Wouldn't it be nice if your multimedia phone could communicate with the phone queue of the company you are calling.
Once you get placed in a phone queue and you decide that what they are playing is boring you can pick a play list on your multimedia phone, or you can have a default play list for phone queues that automatically starts playing. When it is your turn the phone queue would send your device a signal and it would fade out your music or your audio book and you can start talking.
It wouldn't be hard to do this from a technical point of view.
I'm sure that I'll get other benefits as well. Maybe I can get search warrants for my former girlfriends new boyfriend.
It is worth looking into.
Re:Electricity cost may be more/less than you thin
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
I run my computer 24/7 and I feel pretty bad about that and I've always thought that the A/C was rather inefficient. So I always doubled my wattage usage when I tried to figure out exactly how much energy I was using.
But it was actually a whole lot better than that.
Thank you very much for this clarification.
Re:Electricity cost may be more/less than you thin
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
Hmm... First time i read that I thought for sure that you had just invented a perpetual motion machine.
But maybe you are right. You don't seem to be violating physics.
Electricity cost may be more/less than you think
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The P4 system he was running was running at about 150 watts at idle.
Now, if you are running an A/C unit then you will not only have to consider the 150W your computer is using, but also the power that your A/C is using to fight the heat that it produces.
100% of the power used in the PC becomes heat (I think). So that is 150 W of heat. Your A/C, however is not 100% efficient. I really have no idea what the numbers are there. But it can't be more than 100% efficient so that is another 150 Watts (at least)
So your 150W computer is costing you 300W at the least.
Now, if you on the other hand live up north, then it looks much better. The heat produced will actually help your heating system, so that it doesn't have to run as much. My physics knowledge is a bit rusty, but I think you can say that if your heating system is based on electricity then it will cost you nothing extra to run your PC.
Take the Linux kernel as an example. It is written in C. C is a blazingly fast language and it has many advantages. But it is inherently insecure. It doens't help the developer to prevent for instance buffer overrun bugs.
Large portions of next generation Windows will be built in.net (I think, let me know if I'm wrong), and with that they are protected against buffer overruns. This is not only the case for.net, it is also true for Java (But I know of no OS development in Java).
The open source process may be superior because of "brute force", but as long as they use computer languages that are harder to write secure applications in, they will have a disadvantage.
1) I'd use both and I wouldn't use security as an argument to use stored procedures. Mere "mortals" should not have access to the database server at all. Just beware of SQL injection attacks (Google it if you don't know what that is).
2) Stored procedures aren't always the fastest because you can't do array inserts with stored procedures, for instance.
3) Queries are cached. So the second time a query is executed it won't be compiled. Just make sure that your queries are parameterized. Don't put your values in the query with string concatenation. Use parameters. Otherwise queries can't be cached. You will also be vulnerable to SQL injection attacks.
4) Use stored procedures when you will gain a clear performance advantage. You may want to try to implement it in your data tier first, and if that isn't fast enough, move it to a stored procedure.
5) Buy or make a code generator that will generate data tier code for you (and possibly other code).
6) As for database compatibility, if you implement it as stored procedures, you are screwed for sure. If you use normal SQL you are probably screwed anyway. Check out this chart this chart for compatibility. And that only points out the parts of these databases that follow the standard. They do have plenty of non standard features as well. If you want to try your queries for standards compliance you can go here.
I have plenty more where that came from, but the wife needs the computer. Good luck though.
A computer can query Google a whole lot faster than a human does on average over a day. 100 thousand times faster sounds reasonable. That shouldn't be a problem with 10 concurrent queries.
If everyone on the planet has a computer and is a Google user. That is 6 billion users.
The math comes out to 60 000 infected computers will create the same amount of traffic as the human userbase will.
Anyway, I didn't see any programming language versions for functional languages (the ones I recognize are Haskell, ML and Miranda) after some time in -99.
Does that mean that they are dying out?
I've heard rumors of F# from Microsoft but I don't know if that is true.
It would be a pity if functional languages would die at this point in time since proponents of functional languages always used the argument that "they may be slow now but they scale really well on massively parallell computer systems" (because of no side effects) and we are at the brink of seeing multi-processor systems starting to go mainstream.
On a separate note, XSLT, which isn't a programming language in the traditional sense, is functional in its design. I think the designers of XSLT really put some thought into it. In any event, XSLT doesn't have any side effects, making it a functional language in a sense, and this means that it also should scale really well on massively parallell systems.
So, I guess the theory behind functional languages live on in one of the hottest technologies around today.
Also, the last version of Prolog was in -97. Pity, you can really do some magic in that language.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that Dr. Seuss?
That's what I'm saying.
VS Express _Beta_ is free. The released product will cost money. Microsoft has said that it will be cheap, but VS Express 2005 _will_ cost money.
Java is free, MS VS Express products wont be.
The beta is free but they have said that they will charge money for the final product.
I don't know if Gnome really is going away. So far this is speculation it seems.
But assuming that is going away, poor Sun. They picked Gnome and hardly even before they get a version out which uses it it is about to die.
But they can't let it die, so now _they_ have to support it with no support from the community.
They could have used a little slack (no pun intended).
Wouldn't it be nice if your multimedia phone could communicate with the phone queue of the company you are calling.
Once you get placed in a phone queue and you decide that what they are playing is boring you can pick a play list on your multimedia phone, or you can have a default play list for phone queues that automatically starts playing. When it is your turn the phone queue would send your device a signal and it would fade out your music or your audio book and you can start talking.
It wouldn't be hard to do this from a technical point of view.
Hey, this guy freely admits that he works for that company. He may be promoting himself, but he isn't a slimeball.
I'm sure that many other companies submit articles about their products, but incognito.
I'm sure that I'll get other benefits as well. Maybe I can get search warrants for my former girlfriends new boyfriend.
It is worth looking into.
I run my computer 24/7 and I feel pretty bad about that and I've always thought that the A/C was rather inefficient. So I always doubled my wattage usage when I tried to figure out exactly how much energy I was using.
But it was actually a whole lot better than that.
Thank you very much for this clarification.
Hmm... First time i read that I thought for sure that you had just invented a perpetual motion machine.
But maybe you are right. You don't seem to be violating physics.
The P4 system he was running was running at about 150 watts at idle.
Now, if you are running an A/C unit then you will not only have to consider the 150W your computer is using, but also the power that your A/C is using to fight the heat that it produces.
100% of the power used in the PC becomes heat (I think). So that is 150 W of heat. Your A/C, however is not 100% efficient. I really have no idea what the numbers are there. But it can't be more than 100% efficient so that is another 150 Watts (at least)
So your 150W computer is costing you 300W at the least.
Now, if you on the other hand live up north, then it looks much better. The heat produced will actually help your heating system, so that it doesn't have to run as much. My physics knowledge is a bit rusty, but I think you can say that if your heating system is based on electricity then it will cost you nothing extra to run your PC.
Please let me know if/where I'm wrong.
English is not my native language so I miss the finer points. But I was not sarcastic. I liked it.
This comment is not about politics. But I just had to say it, nice web site buddy. I like it.
Take the Linux kernel as an example. It is written in C. C is a blazingly fast language and it has many advantages. But it is inherently insecure. It doens't help the developer to prevent for instance buffer overrun bugs.
.net (I think, let me know if I'm wrong), and with that they are protected against buffer overruns. This is not only the case for .net, it is also true for Java (But I know of no OS development in Java).
Large portions of next generation Windows will be built in
The open source process may be superior because of "brute force", but as long as they use computer languages that are harder to write secure applications in, they will have a disadvantage.
Google says 160 kBps. Upper case B means Bytes. So that would be 1280 kbits/s.
1) I'd use both and I wouldn't use security as an argument to use stored procedures. Mere "mortals" should not have access to the database server at all. Just beware of SQL injection attacks (Google it if you don't know what that is).
2) Stored procedures aren't always the fastest because you can't do array inserts with stored procedures, for instance.
3) Queries are cached. So the second time a query is executed it won't be compiled. Just make sure that your queries are parameterized. Don't put your values in the query with string concatenation. Use parameters. Otherwise queries can't be cached. You will also be vulnerable to SQL injection attacks.
4) Use stored procedures when you will gain a clear performance advantage. You may want to try to implement it in your data tier first, and if that isn't fast enough, move it to a stored procedure.
5) Buy or make a code generator that will generate data tier code for you (and possibly other code).
6) As for database compatibility, if you implement it as stored procedures, you are screwed for sure. If you use normal SQL you are probably screwed anyway. Check out this chart this chart for compatibility. And that only points out the parts of these databases that follow the standard. They do have plenty of non standard features as well. If you want to try your queries for standards compliance you can go here.
I have plenty more where that came from, but the wife needs the computer. Good luck though.
A computer can query Google a whole lot faster than a human does on average over a day. 100 thousand times faster sounds reasonable. That shouldn't be a problem with 10 concurrent queries.
If everyone on the planet has a computer and is a Google user. That is 6 billion users.
The math comes out to 60 000 infected computers will create the same amount of traffic as the human userbase will.
This is of course grossly inaccurate, but still.
Thanks!
If you are going to say something like this you'd better back it up with a link.
If you can't, then I'm gonna consider it trolling.
1% is not really any news. Seriously, it is pathetic that /. is jumping up and down, all giddy, for one percentage point.
If you like rejoicing over a diminishing marketshare for Microsoft, then you should go here.
IIS had its record market share some time around april 2002, and has since lost about 14%, mostly to Apache.
IIS has 35% and went down to 21%, Apache had 56% and went up to 67%
NT being "New Technology".
They got people from Dec with VMS experience to design it and they wrote it from scracth, more or less.
I'm sure some of the old windows code made it into NT, but I'm thinking that the low level stuff was all new.
I should point out that I'm only reiterating a rumour, but F# is supposedly a functional language that Microsoft Research is working on.
It may not be true, and even if it is, it might never amount to a real product.
If anyone can confirm or refute this I'd be happy to hear about it.
Oh man, how could I be so ignorant as to not know that OCaml was a functional language. God knows I've heard it thrown around in forums enough.
The shame!
Anyway, thanks!
And the reason that they didn't say that the first half year was because there was only one computer!
Aaah, the nostalgia!
Anyway, I didn't see any programming language versions for functional languages (the ones I recognize are Haskell, ML and Miranda) after some time in -99.
Does that mean that they are dying out?
I've heard rumors of F# from Microsoft but I don't know if that is true.
It would be a pity if functional languages would die at this point in time since proponents of functional languages always used the argument that "they may be slow now but they scale really well on massively parallell computer systems" (because of no side effects) and we are at the brink of seeing multi-processor systems starting to go mainstream.
On a separate note, XSLT, which isn't a programming language in the traditional sense, is functional in its design. I think the designers of XSLT really put some thought into it. In any event, XSLT doesn't have any side effects, making it a functional language in a sense, and this means that it also should scale really well on massively parallell systems.
So, I guess the theory behind functional languages live on in one of the hottest technologies around today.
Also, the last version of Prolog was in -97. Pity, you can really do some magic in that language.