Is the debate over whether or not it is okay to ship a database with known crashing bugs?
Sure it is. Especially if you're bleeding money. Since it's OSS, you can just throw it out in whatever shape it's in and you'll have a wonderful army of programmers who will fix your bugs for you.
Maybe they should do something like we did back when the Paragon (yes, that far back) had multiple CPUs on a node and the memory bandwidth wasn't enough to support them all simultaneously... Don't use some of CPUs on the card (leave some idle) so that all the bandwidth is availalbe to the one, or few, cores that need it. Alternatively, figure out a way (algorithms) to make sure that no more than one core is memory intensive at a time... take turns being bandwidth intensive. Or, just realize, as it's always been, that some solutions/algorithms just aren't optimal on commodity hardware.
Heh... this sounds just like a trailer to a monster movie of some kind... something like Godzilla is going to rise up out of a Greenland Fjord and go about ransacking... what's a town in Greenland?
My 8.04 to 8.10 upgrade (took the upgrade path) did not go smoothly. Well... it was pretty smooth except that it screwed up my X configuration so on the reboot, I got nothing but a text terminal and some errors. I didn't mess with it long, posted some messages, got no answer, and the next day just reformatted / and installed 8.10 from the ISO and it worked fine.
An "uncooperative human" is one that is actively avoiding being found... someone who is evading capture. A "cooperative human" would be like a pack of boyscouts who got lost but are trying to be found by search parties (light signal fires, etc.).
Nothing like sensationalizing a title to get a lot of:NERDRAGE: on/.
Ah... My parents let me do things that they knew would fail, usually after explaining why it wasn't a good idea. I believe that it gave me confidence. I had friends who just drifted through life... presented with any kind of challenge and they would recoil from it. Even to things like food... My parents always presented food as something positive to try, even if I didn't like it that was fine, but always positive at the start. I see so many kids these days that will only eat from a menu of like 3 items and simply won't try anything off the list. I think one of the causes is that the parents just feed them whatever they want because it's the easiest thing to do for them. Then you get kids who won't eat and just whinge and moan if one of their three items isn't on the menu when you go elsewhere.
That's the rationalization of a helicopter parent. I see too many kids these days who have no clue on how to do anything themselves because parents try to protect them from everything in the world "to preserve their innocence". They don't want their kids to get scraped knees, do anything that might cause even a whisper of pain or anything like that because "modern kids don't need to know those things". Those kids end up not knowing anything or how to deal with any situation that they haven't seen on Barney or Vegetales.
It's a part of growing up. Don't let your kids do things where they might get their arms chopped off (at least, not without a lot of supervision) but trying to isolate them from scraped knees and knowing what goes on around them (I'm not gonna tell my kids about strangers because it might scare them!) is just bad for them in the long run. Chores and some work doesn't hurt them.
Being bored just teaches them how to find things to do, it won't kill them. I used to read encyclopedias when I got bored, for example, or play games or go out and explore the woods behind our house. I get bored very rarely (not even once a year that I can think of) because there are so many things to do as long as you take an active part in your life. If you're dependent upon someone else supplying you with things to do (watching TV, playing video games, having to always be hanging around other people), you'll always be easily bored because you've never had to supply your own activities. Teach your kids to be confident and instill in them that curiosity and inquisitiveness is good. Let them stumble on their own sometimes even though you know it will happen. They'll learn from it (and not resent you for not protecting them).
But, putting your kids in a gilded cage definitely will have issues down the line, like always wanting someone else to be their nanny for the rest of their life, for example.
I'm pretty sure that stuff was some rumor that came out before Barcelona was released about how the Barcelona core was going to 'destroy' Core2 (basically a load of wild and crazy speculation).
There's already some parallelisation of sequential code in all modern processors (out of order execution) that works well because it has fairly narrow focus on the instruction stream window. Going out further would be a much, much larger problem. Looking for parallelism in larger windows of the instruction stream, to the point of trying to execute whole 'subroutines' in parallel would require vast analysis (and probably not be very viable anyway as most routines are serial with respect to other subroutines.
So far, such parallelism has only been taken advantage of because the programmers put either explicit threading into the source code (pthreads and other threading APIs) or at least put hints into the code (OpenMP). This isn't a new problem... it's been around for many decades now and, so far, there haven't been really any success in automated tools to thread code. Languages like Erlang and functional languages take advantage of the fact that some language semantics allows parallelism.
There's no "no stabbing in the back" clause in the GPL, last I heard (assuming the whole thing was GPL from the start). As long as their Java implementation is also GPL'd, what's the big deal?
No... you can only be so good at flying a frigate as there are only a certain number of skills that apply. Say it takes six months to a year to absolutely master the frigate class... once you have that covered, you're as good as someone who has been playing since the game started at flying frigates (modulo actual player skills and the money to buy high-end equipment). The older player will be more versitile because more skills of different types are learned, like flying battleships, carriers, and the like, but you're on equal ground, skill-wise, for flying frigates. All those battleship, carrier, etc. skills are useless for flying frigates.
Also, within a week of starting to play, any player can have the skills trained to tackle even the oldest player in the game (crowd control - like snare/root/stun/etc.) and provide a useful role in the game to any corporation. This is like Level 5 players in WoW being useful in the Level 70 PVP game... something that is completely absurd in WoW but absolutely viable in EVE.
The big problem is the sheer volume of content that a company has to come up with if every single quest in the game was, in effect, usable by a single player only.
Play 1 does the 'quest' to chop down the tree on the hill. Now it's chopped down for everyone and all the programming, artwork, etc. that went into making that 'quest' is 'used up'. No other player will experience it, they'll just see the stump of the chopped down tree.
Now... multiply that by the millions of people who play WoW... assume each player wants to do one quest a day... how many developers do you think it would take to support that many quests? (8 million or so quests a day) and not simply turn it into some parameterized quest system (first person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAA, next person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAB, next person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAC, etc.)
Most people like the quests to seem meaningful in some way... to have some effect on the world. The above goblin killing quest system doesn't provide that and just gets old real fast. You can only tear down a castle once... (unless you do things like have another quest, maybe from a rival faction, to rebuild the castle, then your faction could tear it down again and it just flip-flops like that).
Actually, I had the Atari ST when I was in college... I really liked it and I could do my assembly projects on it (our assembly and hardware classes were all based on the M68K).
and donated even though I don't live in his state and I typically don't vote Democrat (don't vote Republican, either). We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.
Not really, to me... they look very plastic/fake. Of course, NVIDIA is only rendering at 3 bounce depth, which will make the quality not-so-great anyway, but that's because they needed to be able to run the demo at "up to" 30 fps.
The NVIDIA 'demo' also only 3 bounces deep... that's not going to give a very good image at all in comparison to an image generated with 100+ bounces... of course, this was done so they could get "up to" 30 fps in the demo.
Apple doesn't make a machine for me. I refuse to buy a Mini or an AIO because their lifetime can't be extended easily by upgrading the CPU or video card and if you want more HDDs, you have to have lots of external enclosures for them. I don't use laptops unless there is no other choice OR I actually plan to do a lot of traveling. IF Apple made the mythical xMac, I might would get one. Until then, it's no Mac for me (except maybe a Hackintosh at most).
No... if it's as I remember it, you won the computer itself and $10,000. With that in mind, you break the one you can fastest and use the $10,000 for whatever you want (including buying the type of computer that you want, or even multiple of them).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is. Especially if you're bleeding money. Since it's OSS, you can just throw it out in whatever shape it's in and you'll have a wonderful army of programmers who will fix your bugs for you.
Maybe they should do something like we did back when the Paragon (yes, that far back) had multiple CPUs on a node and the memory bandwidth wasn't enough to support them all simultaneously... Don't use some of CPUs on the card (leave some idle) so that all the bandwidth is availalbe to the one, or few, cores that need it. Alternatively, figure out a way (algorithms) to make sure that no more than one core is memory intensive at a time... take turns being bandwidth intensive. Or, just realize, as it's always been, that some solutions/algorithms just aren't optimal on commodity hardware.
Heh... this sounds just like a trailer to a monster movie of some kind... something like Godzilla is going to rise up out of a Greenland Fjord and go about ransacking... what's a town in Greenland?
My 8.04 to 8.10 upgrade (took the upgrade path) did not go smoothly. Well... it was pretty smooth except that it screwed up my X configuration so on the reboot, I got nothing but a text terminal and some errors. I didn't mess with it long, posted some messages, got no answer, and the next day just reformatted / and installed 8.10 from the ISO and it worked fine.
An "uncooperative human" is one that is actively avoiding being found... someone who is evading capture. A "cooperative human" would be like a pack of boyscouts who got lost but are trying to be found by search parties (light signal fires, etc.).
Nothing like sensationalizing a title to get a lot of :NERDRAGE: on /.
Yup... like "cloud computing" is new, too ;) Just another turn of the wheel. In another 10 years, we'll be back to where we are today ;)
Ah... My parents let me do things that they knew would fail, usually after explaining why it wasn't a good idea. I believe that it gave me confidence. I had friends who just drifted through life... presented with any kind of challenge and they would recoil from it. Even to things like food... My parents always presented food as something positive to try, even if I didn't like it that was fine, but always positive at the start. I see so many kids these days that will only eat from a menu of like 3 items and simply won't try anything off the list. I think one of the causes is that the parents just feed them whatever they want because it's the easiest thing to do for them. Then you get kids who won't eat and just whinge and moan if one of their three items isn't on the menu when you go elsewhere.
That's the rationalization of a helicopter parent. I see too many kids these days who have no clue on how to do anything themselves because parents try to protect them from everything in the world "to preserve their innocence". They don't want their kids to get scraped knees, do anything that might cause even a whisper of pain or anything like that because "modern kids don't need to know those things". Those kids end up not knowing anything or how to deal with any situation that they haven't seen on Barney or Vegetales.
It's a part of growing up. Don't let your kids do things where they might get their arms chopped off (at least, not without a lot of supervision) but trying to isolate them from scraped knees and knowing what goes on around them (I'm not gonna tell my kids about strangers because it might scare them!) is just bad for them in the long run. Chores and some work doesn't hurt them.
Being bored just teaches them how to find things to do, it won't kill them. I used to read encyclopedias when I got bored, for example, or play games or go out and explore the woods behind our house. I get bored very rarely (not even once a year that I can think of) because there are so many things to do as long as you take an active part in your life. If you're dependent upon someone else supplying you with things to do (watching TV, playing video games, having to always be hanging around other people), you'll always be easily bored because you've never had to supply your own activities. Teach your kids to be confident and instill in them that curiosity and inquisitiveness is good. Let them stumble on their own sometimes even though you know it will happen. They'll learn from it (and not resent you for not protecting them).
But, putting your kids in a gilded cage definitely will have issues down the line, like always wanting someone else to be their nanny for the rest of their life, for example.
I'm pretty sure that stuff was some rumor that came out before Barcelona was released about how the Barcelona core was going to 'destroy' Core2 (basically a load of wild and crazy speculation).
There's already some parallelisation of sequential code in all modern processors (out of order execution) that works well because it has fairly narrow focus on the instruction stream window. Going out further would be a much, much larger problem. Looking for parallelism in larger windows of the instruction stream, to the point of trying to execute whole 'subroutines' in parallel would require vast analysis (and probably not be very viable anyway as most routines are serial with respect to other subroutines.
So far, such parallelism has only been taken advantage of because the programmers put either explicit threading into the source code (pthreads and other threading APIs) or at least put hints into the code (OpenMP). This isn't a new problem... it's been around for many decades now and, so far, there haven't been really any success in automated tools to thread code. Languages like Erlang and functional languages take advantage of the fact that some language semantics allows parallelism.
There's no "no stabbing in the back" clause in the GPL, last I heard (assuming the whole thing was GPL from the start). As long as their Java implementation is also GPL'd, what's the big deal?
No... you can only be so good at flying a frigate as there are only a certain number of skills that apply. Say it takes six months to a year to absolutely master the frigate class... once you have that covered, you're as good as someone who has been playing since the game started at flying frigates (modulo actual player skills and the money to buy high-end equipment). The older player will be more versitile because more skills of different types are learned, like flying battleships, carriers, and the like, but you're on equal ground, skill-wise, for flying frigates. All those battleship, carrier, etc. skills are useless for flying frigates.
Also, within a week of starting to play, any player can have the skills trained to tackle even the oldest player in the game (crowd control - like snare/root/stun/etc.) and provide a useful role in the game to any corporation. This is like Level 5 players in WoW being useful in the Level 70 PVP game... something that is completely absurd in WoW but absolutely viable in EVE.
I remember something like this shown on "Beyond 2000", back in the late 1990s.
The big problem is the sheer volume of content that a company has to come up with if every single quest in the game was, in effect, usable by a single player only.
Play 1 does the 'quest' to chop down the tree on the hill. Now it's chopped down for everyone and all the programming, artwork, etc. that went into making that 'quest' is 'used up'. No other player will experience it, they'll just see the stump of the chopped down tree.
Now... multiply that by the millions of people who play WoW... assume each player wants to do one quest a day... how many developers do you think it would take to support that many quests? (8 million or so quests a day) and not simply turn it into some parameterized quest system (first person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAA, next person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAB, next person: go kill the Goblin named AAAAAAC, etc.)
Most people like the quests to seem meaningful in some way... to have some effect on the world. The above goblin killing quest system doesn't provide that and just gets old real fast. You can only tear down a castle once... (unless you do things like have another quest, maybe from a rival faction, to rebuild the castle, then your faction could tear it down again and it just flip-flops like that).
my... girl Atari ST ;)
Actually, I had the Atari ST when I was in college... I really liked it and I could do my assembly projects on it (our assembly and hardware classes were all based on the M68K).
A system I built just this year has to deal with data exported by a COBOL system (Copybook formatted data). It made me sad.
Well... I think it's assumed that the thing was (or at least, attempted to be) launched from the ground in Iran... not from in orbit ;)
Yeah... that stood out for me as well... how do you *fall short* of reaching Earth's atmosphere? ;)
Same here... her mouth is what threw it off for me.
and donated even though I don't live in his state and I typically don't vote Democrat (don't vote Republican, either). We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.
Not really, to me... they look very plastic/fake. Of course, NVIDIA is only rendering at 3 bounce depth, which will make the quality not-so-great anyway, but that's because they needed to be able to run the demo at "up to" 30 fps.
The NVIDIA 'demo' also only 3 bounces deep... that's not going to give a very good image at all in comparison to an image generated with 100+ bounces... of course, this was done so they could get "up to" 30 fps in the demo.
Then you are at greater risk of losing the entire competition and getting neither. Yours is a losing strategy.
Apple doesn't make a machine for me. I refuse to buy a Mini or an AIO because their lifetime can't be extended easily by upgrading the CPU or video card and if you want more HDDs, you have to have lots of external enclosures for them. I don't use laptops unless there is no other choice OR I actually plan to do a lot of traveling. IF Apple made the mythical xMac, I might would get one. Until then, it's no Mac for me (except maybe a Hackintosh at most).
No... if it's as I remember it, you won the computer itself and $10,000. With that in mind, you break the one you can fastest and use the $10,000 for whatever you want (including buying the type of computer that you want, or even multiple of them).