I apologize. As, I said earlier, I was in a bad mood and interpreted the message poorly. (Though, that is no excuse, and I take responsibility for over-reacting.)
Literally, this will definately benefit my eye condition. I hope that this research turns out to be helpful. From what I understand so far though, it is just prolonging the inevitable... but hey, that's better than nothing.
Look dude. Sometimes we invent things that are revolutionary and take multiple years just to develop it. I've spent the last 3 years just reducing to practice a new and wonderful idea.
So, keep your ignorant generalities to yourself.
By the way, for you spelling idiots that troll slashdot looking for mis-spelled words... Shut up!
By the way, I happen to agree that the system is screwed as it is currently. I opt for trade secrets and copyrights, and hope until it gets close enough to release. At that point patents become a necessary evil.
On top of all that -- THE PATENT SYSTEM IS FOR LEGAL PROTECTION. So, all of you idiots complaining that litigation is rampant when it comes to patents, can sit back and chew on the fact that litigation aligns perfectly with the intent of patent protection.
Sorry, in advance if I sound brash. I'm in a bad mood. I hate searching for jobs. Recruiters suck.
Build a huge (very tall -- because it can not be very wide) heat sink in between the heat source and the equipment. Make the heat sink filled with water, and continuously exchange out the heated water with cool water.
Add a refrigration system to the water, if the water volume is not enough by itself.
Also, try and get a heat sink on the heat producer to direct heat away from the equipment. Ie.) outside.
The water in the heat sink should keep the metal that contains it from melting. Water is pretty amazing stuff, so don't underestimate its value.
Eventually they will get more experience and a job, and may even do well at it eventually.
Let recruiters tell people what mistakes they have made. Besides that, some people come away knowing where they had trouble in an interview/job/contract and do their best to get better in the deficient areas.
Unless you are there coach or teacher, then just let them be.
Dammit.... Acer aspire 1804wsmi... was alsmost top of the line when I bought it... can't believe those jerks installed something like that on my damn machine... I though it was running slow, so I had already cleaned it and done a fresh install... but now I am sure that it was due to that exploit...
I agree with your post, but anytime religion is mentioned in an otherwise sane post it irks me. Why -- because it implies that the foundation of morality is based in religion. I do not have a religion, and yet I have every moral capability that others possess. Other people have various other religions and also possess the capability for high ethics and morality.
In other words, your points are valid across the board, and they are only diluted with a religion comment.
Postgres is pretty slow. In fact most modern rdbms databases are slow as hell if you compare them to the old style of database. But that's besides the point that you are making. I humbly stand corrected on the assumption of slow cobol. More though I was referring to the speedup that workstations have had over the past several decades... though I had a bit of a brain lapse in that area too (as pointed out in another reply).
Since, I've not really seen production cobol code, I'll take your word for it. I was basing my assumption off of other code that was ported from procedural pascal to object pascal. So, looking back I can see that I am likely wrong about that assumption too.
I admit that I exagerated a bit, though so are you in that a modern server can handle many of those tasks relatively efficiently and without downtime.
I would say that I would need about 20 servers to accomplish what you are talking about. And, I know that it is slightly more of an engineering challenge to do so on a distributed system (as opposed to a single system image that you are likely working with on your mainframe) so I can admit to some overhead there too.
I can also admit that throughput and uptime would be more of a challenge in a distributed system. I also know from practical experience that these problems can be overcome if given some descent amount of thought. I've personally written several such systems.
I'm basically just trying to say that although mainframes were nice for their day, they are on the way out right now -- in favor of a more distributed approach. I think they will come back into fashion again eventually, but not for quite a while, and that might be along time too late for companies that need to compete and keep up with the rest of the marketplace in their technology.
And of course, I don't mean to belittle the time/cost benefit trade off of having an already working system. I'm all for, not fixing something that isn't broken. Perhaps I came across more harshly then I meant to in my original post. I would hate to be the one to rewrite a system like that.
Old, dead, languages with no job potential or revenue potential for tools means that we will expend no effort over it.
Corporations that are still on cobol are eventually just going to be screwed (if they wait too long). A 486 could handle the same problem, much faster nowadays, and cost less to run. Rewriting a million lines of cobol could be done in 50k lines of C# or Java. Maintenaince would be easier. Bugs would be fewer. Imagine all the dead code accumulated in that mess over 20 or 30 years.
I'm all for "don't spend money until you need to"... but that doesn't mean that there won't be a need. It will happen, and for some companies they are just putting off the inevitable a little bit longer.
I wouldn't want to do anything but hire a great admin either.
I'm just making a case for the fact that a great admin can get more done, more quickly if they don't need to read a man or info page, and edit a config file just to change a user setting.
The point is that free stuff means that I essentially can't make money on it.
That's fine with me.
My point is that, if no money is to be made with it, then no extremely exceptional great killer applications will be made for it.
Reason: They cost money to create.
Motivation: To make money.
Oh, Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take someone else to point this out. I'm glad that there is another person out there, that saw the endless idiocy of the "vista is still only 32 bit" argument.
Who cares? At the end of the day, its all just markup language.
And, anyone that has used Word for a long enough period of time gets screwed over by it occasionally. So, it probably isn't becuase the parent is dumb.
It's just upsetting when it breaks and there is no easy way to fix it... except for copying it into notepad and then copying that text back into word without the formatting garbage... then reformatting it correctly... Oh, wait, that's easy isn't it. My bad.
No doubt that there are problems. But compared to needing to recompile, and installing 16 dependency libraries and then it still doesn't work anyway... I think MS has done a better job of it.
You're right, it probably could be done more cleanly. That is not to say that it is not a difficult problem though. Single sign on is still a research topic that has been attempted only a few times by implementors.
Actually, some heave weight apps have been dropped on linux. But, Linux developers don't care about anything that isn't open source. So every new version of Linux, every three months requires a recompile, and that makes distributing a product impossible. By the time the product reaches the market the entire OS has changed. Several large companies have tried, and this is why people still by proprietary and vendor copies of Linux/Unix.
In essence Linux development teams don't care about anything except their pet projects. The kernel itself fostered this idea, and it is a huge disadvantage to being accepted on the desktop.
The problem is that the Linux culture does not currently support business.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize. As, I said earlier, I was in a bad mood and interpreted the message poorly. (Though, that is no excuse, and I take responsibility for over-reacting.)
Literally, this will definately benefit my eye condition. I hope that this research turns out to be helpful. From what I understand so far though, it is just prolonging the inevitable... but hey, that's better than nothing.
Look dude. Sometimes we invent things that are revolutionary and take multiple years just to develop it. I've spent the last 3 years just reducing to practice a new and wonderful idea.
So, keep your ignorant generalities to yourself.
By the way, for you spelling idiots that troll slashdot looking for mis-spelled words... Shut up!
By the way, I happen to agree that the system is screwed as it is currently. I opt for trade secrets and copyrights, and hope until it gets close enough to release. At that point patents become a necessary evil.
On top of all that -- THE PATENT SYSTEM IS FOR LEGAL PROTECTION. So, all of you idiots complaining that litigation is rampant when it comes to patents, can sit back and chew on the fact that litigation aligns perfectly with the intent of patent protection.
Sorry, in advance if I sound brash. I'm in a bad mood. I hate searching for jobs. Recruiters suck.
Build a huge (very tall -- because it can not be very wide) heat sink in between the heat source and the equipment. Make the heat sink filled with water, and continuously exchange out the heated water with cool water. Add a refrigration system to the water, if the water volume is not enough by itself. Also, try and get a heat sink on the heat producer to direct heat away from the equipment. Ie.) outside. The water in the heat sink should keep the metal that contains it from melting. Water is pretty amazing stuff, so don't underestimate its value.
Eventually they will get more experience and a job, and may even do well at it eventually. Let recruiters tell people what mistakes they have made. Besides that, some people come away knowing where they had trouble in an interview/job/contract and do their best to get better in the deficient areas. Unless you are there coach or teacher, then just let them be.
Dammit.... Acer aspire 1804wsmi ... was alsmost top of the line when I bought it... can't believe those jerks installed something like that on my damn machine... I though it was running slow, so I had already cleaned it and done a fresh install... but now I am sure that it was due to that exploit...
I agree with your post, but anytime religion is mentioned in an otherwise sane post it irks me. Why -- because it implies that the foundation of morality is based in religion. I do not have a religion, and yet I have every moral capability that others possess. Other people have various other religions and also possess the capability for high ethics and morality.
In other words, your points are valid across the board, and they are only diluted with a religion comment.
Postgres is pretty slow. In fact most modern rdbms databases are slow as hell if you compare them to the old style of database. But that's besides the point that you are making. I humbly stand corrected on the assumption of slow cobol. More though I was referring to the speedup that workstations have had over the past several decades... though I had a bit of a brain lapse in that area too (as pointed out in another reply).
Since, I've not really seen production cobol code, I'll take your word for it. I was basing my assumption off of other code that was ported from procedural pascal to object pascal. So, looking back I can see that I am likely wrong about that assumption too.
Cheers.
Okay, I stand corrected on some of those issues.
I admit that I exagerated a bit, though so are you in that a modern server can handle many of those tasks relatively efficiently and without downtime.
I would say that I would need about 20 servers to accomplish what you are talking about. And, I know that it is slightly more of an engineering challenge to do so on a distributed system (as opposed to a single system image that you are likely working with on your mainframe) so I can admit to some overhead there too.
I can also admit that throughput and uptime would be more of a challenge in a distributed system. I also know from practical experience that these problems can be overcome if given some descent amount of thought. I've personally written several such systems.
I'm basically just trying to say that although mainframes were nice for their day, they are on the way out right now -- in favor of a more distributed approach. I think they will come back into fashion again eventually, but not for quite a while, and that might be along time too late for companies that need to compete and keep up with the rest of the marketplace in their technology.
And of course, I don't mean to belittle the time/cost benefit trade off of having an already working system. I'm all for, not fixing something that isn't broken. Perhaps I came across more harshly then I meant to in my original post. I would hate to be the one to rewrite a system like that.
Old, dead, languages with no job potential or revenue potential for tools means that we will expend no effort over it.
... but that doesn't mean that there won't be a need. It will happen, and for some companies they are just putting off the inevitable a little bit longer.
Corporations that are still on cobol are eventually just going to be screwed (if they wait too long). A 486 could handle the same problem, much faster nowadays, and cost less to run. Rewriting a million lines of cobol could be done in 50k lines of C# or Java. Maintenaince would be easier. Bugs would be fewer. Imagine all the dead code accumulated in that mess over 20 or 30 years.
I'm all for "don't spend money until you need to"
I think that's the basic idea that windows vista is adopting with using the hybrid drives.
Man, that rocks!
Thanks!
I wouldn't want to do anything but hire a great admin either.
I'm just making a case for the fact that a great admin can get more done, more quickly if they don't need to read a man or info page, and edit a config file just to change a user setting.
Oh, okay, then I couldn't agree with you more.
The point is that free stuff means that I essentially can't make money on it.
That's fine with me.
My point is that, if no money is to be made with it, then no extremely exceptional great killer applications will be made for it.
Reason: They cost money to create.
Motivation: To make money.
I think that people sometimes get their ideas twisted around with their idealogy.
...
It probably started out as
Let's make the best [whatever] possible.
Then, that evolved into
Let's make the world into a place with only one operating system, and let's make sure that its not windows.
Pretty unrealistic and counter-productive if you ask me.
Okay, then, go ahead.
Oh, Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take someone else to point this out. I'm glad that there is another person out there, that saw the endless idiocy of the "vista is still only 32 bit" argument.
His coding ability does not diminish (or add to) the points that he makes in that article.
Wall mart -- Yep... Thanks... Goodbye
Who cares? At the end of the day, its all just markup language.
... except for copying it into notepad and then copying that text back into word without the formatting garbage ... then reformatting it correctly ... Oh, wait, that's easy isn't it. My bad.
And, anyone that has used Word for a long enough period of time gets screwed over by it occasionally. So, it probably isn't becuase the parent is dumb.
It's just upsetting when it breaks and there is no easy way to fix it
No doubt that there are problems. But compared to needing to recompile, and installing 16 dependency libraries and then it still doesn't work anyway... I think MS has done a better job of it.
You're right, it probably could be done more cleanly. That is not to say that it is not a difficult problem though. Single sign on is still a research topic that has been attempted only a few times by implementors.
But, those things you list are better in Word than in OO Writer... and fully exist now unless you are talking about Word 97 which is 10 years old now.
Actually, some heave weight apps have been dropped on linux. But, Linux developers don't care about anything that isn't open source. So every new version of Linux, every three months requires a recompile, and that makes distributing a product impossible. By the time the product reaches the market the entire OS has changed. Several large companies have tried, and this is why people still by proprietary and vendor copies of Linux/Unix.
In essence Linux development teams don't care about anything except their pet projects. The kernel itself fostered this idea, and it is a huge disadvantage to being accepted on the desktop.
The problem is that the Linux culture does not currently support business.