I'm hoping you will replace the site with a "Crap Cineamas" (I believe that isn't trademarked) site.
By making it a protest site, they will have very little to come back to you with, while you will still be able to provide a valuable service to many people.
I look forward to being able to book mark a crap cinema near me.
As mentioned elsewhere, you need to constantly restock with daugterless carp in order to keep the population down.
As for instroducing a predator to kill the carp, these tricks have been tried before and failed (search google for Australia and cand toad). Basically the problem you will always have is the perdator eating other species and becoming a pest.
...she swallowed a spder to eat the fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.
I wouldn't count on that. A big issue in the San Francisco Bay area has been the phenomenon of foreign tankers emptying their balast chambers (or some kind of huge water-containing chamber) in the SFBay, thereby introducing tons of non-native species to the area.
What azav was actually talking about was the gene transfering from carp to another species, then from the other species to carp in another country.
Given that most fish breed by releasing eggs and sperm into the water and that you don't hear about half carps half something else (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), you have to agree that the scenario is unlikely.
Even if it could happen, the whole process actually requires constant restocking of daugterless carp*, so even if it did spread, it would have to happen constantly to really affect a foriegn population.
The only realistic way of having tranfer to non-Australian populations is as you suggest, with balast water, but I think that's more of an issue of us looking after our turf and you looking after yours.
*It's kind of ironic that you have to add carp to get rid of the carp.
It's not mentioned anywhere in the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if this male only gene weakens the population (in terms of it's ability to bread) to the point that the native species can compete (i.e. They bread better, produce larger populations that eat the carp's food). Then it's just a matter of natural selection taking it's course.
Ummm... excuse me, but what right did the US, the UK, Australia and any member of the US led coalition have to go in and depose Saddam?
At the time, I seam to remember it was under the pretence of Saddam not complying with UN regulations to cooperate with arms inspections.
How was he non-compliant? He didn't hand over his WMD and WMD production facilities. Since the WMD and WMD production facilites have been more elusive than Saddam himself, I think we can safely assume that they did not exist and thus there were no grounds for the invasion.
Yes, I know Saddam is evil. Yes I know he murdered too many people to count. Still doesn't given anyone else the right to just invade and depose him.
I'm glad he's been deposed and I'm glad they have caught him, but I cannot support the way it which it was done
It's not discriminatory or unfair. The new legislation addresses a problem that should never have occurred; closed source software.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all software should be free (as in beer), but it should be open.
Imagine how much better of we would all be is Windows was open. Sure we still wouldn't be allowed to copy it or modify it, but at least we could look at the code, point them to there mistakes and even submit patches.
Imagine of MS office was open. Anyone would then be able to make a.doc reader and MS would have to compete on a even playing field
Developing software is an engineering discipline and should have the same openness and peer review as other engineering disciplines
If you have a look at google's cache of that page, it states at the top "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: miserable failure". So apparently there are a hell of a lot of pages that like to Bush's bio that have the term "miserable failure".
However strangly enough if you search for "miserable failure" and link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.ht ml you get no results!
I think PrimeNumber was foolish to suggest one shouldn't read the article. I agree with your implication that one should read the article. However, I'm concerned that peopel don't know the difference between advocates and zealots.
PrimeNumbers suggestion may have been exectly was was required to get your average slashdotter to actually read the article. I know it worked for me.
OK, I'll bite, but I doubt I fall into the catagory of "expert", let alone "expert troll".
SGI for a couple of years produced (back in 2000 from memory) the best PCs I have ever come across. The specs were unimpresive, the price outrageous, but the performance was unbelivable.
I'm not actually refering to graphics power (which I assume would have been great but I never used it), but the raw hard processing power. The code I was compiling, took 20 minutes on my old machine, 8 minutes on my new suppsedly bad ass machine and 2 minutes on the lower spec'ed SGI PC.
Unfortunalty SGI stopped producing them because people though they were just paying extra for the logo. No one realised until they were using them that you got every penny you paid for and them some.
If SGI started selling PCs again, then I'd have one in an instant and no, I still don't do any graphics stuff.
I have to disagree with your analogy, because there is nothing google has done and can do (at least that I am aware of) to enforce it's monopoly.
If google suddenly becomes crap (either because of the user experience or their behind the scenes actions), then there is nothing to force you to keep using google. There are however many reasons that force lots of people to keep using Microsoft products against their will.
he said, the company intends to build its future servers with smaller, cheaper processors
Just because Google (and I assume many other companies) are looking to use smaller, cheaper processors, it does not mean that Moore's law will not continue to hold.
Moores Law is a statement about the number of transitors per square inch, not per CPU. Google's statement is more about the (flawed) concept of "One CPU to rule them all", rather than any indictment of Moore's Law or those that follow it.
Firstly parts of the application can be modelled and probably the best example of this is test driven development.
Also, Reality Master's comment about custom fabricated tiny parts doesn't hold water. We should be reusing parts as much as possible. In C++ the STL provides (all though this needs to be greatly expanded) the same standardization benifits as those that occured in the building industry.
The big difference with software is that so many vendors hide their code, making it a pain to develop standard components and allowing them to hide all their flaws.
I'm not going to try and go all RMS on you, but for software engineering to become a real engineering field we need to start opening up to peer review, but the only way I see this happening is by force (not an attractive idea).
To take your example, would Windows 95 have made it to market if the code was subjected to peer review before it was released? What if we had an organisation to certify that software is "safe" before it can be sold (like they have for buildings, bridges, cars, planes,...) would it have passed? How much of todays software would?
I don't know about anyone else, but I've found the safest and most reliable way to run Windows is by using VMWare on Linux with an undoable drive. The only time I commit the changes is after I've rebooted and made specific changes to the OS
This way, whenever anything goes wrong, a simple reboot of windows brings me back to a fresh installtion.
TCO? Well obviously running Linux alone would be better, but I have 1 app that I can't run on Linux, which I need to do my job:(
Hey, I don't know what everyone is complaining about. They have made this service available to every one withing the four corners of the world... ...of couse since they are from the US, four corners of the world means Florida, Maine, Washington and California.
Actually some Japaneese researchers have Lego robots that act as spectators and cheer when appropriate that they want to demonstrate at the competition. I think it's ETL, but I can't find a link.
The goal is to have a humanoid teams with similar strengths and weaknesses as a human team, but be able to beat the humans simply through intelligence (surpisingly difficult even with the low IQ of your average soccer player).
An example of a two robot team that can win (or at worst tie) against any human team is the goalie is a large immobile robot that covers the entire goal (read brick wall). The other is a large scooper/cannon robot that is placed at the center of the field. At either the first half or second half it will get the kickoff, at which point it scoops up the ball a launches it at unstoppable speeds towards the opponent goal. This is not the goal of RoboCup.
Hopefully one day we will have a team of physically inferior robots that can beat the human WC Champions. Until then we'll keep working.
Also, if you though the competition was out of your grasp, think again. They have a simulation based leauge that uses an open source simulator found at http://sserver.sf.net, along with lick to example clients and client libs.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm hoping you will replace the site with a "Crap Cineamas" (I believe that isn't trademarked) site.
By making it a protest site, they will have very little to come back to you with, while you will still be able to provide a valuable service to many people.
I look forward to being able to book mark a crap cinema near me.
Speak softly and carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt
As mentioned elsewhere, you need to constantly restock with daugterless carp in order to keep the population down.
As for instroducing a predator to kill the carp, these tricks have been tried before and failed (search google for Australia and cand toad). Basically the problem you will always have is the perdator eating other species and becoming a pest.
...she swallowed a spder to eat the fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.
I wouldn't count on that. A big issue in the San Francisco Bay area has been the phenomenon of foreign tankers emptying their balast chambers (or some kind of huge water-containing chamber) in the SFBay, thereby introducing tons of non-native species to the area.
What azav was actually talking about was the gene transfering from carp to another species, then from the other species to carp in another country.
Given that most fish breed by releasing eggs and sperm into the water and that you don't hear about half carps half something else (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), you have to agree that the scenario is unlikely.
Even if it could happen, the whole process actually requires constant restocking of daugterless carp*, so even if it did spread, it would have to happen constantly to really affect a foriegn population.
The only realistic way of having tranfer to non-Australian populations is as you suggest, with balast water, but I think that's more of an issue of us looking after our turf and you looking after yours.
*It's kind of ironic that you have to add carp to get rid of the carp.
It's not mentioned anywhere in the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if this male only gene weakens the population (in terms of it's ability to bread) to the point that the native species can compete (i.e. They bread better, produce larger populations that eat the carp's food). Then it's just a matter of natural selection taking it's course.
Ummm... excuse me, but what right did the US, the UK, Australia and any member of the US led coalition have to go in and depose Saddam?
At the time, I seam to remember it was under the pretence of Saddam not complying with UN regulations to cooperate with arms inspections.
How was he non-compliant? He didn't hand over his WMD and WMD production facilities. Since the WMD and WMD production facilites have been more elusive than Saddam himself, I think we can safely assume that they did not exist and thus there were no grounds for the invasion.
Yes, I know Saddam is evil. Yes I know he murdered too many people to count. Still doesn't given anyone else the right to just invade and depose him.
I'm glad he's been deposed and I'm glad they have caught him, but I cannot support the way it which it was done
It's not discriminatory or unfair. The new legislation addresses a problem that should never have occurred; closed source software.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all software should be free (as in beer), but it should be open.
Imagine how much better of we would all be is Windows was open. Sure we still wouldn't be allowed to copy it or modify it, but at least we could look at the code, point them to there mistakes and even submit patches.
Imagine of MS office was open. Anyone would then be able to make a .doc reader and MS would have to compete on a even playing field
Developing software is an engineering discipline and should have the same openness and peer review as other engineering disciplines
If you have a look at google's cache of that page, it states at the top "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: miserable failure". So apparently there are a hell of a lot of pages that like to Bush's bio that have the term "miserable failure".
However strangly enough if you search for "miserable failure" and link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.ht ml you get no results!
I'm sure the "Stainless Steel Mouse" isn't looking too stainless after a year in prison.
I think PrimeNumber was foolish to suggest one shouldn't read the article. I agree with your implication that one should read the article. However, I'm concerned that peopel don't know the difference between advocates and zealots.
PrimeNumbers suggestion may have been exectly was was required to get your average slashdotter to actually read the article. I know it worked for me.
It's very easy to say keep using the old versions, but this is not always possible when you can no longer get support for the old version.
The whole reason Munich was looking at upgrading was because MS announced that they whould no longer support Win NT.
Support is a very big deal for a lot of compaines.
OK, I'll bite, but I doubt I fall into the catagory of "expert", let alone "expert troll".
SGI for a couple of years produced (back in 2000 from memory) the best PCs I have ever come across. The specs were unimpresive, the price outrageous, but the performance was unbelivable.
I'm not actually refering to graphics power (which I assume would have been great but I never used it), but the raw hard processing power. The code I was compiling, took 20 minutes on my old machine, 8 minutes on my new suppsedly bad ass machine and 2 minutes on the lower spec'ed SGI PC.
Unfortunalty SGI stopped producing them because people though they were just paying extra for the logo. No one realised until they were using them that you got every penny you paid for and them some.
If SGI started selling PCs again, then I'd have one in an instant and no, I still don't do any graphics stuff.
I tried and failed as the site was just too busy to complete the transaction ;(
A couple of friends of friends who tipped us off reported that they where able to place orders and even got confirmation emails.
Microsoft.
I have to disagree with your analogy, because there is nothing google has done and can do (at least that I am aware of) to enforce it's monopoly.
If google suddenly becomes crap (either because of the user experience or their behind the scenes actions), then there is nothing to force you to keep using google. There are however many reasons that force lots of people to keep using Microsoft products against their will.
Just because Google (and I assume many other companies) are looking to use smaller, cheaper processors, it does not mean that Moore's law will not continue to hold.
Moores Law is a statement about the number of transitors per square inch, not per CPU. Google's statement is more about the (flawed) concept of "One CPU to rule them all", rather than any indictment of Moore's Law or those that follow it.
Firstly parts of the application can be modelled and probably the best example of this is test driven development.
Also, Reality Master's comment about custom fabricated tiny parts doesn't hold water. We should be reusing parts as much as possible. In C++ the STL provides (all though this needs to be greatly expanded) the same standardization benifits as those that occured in the building industry.
The big difference with software is that so many vendors hide their code, making it a pain to develop standard components and allowing them to hide all their flaws.
I'm not going to try and go all RMS on you, but for software engineering to become a real engineering field we need to start opening up to peer review, but the only way I see this happening is by force (not an attractive idea).
To take your example, would Windows 95 have made it to market if the code was subjected to peer review before it was released? What if we had an organisation to certify that software is "safe" before it can be sold (like they have for buildings, bridges, cars, planes, ...) would it have passed? How much of todays software would?
I don't know about anyone else, but I've found the safest and most reliable way to run Windows is by using VMWare on Linux with an undoable drive. The only time I commit the changes is after I've rebooted and made specific changes to the OS
This way, whenever anything goes wrong, a simple reboot of windows brings me back to a fresh installtion.
TCO? Well obviously running Linux alone would be better, but I have 1 app that I can't run on Linux, which I need to do my job :(
So long as it wasn't running Windows.
Hey, I don't know what everyone is complaining about.
They have made this service available to every one withing the four corners of the world...
...of couse since they are from the US, four corners of the world means Florida, Maine, Washington and California.
Also, make sure you don't run
while true; do wget http://www.petswarehouse.com/; done
Don't forget, you want to make sure you don't email him either. The volume could max out his mail server, which we all don't want to happen.
Actually some Japaneese researchers have Lego robots that act as spectators and cheer when appropriate that they want to demonstrate at the competition. I think it's ETL, but I can't find a link.
The goal is to have a humanoid teams with similar strengths and weaknesses as a human team, but be able to beat the humans simply through intelligence (surpisingly difficult even with the low IQ of your average soccer player).
An example of a two robot team that can win (or at worst tie) against any human team is the goalie is a large immobile robot that covers the entire goal (read brick wall). The other is a large scooper/cannon robot that is placed at the center of the field. At either the first half or second half it will get the kickoff, at which point it scoops up the ball a launches it at unstoppable speeds towards the opponent goal.
This is not the goal of RoboCup.
Hopefully one day we will have a team of physically inferior robots that can beat the human WC Champions. Until then we'll keep working.
Also, if you though the competition was out of your grasp, think again. They have a simulation based leauge that uses an open source simulator found at http://sserver.sf.net, along with lick to example clients and client libs.