drugs at-cost for their own population. Certainly these researchers (or at least the companies or governments they work for) aren't making the megabucks that their US counterparts are. But they are still doing it? Why is that? Wouldn't they be disincentivized? Profit is not the only reason humans do things.
If those drugs can't reach the patients what good are they?
Oh, and by the way, if you conclude through extrapolation that the failure of pharmaceutical X to make lots of money because society decides there is a greater cause, immediately disincentivizes the whole industry (leading of course to the collapse of civilization as we know it...or something), I suggest you reexamine your assumptions about the motives for doing such work - for example, it's taken for granted that people *will* work without compensation on many things, e.g. Open Source software. In an extreme case, I'm sure the death of one given pharmaceutical company is not going to destroy the entire future of human research into pharmaceuticals.
The pharmaceutical companies are hardly screwed. There was no guarantee that after they made the drug they'd get rich from epidemics in Brazil and Africa. Profits are not a *right* (something MPAA and RIAA are also having a hard time getting their heads around...they continually are going to Washington whining, "hey, it's not *fair*...we *expected* to make lots of money and now we're not, boohoo"). Anyway, patents are useful insofar as they benefit the society (and extended to international patents, the whole global society) as a whole. If some pharmaceutical makes less money because the global community decides that millions of lives are more important, guess what? - Tough shit for them. The benefit to society of saving millions of lives in this case far outweighs the benefit to a very few of making lots of money.
CVS has well earned it's hate. I'm all for version control, but CVS is an ugly hackish piece of crap. I sure wish Subversion would get completed (or at least releasable). As it is, CVS has too much momentum behind it because it "just works" (or "sorta" works). One of the curses of the Unix mentality (have separate tools which only do one specific thing), is tools that just *barely* do the job enough to scratch the particular developer's itch. Unfortunately version control is not that sexy.
Most (good) science fiction is NOT about scary things from the future. It's about human nature itself. Frankenstein was not about a scary monster that was going to come and get us...it was about man's desire to be something else, and fear of the nonconformant. Cultural fears of technology, etc., don't
MPAA offers choice!
Hey hacker! Yeah, you. You like electronic stuff, right? Well, we at MPAA know how l33t and kewl you are. And we see that you love the quality entertainment we produce. So we're introducing a whole new delivery mechanism just for you. eShit! Instead of going to the movies, or renting a video, subscribe to our new eShit! program. Here's how it works:
1) we give you a bucket of steaming shit
2) that's it!
Of course, if you are unsatisfied with our shit, you can always go out and purchase our products through sanctioned retail outlets. But we're sure you'll love this innovative new delivery mechanism, sucker...er, Dude!
Calculating...
42
Typical libertarian argument. Everybody is a free agent and the mysterious phantom hand of free will will eventually knock down, or relegate to irrelevance evil entities. WRONG. If we learn *anything* from history, free choice alone does not preserve a free society. Tell me this: when there is only a monopoly producing a given product or service what "choice" do you have? What if there aren't monopolies, but just many many companies who are all *equally* as bad? What if there simply isn't any choice at all? You can't merely wipe your conscience clean by naively saying "oh, we have CHOICE! I'll close my eyes now and just *assume* based on that premise that everything will work out OK". Well things don't work out OK. Bad people join together to screw the rest while the good blindly go about with their hands to their ears singing "lalalalala" comfortable thinking that the choices they make put them in control (we have always been at war with east asia). We need both free choice, AND fervent independent watchdogging. Given the state of the market, I think the FSF's "overzealousness" is not entirely uncalled for in this watchdogging role. We certainly don't need ESR bitchin about FSF.
""
Ouch! You better take that tounge out of your cheek!