It is a totally waste of time and money to compare compilers that have the feature set you want. By the time you have evaluated, purchased and start using the compiler of choice all compiler vendors and gcc has new optimizations in place making your choice outdated.
I worked for a compiler vendor once and at a particular point in time Greenhill Oasis, a competitor, compared Drystones benchmarks values in an advertisment between ourselvs, gcc and their own compiler. They turned out to be 3 to 5 times faster than us and almost twice as fast as gcc at the time (10 years ago). Obviously thay had put in specific Drystones optimzations in the compiler so we did the same and counter striked their figures in 6 months at 35% faster code if I remember it correctly. During the meantime we lost quite some business, still we did better than them on regular code, debugability and jada jada, all along.
It is a leapfrog game, choose the tools you like and don't make assumptions solely on benchmark figures. I am 100% gcc today and would only use anything else if a particular cross target wouldn't be mature enough or on the limit for the system performance.
it will make you think twice before entering your code. It is odd having case insensetiveness rather than the opposite. Otherwise we could also be insensetive to 0 (zero) and O (upper case o) as well as l (lower case L) and 1 (one) etc.
IDE:s that correct your errors will become your addiction and soon you and up not beeing able to perform without them. Some people even think that compilers should cover your ass entering poor code by optimizing away redudant tests and dead code and turn your loops upside down. You'll be surprised when you try to port the code to a compiler lacking these 'features'.
Also learning to use correct naming conventions, indentions and language specific programming style will make everyone else so much more happy!
On CPU:s with segments the impact must be much less if even at all. Say for instance that you reside in a 32 bit segment X and 16 bit subsegment Y then you would use 16 bit storage of pointers in RAM even though the CPU constructs the full 64 bit pointer internally by concatenating all the parts from the segment registers with the 16 bit from RAM.
I don't assume any CPU in particular just the principle of segments.
The neat trick they are doing is the reencoding that transforms the video format from something known, to whatever the adapter or GBA/SP can support in hardware. Mainly the lower resolution will make it shrink to 256 Mb for 60 minutes of video. A DVD quality movie takes up aproximately 2 Gb of disk storage per hour.
Does anyone know what video decoder hardware sits in the adapter or GBA/SP?
A friend and I both are singles and I made him a bet that a majority of girls that I introduced myself to would within one minute after that I told them what I do for a living ask for advice how to fix their Windows environment... this is probably something many people here have a common experience about. So far only about 40-50% has done that so maybe I have over estimated the "problem"
Good point and exactly my point. Darwinism, without beeing an expert, is the carbon based lifes way to refine itself. Disasters not based on the same principles can not be part of the equation since they would not depend nore refine based on the result. Windmills don't care weather it kills all birds causing ecological inbalance.
Wolfs eating rabbits on an island will automtically adjust its numbers to match the regeneration of the rabbits. The rabitt on the other hand will get increasingly good at hide and run causing the wolves to increase its skill for seek and hunt etc. Windmills, meteors, huricanes don't care. It is not a mutual needed balance in play.
Surviving one-off disasters is not Darwinism, rebalance afterwards is, but that requires that some speices actually survived. Behavioural adaptation is based on skills that we have adopted earlier not new skills developed at occation. Internet is made by humans and not hard to adapt to of cource. Try breath under water and you see what I mean.
No, disasters is not a part of Darwinsm and it should not be accepted that we are building our own disaster. We are here to survive better than any other speices and we have ways to go to even be compareable with rats and cockroaches. Just deal with it!
Nope, I don't agree. Darwinism is based on equal opportunities to adapt. Turbines, cars and wind mills etc are not constructed out from DNA, nore from climate changes or erosion. That is the problem with us humans, we set aside the time aspect of things just because we got a thumb (two actually) and a too large brain. Nature biologically never have a chance to adapt. We have to adapt to avoid killing ourselves. When we have failed to do so, nature will adapt to the new situation where things do not happen in hasty manners (10-100.000 of years or more)
I read somewhere that rats have 300 years between successful mutations while humans have something like 30.000 years. Sounds lika an awful lot of time compared to the 150 years of industrialzation we got so far. In 150 years maybe the rats have adapted though!
Maybe that is why Microsoft has been releasing OS versions increasingly rapid the last 5 years?! Just to keep the growthrate up. I remember waiting for the "Chicago" release quite sometime before it was released as Windows-95. Still our company didn't upgrade for a couple of years because our boss had some very sophisticated sales reports written in the programming language "Fred" in "FrameWorks" under DOS that worked under Windows 3.11 but not under Win-95 He was never able to port them to Excel and was probably the only pro user in northern Europe!
As late as the other day my computer crashed and I had no internet connection, no Linux CD, no Linux boot diskettes that worked on this new hardware etc etc. What saved me was three old original diskettes with DOS 6.22! The last diskette had some bad sectors but it continued to install and finally I got DOS 6.22 up and running. From there I installed Windows-98 and from there I downloaded some Linux Debian install disks. Phew!!
They didn't work either so I had to borrow a Debian CD at work, but that is details!;-)
Playing music on a 2.6 kernel is certainly not perfect, especially in the first 30 seconds of a song with xmms. During this time xmms is probably loading the
song and the disk access holds back the music stream.
That only shows that xmms is not taking advantage of the new possibilities on the 2.6 kernel. It is up to the application to set priorities between tasks/threads, it is not something the kernel will do by itself. Properly set priorities will get you a much better sound experience on the 2.6 kernel.
The preemptiveness of the 2.6 kernel will get rid of the lagging cursor movements, among other things, and that has nothing todo with priorities, so you will get it automatically. This might get you a feeling of better performance but infact it is just a better system response to your interaction.// Starbar
"At some point the blame has to shift from MS to the end-user."
Absolutelly! Choosing to use software that is insecure shouldn't be blamed on the creator of the software. Who accuses a car manufacturer for instance for a car accident? If you don't want to take the risk of geeting killed you should get a more secure vehicle...
Well, I think you are thinking about a real-time system. An embedded system is anything that is special purpose as opposed to general purpose. Also it might lack normal user interfaces that we are used to, like keyboard and monitor. If I used Win-98 for an embedded system I would make sure that the system would be reset regularily, once an hour or so, by letting a timer power cycle the CPU board. So there I agree with you that Win-98 might limit what you want to do with it.;-)
It's tedious handcraft
on
Saving MUDs?
·
· Score: 1
It's no game running a MUD, it is a way of living. I was hooked first as a player on a specific LPMUD called Genesis and spent like 32 days(!) on-line time the first year. I wasn't in it for the points but for the role playing and distraction of RL which I needed at the time (just prior to the divorse) Anyway, after a while I was picked up as a developer and stopped playing the MUD. I got responsible for developing an area of about 50 "rooms", a small village with hobbits, quests and stuff to poke around for and buy/sell and slay. It was a lot of fun and consumed well over 100 hours of work. Unfortunality RL issues made the release of the rooms into the MUD impossible so they were wasted.
During my time at the MUD large areas of rooms were removed in order to be able to update the MUD game engine. These areas were popular among players but the creators were not there anymore to keep them up to date. The community of developers were strictly hierchical and a lot of people travelled through the system while I was trying to contribute.
My conclusion now is that the game engines and the tools used for developing the MUD is hard to maintain for legacy reasons and graphical interfaces attract more than prosaic details, at least for many of the younger (p/s)layers. Maintaining 20-30.000 rooms by writing code for each of it, no matter the object oriented paradigm used, is simply too time consuming. Still very adictive, like writing a 3D book without graphics. It was a relly nice experience that I do not regret.
Ahhh Tandy's Color Computer with M$ BASIC and 6809... quite some memories there man!!! I learned how to program C under OS-9 and Flex operating systems:-)) And we had an Apple ][ clone from Taiwan as well with a bunch of very well written games on bootable floppy disks. 1985 was it? I think i disassembled the first Nintendo game console also containing a 6502 which I think they are still using in the GameBoy's....
Well, this is the energy the Apple ][ guys are riding on for thoese who haven't got it yet....
Also, the more complicated compression requires more CPU power so even in PAL and/or NTSC resolution a higher compression will require a more expensive hardware. The consipracy theory about MS putting large idle loops in Windows to promote their fellows PC manufacturers new faster machines now gets another dimension, doesn't it?
I work in that industry, developing a Linux based STB. I think that the P2P is not a competing technology to the operator based VoD services. It is complementary.
First of all true mass VoD services *can* be cheaper than renting movies, buying storage, hazzle around with ripping software and computers in general. Just imagine the non-nerd comming home from work, (s)he turns on the TV, selects a movie at $2.99 from an archive of hundreds or thousands of titles. Compare this with the extra work and hazzle setting up and utilize a computer not talking about the noice.
Secondly, streaming movies aint that easy so any P2P solution must involve a download and storage procedure, hence using a noicy computer. Which non-nerd likes todo that in the longrun? Also what download times would you get retrieving commercial titles from a leaf node in a network? Compare that with Gigabit fiber backbones of the operators.
I belive that P2P will be used by the same persons that use P2P today who seem willing to spend hours of preparation to watch a handy CAM captured asian bootleg of TTT instead of wait until the real version is available in the renatal stores or at the cinema. A normal user will most of the time sit back in the sofa with a beer, some snacks and silently get the movie from the operator at a relativelly low cost. We can see that happeining today in the music industry where the CD burner forced down the prices on the second line music, and that is good!
P2P can be used to spread movies that doesn't fit in the mainstream audiences and holiday documentaries to friends and relatives. An operator would be able to support that too by offering a public streaming service at the headend etc etc
My punch line is that most people doesn't want to fool around with computers at all. They want to watch movies.
While some educated folks seems to dislike natural talents and vice versa there are clearly room for both. The last 20 years has been a party to all people with natural programming talent since the sallary you'll make widelly exceeds what the engineering folks in other businesses gets. I do have some academic experiences but the equipment available and the things taught at the time fifteen years ago were far from 'bleeding edge'. However some understanding about algorithm mechanics and the mathematical backgrounds is very interesting but phew so theoretical. I quit the class after a year and I do call myself a 'programmer' and is proud of its labour status.:-)
Software engineers, if we define them as academic folks, do praise prediction and development processes. My experiences are that some of them do not consider development time as a valid design criteria. For them there are only one way to make the solution, the 'right' way. Often this means that they run out of budget or miss their time-to-market window.
Programmers on the other side, as I see myself, are often tied to a delivery time, a black box definition and some constraints in terms of design. A programmer can vary from 0 to 100 times in effeciency depedning on talent and circumstances. Given an algorithm, tools and a reasonable deadline a programmer will deliver. Any obscticle on the way is a challange and makes a thrill. A delivery is good fun!
A software engineer doesn't vary as much as a programmer in skills/talents and does often know how to work in teams better. Facing an obscticle may sometimes ripple down to massive re-analysis and re-designs to get it 'right'. A delivery is a scary thought, since most time have been spent analysing the problem and understanding the design, not coding, so ofcourse there will be bugs, but where??!!
A 'hacker' is a talent and a 'cracker' is a prank.
The famous 80/20 rule can be used effeciently by setting the goals for a group of software engineers or programmers at 125% of the actual goal. Done right, using techniques like nightly builds and refactoring, you can pull the software after 20-30% of the time and ask for productation in a branch.
Most likelly you will be able to deliver long before the 80% time limit (at 100% for the original goal) and then can do neccesarry refactoring and module redesigns awaiting feedback from the first field tests. This is hard todo building a bridge I guess.
You are correct, but I do hope that equal rights also means equal responsibility, in a global meaning. Otherwise women will take over the world and men will be just trying to persist their "responsibilites" while failing to meet new demands from equality, like child care, serving a home, earning the cash to facilitate all of it. And if they do they will not share the cash to enable a difference... a catch 22 situation.
This is offtopic. I like to argue though. You can reach me at joakim@korridor.se if you'd like to know more about the situation in sweden. What trouble would I have in the US? I probably wrote something I didn't mean to...;-) / StarBar
Not so flippant maybe, did the description of the computer I made up sound bad? A more "human" computer that is voice controlled and clean out bugs automatically! To good to be true, right?
I am pretty sure that a computing device would look much different with a different gender mix beind the design. I am looking for girls to my software team all the time to improve the flow of creative solutions besides the effect it will have on the group socially. Unfortunality I got zero so far.
The world of justice and legal rights here in sweden is lagging a bit when it comes to child care and splitting a life in two halves in general. I guess they have had home wifes of the 50's in mind. But I agree on equal rights even if it leaves the cave man in us men dangling with no purpose of life and a lost identity;-)
If girls designed the computer it would probably not be looking like it does. It would be:
based on fuzzy logic
10^6 times more sensetive to gamma-rays
randomly refusing to understand instructions
needing extra careful touch each month
complaining about lack of input instead of asking for it
asking you feel like pressing enter instead of tell you to
comforting you when you do wrong
cleaning out bugs and system errors automatically
voice driven rather then keyboard
They simply don't like the machines we've created. Have they ever been greatful for the washing machines, vacum cleaners, stoves, refrigators and such? No!! Instead they are taking over the world. Take cover boys!
As beeing a first class Microsoft disbeliever I just have to reflect on this. Microsoft is feature (like in revenue) driven company. The famous "Know the strengths of your competitors and make them yours!" slogan has a downside, you can't know the vision behind the implementation of a competitor. You then become a rather shallow copycat. Sure it looks good at the surface, but once you scratch it you will find myriads of compromises and half hearted attempts to overcome incompatibilities. Windows NT has a more sound base to stand at, coming from the VMS master brain himself (I was never good at names), it promissed a lot. The question I ask is weather Windows XP is another huge compromise or if it has a sound design knowledge base (VMS)? Ofcource Microsoft will charge for security, if it can, nothing has happend to Windows, its just that the world has changed around it (i.e. Internet) and it wasn't designed for that. It was designed for BBS like functionalty like MSN, remember?
It seems that most debaters so far wants to see the russian crooks sacked but are worried about the liberty FBI was taking while hacking the computer that was still residing in russia. So if the computer where actually in the USA and accessed through an IP tunnel back from russia (giving the access point the russian IP)? Would it still be wrong then? How can you be sure of the geographical location while at the hack? Just the IP will not do the job.
The only problem I have with FBI doing what they are doing is that they are not allowed to do what they are doing. The Internet should have its own international laws. Local laws should only apply to the people using it. FBI should in such an international internet law have protocols to follow and warrants like admittance granted before accessing computers in russia and elsewhere. The same should apply if my country would like to hack a computer belonging to someone doing bad things to people here. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a war out there, lets agree on rules how to fight it nomatter where!
Also in the Apache world mod_perl is known to be very fast, even compared to native CGI:s Did you even know that you can save a Perl program to a binary by a certain switch after the interpreter has done its job?
The apt-get technology is the most convinient way of installing new software I have ever tried. It is so easy to use that even my mother (a 60+ lady) would have no difficulty install a new fancy versions of Tetris. The apt-get itself is not the reason I like Debian but the fact that all packages integrates so easy on a running system in a consistent way. Try to make a debian package and you know why. Debian put a high level of quality thinking in their packaging and that is the reason I can swap hundreds of megabytes in and out of my harddisk and still have a working system! Old software is usually more stable than new ones BTW.
Try install a free game CD for Windows on Win-98 (I just did this for my son) and you see what I mean. Guess what...ehh never mind..:-/ And yes I stayed with Win 3.11 until Win-98 were available and swapped to Linux then.
Then I don't see the problem with closed API:s on Aqua if there are open source alternatives. It seems to be worth the effort to go to Mac OS/X using the Gnome or KDE desktops for me. I use Photoshop occationally, so thats why not Linux works for me on the iMac. Thanks for the info.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked for a compiler vendor once and at a particular point in time Greenhill Oasis, a competitor, compared Drystones benchmarks values in an advertisment between ourselvs, gcc and their own compiler. They turned out to be 3 to 5 times faster than us and almost twice as fast as gcc at the time (10 years ago). Obviously thay had put in specific Drystones optimzations in the compiler so we did the same and counter striked their figures in 6 months at 35% faster code if I remember it correctly. During the meantime we lost quite some business, still we did better than them on regular code, debugability and jada jada, all along.
It is a leapfrog game, choose the tools you like and don't make assumptions solely on benchmark figures. I am 100% gcc today and would only use anything else if a particular cross target wouldn't be mature enough or on the limit for the system performance.
it will make you think twice before entering your code. It is odd having case insensetiveness rather than the opposite. Otherwise we could also be insensetive to 0 (zero) and O (upper case o) as well as l (lower case L) and 1 (one) etc.
IDE:s that correct your errors will become your addiction and soon you and up not beeing able to perform without them. Some people even think that compilers should cover your ass entering poor code by optimizing away redudant tests and dead code and turn your loops upside down. You'll be surprised when you try to port the code to a compiler lacking these 'features'.
Also learning to use correct naming conventions, indentions and language specific programming style will make everyone else so much more happy!
On CPU:s with segments the impact must be much less if even at all. Say for instance that you reside in a 32 bit segment X and 16 bit subsegment Y then you would use 16 bit storage of pointers in RAM even though the CPU constructs the full 64 bit pointer internally by concatenating all the parts from the segment registers with the 16 bit from RAM.
I don't assume any CPU in particular just the principle of segments.
Does anyone know what video decoder hardware sits in the adapter or GBA/SP?
My respons? Either of:
"No problem, let me have a look"
"Sorry, I am a Linux developer"
This tip is GPL:ed ;-)
Wolfs eating rabbits on an island will automtically adjust its numbers to match the regeneration of the rabbits. The rabitt on the other hand will get increasingly good at hide and run causing the wolves to increase its skill for seek and hunt etc. Windmills, meteors, huricanes don't care. It is not a mutual needed balance in play.
Surviving one-off disasters is not Darwinism, rebalance afterwards is, but that requires that some speices actually survived. Behavioural adaptation is based on skills that we have adopted earlier not new skills developed at occation. Internet is made by humans and not hard to adapt to of cource. Try breath under water and you see what I mean.
No, disasters is not a part of Darwinsm and it should not be accepted that we are building our own disaster. We are here to survive better than any other speices and we have ways to go to even be compareable with rats and cockroaches. Just deal with it!
I read somewhere that rats have 300 years between successful mutations while humans have something like 30.000 years. Sounds lika an awful lot of time compared to the 150 years of industrialzation we got so far. In 150 years maybe the rats have adapted though!
Maybe that is why Microsoft has been releasing OS versions increasingly rapid the last 5 years?! Just to keep the growthrate up. I remember waiting for the "Chicago" release quite sometime before it was released as Windows-95. Still our company didn't upgrade for a couple of years because our boss had some very sophisticated sales reports written in the programming language "Fred" in "FrameWorks" under DOS that worked under Windows 3.11 but not under Win-95 He was never able to port them to Excel and was probably the only pro user in northern Europe!
;-)
As late as the other day my computer crashed and I had no internet connection, no Linux CD, no Linux boot diskettes that worked on this new hardware etc etc. What saved me was three old original diskettes with DOS 6.22! The last diskette had some bad sectors but it continued to install and finally I got DOS 6.22 up and running. From there I installed Windows-98 and from there I downloaded some Linux Debian install disks. Phew!!
They didn't work either so I had to borrow a Debian CD at work, but that is details!
That only shows that xmms is not taking advantage of the new possibilities on the 2.6 kernel. It is up to the application to set priorities between tasks/threads, it is not something the kernel will do by itself. Properly set priorities will get you a much better sound experience on the 2.6 kernel. The preemptiveness of the 2.6 kernel will get rid of the lagging cursor movements, among other things, and that has nothing todo with priorities, so you will get it automatically. This might get you a feeling of better performance but infact it is just a better system response to your interaction. // Starbar
"At some point the blame has to shift from MS to the end-user."
Absolutelly! Choosing to use software that is insecure shouldn't be blamed on the creator of the software. Who accuses a car manufacturer for instance for a car accident? If you don't want to take the risk of geeting killed you should get a more secure vehicle...
Well, I think you are thinking about a real-time system. An embedded system is anything that is special purpose as opposed to general purpose. Also it might lack normal user interfaces that we are used to, like keyboard and monitor. If I used Win-98 for an embedded system I would make sure that the system would be reset regularily, once an hour or so, by letting a timer power cycle the CPU board. So there I agree with you that Win-98 might limit what you want to do with it. ;-)
During my time at the MUD large areas of rooms were removed in order to be able to update the MUD game engine. These areas were popular among players but the creators were not there anymore to keep them up to date. The community of developers were strictly hierchical and a lot of people travelled through the system while I was trying to contribute.
My conclusion now is that the game engines and the tools used for developing the MUD is hard to maintain for legacy reasons and graphical interfaces attract more than prosaic details, at least for many of the younger (p/s)layers. Maintaining 20-30.000 rooms by writing code for each of it, no matter the object oriented paradigm used, is simply too time consuming. Still very adictive, like writing a 3D book without graphics. It was a relly nice experience that I do not regret.
Well, this is the energy the Apple ][ guys are riding on for thoese who haven't got it yet....
Also, the more complicated compression requires more CPU power so even in PAL and/or NTSC resolution a higher compression will require a more expensive hardware. The consipracy theory about MS putting large idle loops in Windows to promote their fellows PC manufacturers new faster machines now gets another dimension, doesn't it?
I work in that industry, developing a Linux based STB. I think that the P2P is not a competing technology to the operator based VoD services. It is complementary.
First of all true mass VoD services *can* be cheaper than renting movies, buying storage, hazzle around with ripping software and computers in general. Just imagine the non-nerd comming home from work, (s)he turns on the TV, selects a movie at $2.99 from an archive of hundreds or thousands of titles. Compare this with the extra work and hazzle setting up and utilize a computer not talking about the noice.
Secondly, streaming movies aint that easy so any P2P solution must involve a download and storage procedure, hence using a noicy computer. Which non-nerd likes todo that in the longrun? Also what download times would you get retrieving commercial titles from a leaf node in a network? Compare that with Gigabit fiber backbones of the operators.
I belive that P2P will be used by the same persons that use P2P today who seem willing to spend hours of preparation to watch a handy CAM captured asian bootleg of TTT instead of wait until the real version is available in the renatal stores or at the cinema. A normal user will most of the time sit back in the sofa with a beer, some snacks and silently get the movie from the operator at a relativelly low cost. We can see that happeining today in the music industry where the CD burner forced down the prices on the second line music, and that is good!
P2P can be used to spread movies that doesn't fit in the mainstream audiences and holiday documentaries to friends and relatives. An operator would be able to support that too by offering a public streaming service at the headend etc etc
My punch line is that most people doesn't want to fool around with computers at all. They want to watch movies.
While some educated folks seems to dislike natural talents and vice versa there are clearly room for both. The last 20 years has been a party to all people with natural programming talent since the sallary you'll make widelly exceeds what the engineering folks in other businesses gets. I do have some academic experiences but the equipment available and the things taught at the time fifteen years ago were far from 'bleeding edge'. However some understanding about algorithm mechanics and the mathematical backgrounds is very interesting but phew so theoretical. I quit the class after a year and I do call myself a 'programmer' and is proud of its labour status. :-)
Software engineers, if we define them as academic folks, do praise prediction and development processes. My experiences are that some of them do not consider development time as a valid design criteria. For them there are only one way to make the solution, the 'right' way. Often this means that they run out of budget or miss their time-to-market window.
Programmers on the other side, as I see myself, are often tied to a delivery time, a black box definition and some constraints in terms of design. A programmer can vary from 0 to 100 times in effeciency depedning on talent and circumstances. Given an algorithm, tools and a reasonable deadline a programmer will deliver. Any obscticle on the way is a challange and makes a thrill. A delivery is good fun!
A software engineer doesn't vary as much as a programmer in skills/talents and does often know how to work in teams better. Facing an obscticle may sometimes ripple down to massive re-analysis and re-designs to get it 'right'. A delivery is a scary thought, since most time have been spent analysing the problem and understanding the design, not coding, so ofcourse there will be bugs, but where??!!
A 'hacker' is a talent and a 'cracker' is a prank.
The famous 80/20 rule can be used effeciently by setting the goals for a group of software engineers or programmers at 125% of the actual goal. Done right, using techniques like nightly builds and refactoring, you can pull the software after 20-30% of the time and ask for productation in a branch.
Most likelly you will be able to deliver long before the 80% time limit (at 100% for the original goal) and then can do neccesarry refactoring and module redesigns awaiting feedback from the first field tests. This is hard todo building a bridge I guess.
You are correct, but I do hope that equal rights also means equal responsibility, in a global meaning. Otherwise women will take over the world and men will be just trying to persist their "responsibilites" while failing to meet new demands from equality, like child care, serving a home, earning the cash to facilitate all of it. And if they do they will not share the cash to enable a difference... a catch 22 situation.
This is offtopic. I like to argue though. You can reach me at joakim@korridor.se if you'd like to know more about the situation in sweden. What trouble would I have in the US? I probably wrote something I didn't mean to...;-) / StarBar
Not so flippant maybe, did the description of the computer I made up sound bad? A more "human" computer that is voice controlled and clean out bugs automatically! To good to be true, right?
;-)
I am pretty sure that a computing device would look much different with a different gender mix beind the design. I am looking for girls to my software team all the time to improve the flow of creative solutions besides the effect it will have on the group socially. Unfortunality I got zero so far.
The world of justice and legal rights here in sweden is lagging a bit when it comes to child care and splitting a life in two halves in general. I guess they have had home wifes of the 50's in mind. But I agree on equal rights even if it leaves the cave man in us men dangling with no purpose of life and a lost identity
/StarBar
They simply don't like the machines we've created. Have they ever been greatful for the washing
machines, vacum cleaners, stoves, refrigators and such? No!! Instead they are taking over the world.
Take cover boys!
/StarBar
As beeing a first class Microsoft disbeliever I just have to reflect on this. Microsoft is feature (like in revenue) driven company. The famous "Know the strengths of your competitors and make them yours!" slogan has a downside, you can't know the vision behind the implementation of a competitor. You then become a rather shallow copycat. Sure it looks good at the surface, but once you scratch it you will find myriads of compromises and half hearted attempts to overcome incompatibilities. Windows NT has a more sound base to stand at, coming from the VMS master brain himself (I was never good at names), it promissed a lot. The question I ask is weather Windows XP is another huge compromise or if it has a sound design knowledge base (VMS)? Ofcource Microsoft will charge for security, if it can, nothing has happend to Windows, its just that the world has changed around it (i.e. Internet) and it wasn't designed for that. It was designed for BBS like functionalty like MSN, remember?
Starbar!!
It seems that most debaters so far wants to see the russian crooks sacked but are worried about the liberty FBI was taking while hacking the computer that was still residing in russia. So if the computer where actually in the USA and accessed through an IP tunnel back from russia (giving the access point the russian IP)? Would it still be wrong then? How can you be sure of the geographical location while at the hack? Just the IP will not do the job.
The only problem I have with FBI doing what they are doing is that they are not allowed to do what they are doing. The Internet should have its own international laws. Local laws should only apply to the people using it. FBI should in such an international internet law have protocols to follow and warrants like admittance granted before accessing computers in russia and elsewhere. The same should apply if my country would like to hack a computer belonging to someone doing bad things to people here.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a war out there, lets agree on rules how to fight it nomatter where!
Starbar!!
Maybe you want to checkout this article before claiming Perl is slow again:
>
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/06/27/ctoperl.html
Also in the Apache world mod_perl is known to be very fast, even compared to native CGI:s Did you even know that you can save a Perl program to a binary by a certain switch after the interpreter has done its job?
Perl Rules!
Starbar!
The apt-get technology is the most convinient way of installing new software I have ever tried. It is so easy to use that even my mother (a 60+ lady) would have no difficulty install a new fancy versions of Tetris. The apt-get itself is not the reason I like Debian but the fact that all packages integrates so easy on a running system in a consistent way. Try to make a debian package and you know why. Debian put a high level of quality thinking in their packaging and that is the reason I can swap hundreds of megabytes in and out of my harddisk and still have a working system! Old software is usually more stable than new ones BTW.
Try install a free game CD for Windows on Win-98 (I just did this for my son) and you see what I mean. Guess what...ehh never mind..:-/ And yes I stayed with Win 3.11 until Win-98 were available and swapped to Linux then.
Starbar!
Then I don't see the problem with closed API:s on Aqua if there are open source alternatives. It seems to be worth the effort to go to Mac OS/X using the Gnome or KDE desktops for me. I use Photoshop occationally, so thats why not Linux works for me on the iMac. Thanks for the info.