If you think about it, if someone is trying to get a hold of you why should they have to try several distinct numbers and addresses? Doesn't it make sense to have just one, and information gets routed to the appropriate interface (phone, e-mail, IM, etc.)?
Besides, there will probably be some directory assistance to find people. Even people who are not listed can give you their number once and your equipment will remember it based on the short identifier you give it.
The Future (tm) will be "Call John" "E-mail John" "Im John" Not "Phone 4.3.2.1.5.5.5.2.0.2.1.e164.arpa"
Come on, what could be easier that instead of dialing, typing or whatever, you just tell your device who you want to contact.
The point about credit cards is that you are using other people's money. I have no problem giving children their own ATM/checkcards, but people under 18 shouldn't be able to rack up debt. Older people have enought trouble with that responsibility.
We need to instill into our children a sence of fical responsibility, not another way to grid them into debt even before they can drink.
First off, Clear Channel doesn't own every radio station in america. They just have a whole lot of em. Secondly, I think its a great idea. This might be the alternative revenue stream that the RIAA is looking for.
Now, I bet CC will take a big cut, but if this takes off and the RIAA members start posting profits again, it is going to be much harder to persue digital rights management (and other agendas) on the internet.
Alternately, this will make a media conclomerate even more entrenched in the music business. They make the shows, they play what they want on the radio, and now they are cornering the final avenue of the music industry, CD's. A great idea by a monopoly sometimes isn't a great idea for everybody.
So all of a sudden Microsoft would care about breaking the law? They like to do what they want. Standards shmandards. Embace, extend, bugify and license. Besides "next-generation secure computing base" sounds much less imposing than Palladium. Anything they can do to shift attention away from this is beneficial to implementing it "painlessly".
I'm surprised they didn't take away its name completely.
Anyway I don't think its because some small company is crying about the name.
Almost all the DBs that I've worked to export into XML have ended up having weird schemas.
I have worked on such a projects. We had very higherarchial data and decided to go with XML as the main data format. We used perl as a native interface. Hey Perl has great XML libraries. We used XSL and FOP for report writing. It gave us hugh gains in extendability and maintainability over our previously human readable format (which is a requirement for our line of business).
This was not a small project. Several 10K per database, the XML ended up being 1K's of lines long, but in the long run, the calculations we did on the data long far longer than the actuall XML manipulations. Just because you can not fathom a large project being successful which XML, does not mean it can not exist.
The time spent on an alternate binary solution probably would have taken another man year to implement.
Chirst man, every heard on Social security number? We all already have a national id. It's just not on a piece of plastic with our picture on it.
And gigabytes? Surely an exageration.
What the heck are you so afraid of?
Then simply use dynamically generated pages that don't have unique addresses and keep track of the session.
How easy is this in ASP or JSP? Quite easy.
There are lots of ways to limit access to your site. If you didn't want open linking don't have pages directly accessable through URLs. Simple. Laws against deep linking are like my neighbor telling me not to give directions to his living room. Stupid.
Mod parent up. Unless your requirements change you shouldn't have to do a redesign. They should have stuck with the quake II engine and invested more into quality design and artwork.
If they really wanted to do a game with the unreal engine, I'd say put it off until Duke Nukem Forever and Ever.
Technology does not a good game make.
Quality artwork is better.
Quality AI is better than artwork.
Quality game play is supreme.
Damn straight. I say pick a engine, stick with it. There are games that are ten years old that I would still consider to be beautiful. Better AI, level design, richer textures, game play balance is what they should be working on.
Is there any reason you shouldn't be able to decide on a engine, and then run with it? Think Jedi Knight 2, it wasn't the best technologically speaking but they put enought effort into the art to make it look damn good. Hell, Quake still looks good. Christ, look how many people even play bzflag!!
Uhhh... fission means spliting atoms, fusion means combining them together. A fission reactor would be both more dangerous and less new worthy because we've already been there done that.
...And people fuse atoms all the time, it's just that they've never been able to set up a sustainable reactor.
Yes, make a table and some list in RTF and then open it up in a text editor. RTF is as verbose as it possibly could be.
Also, microsoft doesn't say exactly how it interprets (i.e. whether this tag has to be before that tag, whether you can say just border instead of border-top, bottom, left right,) so I wouldn't exactly call it an open standard. RTF viewers/writer are very hard to implement.
I'm not familiar with Ruby but,
Python, Perl - powerful, but slow as they are interpreted
Java/C# - garbage collection and automatic bounds checking take overhear
Face it, when you are doing something that requires some real speed, you can't afford an idiot-proof language. OSs won't be written in any of those languages any time soon. Nor will programs that do heavy duty graphics
Sometimes even C++ has too much overhead. There is no out and out replacement that is better than c. Switching from c/c++ is simply not an option for many projects.
And for those projects that could be served by the languages you suggest, even if you write it in c, it's nobody's fault except the programmer. C is the problem here.
Ok, but what happens when you don't want to use all of that overhead? C is great because it has, AFAIK, the least overhead of any "high" level programming language out there.
This isn't the fault of the language, it's the fault of the programmer. How hard is it to do bounds checking?
I can't say how much I agree with you. In interviews know I've been getting the question, "If you could give one piece of advice to an incoming CS student, what would it be?" My answer? Learn linux.(the reasons for this answer usually fly over the head of the HR interview person and I get blank stares)
If I'm ever in the position to hire new graduates, I'll ask about their linux exposure in school. IMNSHO listing linux always looks better than listing windows. Microsoft is working hard to make sure that any old idiot can half work their computer, but to be functional in linux (now at least, ) require much more insight into the workings of a computer.
Almost as valuable, would be commandline development familiarity instead of solely GUI IDE.
How many computer science people do you know didn't already know windows when they got to school? It's not like they are going to stop using windows. If anything just for the gaming.
What windows skills would they be missing? Visual C++/Basic/C#? I agree with other posters here that you teach skills, not languages.
Most of what you learn (or what I learned anyway) in a CS program is OS independant. Linked lists, dynamic memory allocation, objected oriented structure, encryption, sorting etc. etc. will work the same on any operating system.
In a windows based curriculum, however, you have to simulate more advanced things such as network layer protocol, interprocess communication, file systems, schedulers, i.e. anything implemented in the operating system. In an open source based you can actually do it and not have to use some crappy simulation code.
In conclusion, what do you get from windows? Learing windows API maybe in one class? The advantages of linux outweigh the advantages of windows. Linux's main weakness is its strength here: it take someone who knows computers well to administer it.
I assume the only thing holding a lot of universities back is retooling for linux. This will take a lot of infrastructure and writing a lot of new educational software (i.e. half complete, fill in the missing fuction stuff)
the best way to prevent the excrutiating pain of eternal Damnation is ceaseless, constant vigilance, and being born Catholic.
I am begining to think you are a mere troll and do not actually believe in such. The apostles weren't born Catholic, and come to think of it, Jesus was a Jew.
Do you now offer no redemption even for those who convert? You, IMHO represent the worst aspects of those who believe in the Catholic religion. Have you nothing to say for yourself? How can you possibly justify such a statement?! Defend your opinion like a man.
as it would have either a 0(no function or no action) or a 1(action) state,
Why do you assume that there are only two states in the state machine?
N+1, N for the number of soldiers as the second soldier would of coarse fire as a result of the first soldier fireing and etc, and the general would have a time of 1 to give the order.
The problem stipulates that all fire at the same time.
now if the soldiers had logic to decide to "ass it on" AND memory and logic to calculate time decimation and N, then 2N-2
FSMs only have if-then relationships. They don't have any "memory" to store anything, they only tell you what the next state is going to be based on some input. Nothing about the FSM changes during runtime, thus they can't store arbitrary values.
Also, I don't follow your logic for saying 2N-2 would be the only solution. Do you actually understand the problem?
Reread the problem. The solution has to be independant of N. The same "soldier" should work wether there is 100 or 1000 or them. Thus you can't have a counter dependant on N. BTW where do you go that you don't study FSMs in digital logic, or design classes?
True, but far smipler and less standard. Also I don't think Red Hat and Mandrake install nano by default, but every unix out there has some version of vi. If you work with unicies long enough to know the standard/usr/bin:/sbin set, you should also know vi.
Come on, I'd rather fire up vi to do a small edit, than wait for a GUI editor to fire up, vi will always be faster. I grew up with GUI editors, but vi still has its place.
Besides, what are you going to do when you can't get into X for some reason and have to edit some file (ie. XF86Config.conf etc.) If you are a home user self administrator its harder not to use a good text based editor.
Yes, it is written by a biased source, but they are taking numbers from an unbiased business. I'm assuming the quotes are correct, and that Largo even exists (Hey, I've never been there). Why would Largo have any reason bias linux or windows. They just use what works cheaply.
I also have the impression from the article that they are providing less services than some other cities.
What gives you this impression. What services don't they have?
From the Zdnet
article linked from the story article, they still use a windows servers to serve up applications. They also say they use windows where it makes sence to use it. They aren't 100% linux, but rather they say as they move that way they wind up using less and less money.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think about it, if someone is trying to get a hold of you why should they have to try several distinct numbers and addresses? Doesn't it make sense to have just one, and information gets routed to the appropriate interface (phone, e-mail, IM, etc.)?
Besides, there will probably be some directory assistance to find people. Even people who are not listed can give you their number once and your equipment will remember it based on the short identifier you give it.
The Future (tm) will be "Call John" "E-mail John" "Im John" Not "Phone 4.3.2.1.5.5.5.2.0.2.1.e164.arpa"
Come on, what could be easier that instead of dialing, typing or whatever, you just tell your device who you want to contact.
The point about credit cards is that you are using other people's money. I have no problem giving children their own ATM/checkcards, but people under 18 shouldn't be able to rack up debt. Older people have enought trouble with that responsibility.
We need to instill into our children a sence of fical responsibility, not another way to grid them into debt even before they can drink.
First off, Clear Channel doesn't own every radio station in america. They just have a whole lot of em. Secondly, I think its a great idea. This might be the alternative revenue stream that the RIAA is looking for.
Now, I bet CC will take a big cut, but if this takes off and the RIAA members start posting profits again, it is going to be much harder to persue digital rights management (and other agendas) on the internet.
Alternately, this will make a media conclomerate even more entrenched in the music business. They make the shows, they play what they want on the radio, and now they are cornering the final avenue of the music industry, CD's. A great idea by a monopoly sometimes isn't a great idea for everybody.
So all of a sudden Microsoft would care about breaking the law? They like to do what they want. Standards shmandards. Embace, extend, bugify and license. Besides "next-generation secure computing base" sounds much less imposing than Palladium. Anything they can do to shift attention away from this is beneficial to implementing it "painlessly".
I'm surprised they didn't take away its name completely.
Anyway I don't think its because some small company is crying about the name.
Almost all the DBs that I've worked to export into XML have ended up having weird schemas.
I have worked on such a projects. We had very higherarchial data and decided to go with XML as the main data format. We used perl as a native interface. Hey Perl has great XML libraries. We used XSL and FOP for report writing. It gave us hugh gains in extendability and maintainability over our previously human readable format (which is a requirement for our line of business).
This was not a small project. Several 10K per database, the XML ended up being 1K's of lines long, but in the long run, the calculations we did on the data long far longer than the actuall XML manipulations. Just because you can not fathom a large project being successful which XML, does not mean it can not exist.
The time spent on an alternate binary solution probably would have taken another man year to implement.
Chirst man, every heard on Social security number? We all already have a national id. It's just not on a piece of plastic with our picture on it.
And gigabytes? Surely an exageration.
What the heck are you so afraid of?
Then simply use dynamically generated pages that don't have unique addresses and keep track of the session.
How easy is this in ASP or JSP? Quite easy.
There are lots of ways to limit access to your site. If you didn't want open linking don't have pages directly accessable through URLs. Simple. Laws against deep linking are like my neighbor telling me not to give directions to his living room. Stupid.
Mod parent up. Unless your requirements change you shouldn't have to do a redesign. They should have stuck with the quake II engine and invested more into quality design and artwork.
If they really wanted to do a game with the unreal engine, I'd say put it off until Duke Nukem Forever and Ever.
Technology does not a good game make.
Quality artwork is better.
Quality AI is better than artwork.
Quality game play is supreme.
Damn straight. I say pick a engine, stick with it. There are games that are ten years old that I would still consider to be beautiful. Better AI, level design, richer textures, game play balance is what they should be working on.
Is there any reason you shouldn't be able to decide on a engine, and then run with it? Think Jedi Knight 2, it wasn't the best technologically speaking but they put enought effort into the art to make it look damn good. Hell, Quake still looks good. Christ, look how many people even play bzflag!!
Uhhh... fission means spliting atoms, fusion means combining them together. A fission reactor would be both more dangerous and less new worthy because we've already been there done that.
...And people fuse atoms all the time, it's just that they've never been able to set up a sustainable reactor.
Yes, make a table and some list in RTF and then open it up in a text editor. RTF is as verbose as it possibly could be.
Also, microsoft doesn't say exactly how it interprets (i.e. whether this tag has to be before that tag, whether you can say just border instead of border-top, bottom, left right,) so I wouldn't exactly call it an open standard. RTF viewers/writer are very hard to implement.
sheesh! ... 'cause it's so complicated to use strncpy() instead of strcpy(), you know...
And I've been wondering about that. Why don't we just change strcpy()? Would that be breaking anything? Why hasn't it been changed already?
errr.. maybe someday i'll hit the preview button.
C is not the problem here.
I'm not familiar with Ruby but, Python, Perl - powerful, but slow as they are interpreted
Java/C# - garbage collection and automatic bounds checking take overhear
Face it, when you are doing something that requires some real speed, you can't afford an idiot-proof language. OSs won't be written in any of those languages any time soon. Nor will programs that do heavy duty graphics
Sometimes even C++ has too much overhead. There is no out and out replacement that is better than c. Switching from c/c++ is simply not an option for many projects.
And for those projects that could be served by the languages you suggest, even if you write it in c, it's nobody's fault except the programmer. C is the problem here.
Ok, but what happens when you don't want to use all of that overhead? C is great because it has, AFAIK, the least overhead of any "high" level programming language out there.
This isn't the fault of the language, it's the fault of the programmer. How hard is it to do bounds checking?
I can't say how much I agree with you. In interviews know I've been getting the question, "If you could give one piece of advice to an incoming CS student, what would it be?" My answer? Learn linux.(the reasons for this answer usually fly over the head of the HR interview person and I get blank stares)
If I'm ever in the position to hire new graduates, I'll ask about their linux exposure in school. IMNSHO listing linux always looks better than listing windows. Microsoft is working hard to make sure that any old idiot can half work their computer, but to be functional in linux (now at least, ) require much more insight into the workings of a computer.
Almost as valuable, would be commandline development familiarity instead of solely GUI IDE.
How many computer science people do you know didn't already know windows when they got to school? It's not like they are going to stop using windows. If anything just for the gaming.
What windows skills would they be missing? Visual C++/Basic/C#? I agree with other posters here that you teach skills, not languages.
Most of what you learn (or what I learned anyway) in a CS program is OS independant. Linked lists, dynamic memory allocation, objected oriented structure, encryption, sorting etc. etc. will work the same on any operating system.
In a windows based curriculum, however, you have to simulate more advanced things such as network layer protocol, interprocess communication, file systems, schedulers, i.e. anything implemented in the operating system. In an open source based you can actually do it and not have to use some crappy simulation code.
In conclusion, what do you get from windows? Learing windows API maybe in one class? The advantages of linux outweigh the advantages of windows. Linux's main weakness is its strength here: it take someone who knows computers well to administer it.
I assume the only thing holding a lot of universities back is retooling for linux. This will take a lot of infrastructure and writing a lot of new educational software (i.e. half complete, fill in the missing fuction stuff)
Jesus, give me some whitespace! At least a
here and there.
See how nice this looks?
Even if you make good points, nobody is going to read a long post with no whitespace.
the best way to prevent the excrutiating pain of eternal Damnation is ceaseless, constant vigilance, and being born Catholic.
I am begining to think you are a mere troll and do not actually believe in such. The apostles weren't born Catholic, and come to think of it, Jesus was a Jew.
Do you now offer no redemption even for those who convert? You, IMHO represent the worst aspects of those who believe in the Catholic religion. Have you nothing to say for yourself? How can you possibly justify such a statement?! Defend your opinion like a man.
as it would have either a 0(no function or no action) or a 1(action) state,
Why do you assume that there are only two states in the state machine?
N+1, N for the number of soldiers as the second soldier would of coarse fire as a result of the first soldier fireing and etc, and the general would have a time of 1 to give the order.
The problem stipulates that all fire at the same time.
now if the soldiers had logic to decide to "ass it on" AND memory and logic to calculate time decimation and N, then 2N-2
FSMs only have if-then relationships. They don't have any "memory" to store anything, they only tell you what the next state is going to be based on some input. Nothing about the FSM changes during runtime, thus they can't store arbitrary values.
Also, I don't follow your logic for saying 2N-2 would be the only solution. Do you actually understand the problem?
Reread the problem. The solution has to be independant of N. The same "soldier" should work wether there is 100 or 1000 or them. Thus you can't have a counter dependant on N. BTW where do you go that you don't study FSMs in digital logic, or design classes?
True, but far smipler and less standard. Also I don't think Red Hat and Mandrake install nano by default, but every unix out there has some version of vi. If you work with unicies long enough to know the standard /usr/bin:/sbin set, you should also know vi.
Come on, I'd rather fire up vi to do a small edit, than wait for a GUI editor to fire up, vi will always be faster. I grew up with GUI editors, but vi still has its place.
Besides, what are you going to do when you can't get into X for some reason and have to edit some file (ie. XF86Config.conf etc.) If you are a home user self administrator its harder not to use a good text based editor.
Yes, it is written by a biased source, but they are taking numbers from an unbiased business. I'm assuming the quotes are correct, and that Largo even exists (Hey, I've never been there). Why would Largo have any reason bias linux or windows. They just use what works cheaply.
I also have the impression from the article that they are providing less services than some other cities.
What gives you this impression. What services don't they have?
From the Zdnet article linked from the story article, they still use a windows servers to serve up applications. They also say they use windows where it makes sence to use it. They aren't 100% linux, but rather they say as they move that way they wind up using less and less money.