When i say 'X' Applications, I meant direct calling of the X-level library, and not toolkits. If you have ever written X-applications (i.e. not using any toolkit, or with the ye olde motif... when is darn slow.) You will understand the flexibility behind the infrastructure of X.
X is like that, if you feel happy with it (i.e. it isn't broke), then don't fix it. If you feel unhappy with it, go figure out the method to code/cook a new one, but you will probably be unsuccessful (though you are always welcomed to give it a try.)
Everything here comes from two ways - One is that how would one implement it. Another is that who would install it. Without large user base, the commercial support is going to lack for the new GUI development, and without commerical support, there are not going to have large user-base, circular agreement, huh?
And then, Why should we always compare ourselves with microsoft? Do we want to imitate her in everything? I don't know, from the hell, why should we always write to do the same as microsoft? Do we really need 'Control-C' as copying and 'Control-V' as pasting, 'Windows-M' to minimize all the window's? No.
and Yes, Microsoft's GUI is great, and MacOS's GUI is even greater, but let me tell you, the bottleneck of GUI computing is not the part that connects the x-client and the x-server, it is the part of drawing. Don't believe in me? try using blackbox or xfce! They are much faster and responsiver than windows (with or without the patch in this message.) The down side is that things like enlightenment-17 or something like that is not going to work very well under this environment, but we have dirty hacks that make it faster than windows or macos to some extent, so it's not actually a big problem.
then, if you are using matrox or nvidia, did you use the accelerated driver when you test your almighty Qt program in X? did you use Qt code in windows to compare the performance? If not, probably you didn't do a fair comparison.
Yes, linux needs change, and yes, it's always good for linux to become faster, more responsive, more efficient, cooler, [insert stupid 133t joke here], YET, its not suggested that anyone haven't messed with the source code to bitch about it in public area. We all know that linux needs to be faster, so should everyone bitch about it saying that linux needs rewrite in assembly because it is inherently slower than OS written in assembly due to the performance drag? Should everyone bitch about linux not having a microkernel because Windows NT have it, and linux don't have it? No. It's a design issue and if you don't like linux, feel free to write a new one, and see how many people adopt it. I've personally tried, to help some of this kind of effort to 're-invent the wheel', but generally the project failed long before we consider it in a useful stage.
We all know microsoft is better in something, FreeBSD is more superior than something, but sometimes it is that it can't be implemented practically, because of inherent or historical reasons. It's just as calling intel to drop off the support for 8086-Pentium IV instruction set in their new processors. If they drop it off, how many people would implement it?
If you don't like something, make it better, bitching it only makes yourself looking like a big toxic flamebait.
large amount of data are sent across the shared memory structure/the named pipes and not the network.
X, while not as efficient as RDP (as one would have been using with windows 2k/nt/whatever), is okay in terms of performance, not bad for a network-os invented so long.
Reinventing the wheel is not necessary, as for networked computing, we have our tools and ssh is okay for we administrators, and remote GUI is working (Well, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.), and that for local systems there are already methods to increase its speed to comparable speeds (with windows/macos)
have you _ever_ written X applications, or MacOSX applications? Do you know, from the ground how X is invented?
Have you ever thought about the mechanics behind why X was built like this? Have you ever thinked, for example, why X is not implemented on a shared-memory architecture on a large scale? (This is because, after some analysis, the performance gain was actaully small since some processes benefit from it while some has a big punishment resulting from it.)
Not as long as Xwindows exists. We have VNC, why does X need to go through TCP/IP to draw a window? This is why Apple dumped X and wrote their own system independently of X. X is outdated. Once KDE gains enough market share, they should just dump X in favor of performance. When a Linux GUI can use things like hardware acceleration, only then will it outperform windows. Until then, it doesn't have a chance.
I'm sorry, but X do not necessarily need TCP/IP to draw a window. X requires an X-server, which can be connected through named-pipe, or by other means.
Yes. Household bleach is used in even biosafety-level 3/4 regulated facilities for disinfection since it is so highly oxidizing that every virus or bacteria is All destroyed.
But if somebody got infected, we can give them IV injection of... eh... vancomycin (oh yeah. not household bleach). What if they got VRSA? Well, we got no immediate cure, just symptomic treatment.
Most charity can't invest in something that is so long-go and so low-returning. That is, if you fund a research, you probably have 2% chance, or less, like 0.02%, of getting a cure for every infeected in the world (it may be, only thousands.)
But if you use that multi-billion money to fund medical staffs in those countries, how many people can you cure? millions, definitely.
1. It is the _patients_ demanding antibiotics, and not the doctors, mainly. It is due in many countries and is especially damaging in private GPs, it's like, if you don't prescribe it, they will go away. (vancomycin)
2. I believe they should get money, but not too much so as to abuse the patent or make money from the deads.
although I believe you are trying to be funny - but actually this is in fact dangerous. it's just like if you eat some particular species of oomycota, YES, you get the treasure antibiotic in it, but you also get the nerve toxin, or organic phosphate, or similar things that puts you to death.
as pointed out previously before, it should be regulated, not high-priced. If you distribute it as 100 dollars per pill/injection/etc, and I have 100,000 dollars and i MISUSE it, like donating it to some unnamed conuntries like china, without any instruction (They suffer from resistant-strain since they misuse antibiotics pretty badly), then the whole world is possibly doomed!
As a student learning in medical science and biochemistry, I believe that I can make a living researching in a university, and I can, also earn money from what my efforts deserve, YET, If it's about getting another 1 * 10^x (x being smaller than infinity), and one life is going away, I am NOT going to make it, unless the 10^x going away means I will die.
(REALITY check - will you sacrifice your life for other's? I don't.)
The problem is the drug should be _regulated_ not _patented_. i.e. the patient taking the drug should obtain it in a reasonable price, but he should be put in isolation in a biosafety-level-whatever center for diagnosis & treatment.
It depends on how do you define 'abuse'? selling at a googol (yes. 10 raised to its 100th power.) dollar per pill and if you don't get the money, you gotta die?
One of the way i've yet to think of is the WHO/some-major-big-corp-who-have-got-a-lot-of-$ buy the patent and open it. (It's working as in Openoffice, doesn't it?)
They should make money, yet, they should make themselves a living, not a luxery. In fact, I believe that anyone working in the pharma/biochem/medical field should have this _basic_ principle lie in their head.
And no, I am no communist. But I do think being humane is the 1st rule in the capitalist world. If not, I think our world's near its death of humanity.
'Radar detector' emit an electromagnetic wave with a definite frequency, then by detecting the beats between the wave that reflects backward, by Doppler's equation
f = f_0 ( v - v_0) / ( v - v_s)
we can get the speed of the car concerned, given the speed of the car carrying the detector (which is usually stationary.)
If Emacs = Emacs Lisp, either that Lisp is 1 (universal truth) or Emacs is 0 (universally untrue).
Hence, this statement is somehow applicable to both vi zealots and emacs zealots, and should not be considered Emacs-speak;-) (supporters alike - i prefer no flames on this matter, please.)
When it was ENIAC, somebody wires. Then somebody even wiser put that 'wiring part' into solid-state, electronic controlled one. That's the 'machine code'.
Then, it is the punch card era, and then somebody think it is better to write words other than bunches of 1 and 0's, hence, we have assembly language, and it comes with the operating system.
After that, somebody thinks that writing assembly language is too cumblesome and too hard to learn for some people, for example, your workmate and me, then, higher-level languages like C and FORTRAN arrives, and it comes with the operating system, yet, machine-code level tools no longer comes with the majority of the machines.
Then, when it is the year that most of the users isn't programmer, the programmer make the computer comes with programs that let you select task rather than instructions to do things, and results in 'shells' or 'command.com' (for win'ies.), it comes with the OS at that point, and programming tools are disappearing from the original package.
When it was the year that too many computer illiteracies want to learn and use computer, yet some wise men write programs that allow a user to use a mouse to click on somewhere to do some job, and hence it comes to the GUI era, and it is shipped with computer, computer no longer comes with command-line tools.
Now that the people are way too lazy to do the job even with assistance with the computer, they actually want the comptuer to do it for themselves, some eventually somebody wise enough will develop a system that allows the user to key-in the objective and the computer will automagically do it.
Don't see the analogy?
Every operating system is just some sort of translator that translate your use of language (e.g. BASH command) into machine readable thing. however, note that the above sequence need not be step-by-step completed, i.e. it may go something like this: User command --> C program --> Machine code instruction.
In general, though:
MACHINE CODE <-- computer level ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE <-- (e.g. AT&T assembly) STRUCTURAL PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE (e.g. Pascal) SCRIPTING LANGUAGE (e.g. PERL) COMMAND-TYPE LANGUAGE (e.g. SQL) POINT AND CLICK (e.g. X, MacOS, etc.) DESCRIPTIVE (Natural human language, e.g. English)
Correct me if I'm wrong, follow-ups welcome.
Oh, my major histocompatibility complex is ....
on
Pigs with Human Genes
·
· Score: 1
going to be compatible with a pig's one? I have a obvious question - isn't genetic modification on sperm only result in ONE pig growing organs histocompatible with exactly ONE person only? oh well...
Slashdot Mirror
When i say 'X' Applications, I meant direct calling of the X-level library, and not toolkits. If you have ever written X-applications (i.e. not using any toolkit, or with the ye olde motif... when is darn slow.) You will understand the flexibility behind the infrastructure of X.
X is like that, if you feel happy with it (i.e. it isn't broke), then don't fix it. If you feel unhappy with it, go figure out the method to code/cook a new one, but you will probably be unsuccessful (though you are always welcomed to give it a try.)
Everything here comes from two ways - One is that how would one implement it. Another is that who would install it. Without large user base, the commercial support is going to lack for the new GUI development, and without commerical support, there are not going to have large user-base, circular agreement, huh?
And then, Why should we always compare ourselves with microsoft? Do we want to imitate her in everything? I don't know, from the hell, why should we always write to do the same as microsoft? Do we really need 'Control-C' as copying and 'Control-V' as pasting, 'Windows-M' to minimize all the window's? No.
and Yes, Microsoft's GUI is great, and MacOS's GUI is even greater, but let me tell you, the bottleneck of GUI computing is not the part that connects the x-client and the x-server, it is the part of drawing. Don't believe in me? try using blackbox or xfce! They are much faster and responsiver than windows (with or without the patch in this message.) The down side is that things like enlightenment-17 or something like that is not going to work very well under this environment, but we have dirty hacks that make it faster than windows or macos to some extent, so it's not actually a big problem.
then, if you are using matrox or nvidia, did you use the accelerated driver when you test your almighty Qt program in X? did you use Qt code in windows to compare the performance? If not, probably you didn't do a fair comparison.
Yes, linux needs change, and yes, it's always good for linux to become faster, more responsive, more efficient, cooler, [insert stupid 133t joke here], YET, its not suggested that anyone haven't messed with the source code to bitch about it in public area. We all know that linux needs to be faster, so should everyone bitch about it saying that linux needs rewrite in assembly because it is inherently slower than OS written in assembly due to the performance drag? Should everyone bitch about linux not having a microkernel because Windows NT have it, and linux don't have it? No. It's a design issue and if you don't like linux, feel free to write a new one, and see how many people adopt it. I've personally tried, to help some of this kind of effort to 're-invent the wheel', but generally the project failed long before we consider it in a useful stage.
We all know microsoft is better in something, FreeBSD is more superior than something, but sometimes it is that it can't be implemented practically, because of inherent or historical reasons. It's just as calling intel to drop off the support for 8086-Pentium IV instruction set in their new processors. If they drop it off, how many people would implement it?
If you don't like something, make it better, bitching it only makes yourself looking like a big toxic flamebait.
large amount of data are sent across the shared memory structure/the named pipes and not the network.
X, while not as efficient as RDP (as one would have been using with windows 2k/nt/whatever), is okay in terms of performance, not bad for a network-os invented so long.
Reinventing the wheel is not necessary, as for networked computing, we have our tools and ssh is okay for we administrators, and remote GUI is working (Well, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.), and that for local systems there are already methods to increase its speed to comparable speeds (with windows/macos)
p.s. I'm typing this on a MacOSX/Jaguar computer.
have you _ever_ written X applications, or MacOSX applications? Do you know, from the ground how X is invented?
Have you ever thought about the mechanics behind why X was built like this? Have you ever thinked, for example, why X is not implemented on a shared-memory architecture on a large scale? (This is because, after some analysis, the performance gain was actaully small since some processes benefit from it while some has a big punishment resulting from it.)
And have you _ever_ heard of D11?
I'm sorry, but X do not necessarily need TCP/IP to draw a window. X requires an X-server, which can be connected through named-pipe, or by other means.
Please RTFM before flamming X.
Spamicide huh?
Is that the Async transfer mode lines will implement iris recognition... ehh...
Actually, they are UP for their penalty. This is because they announced that they are representing the Openoffice.org, but actually they do NOT.
/me think we should setup some sort of ftp server that fakes every microsoft software's files, like
SlashDOT_MS_OFFICE_2K_1_of_37.zip
heh.
Yes. Household bleach is used in even biosafety-level 3/4 regulated facilities for disinfection since it is so highly oxidizing that every virus or bacteria is All destroyed.
But if somebody got infected, we can give them IV injection of... eh... vancomycin (oh yeah. not household bleach). What if they got VRSA? Well, we got no immediate cure, just symptomic treatment.
Most charity can't invest in something that is so long-go and so low-returning. That is, if you fund a research, you probably have 2% chance, or less, like 0.02%, of getting a cure for every infeected in the world (it may be, only thousands.)
But if you use that multi-billion money to fund medical staffs in those countries, how many people can you cure? millions, definitely.
1. It is the _patients_ demanding antibiotics, and not the doctors, mainly. It is due in many countries and is especially damaging in private GPs, it's like, if you don't prescribe it, they will go away. (vancomycin)
2. I believe they should get money, but not too much so as to abuse the patent or make money from the deads.
although I believe you are trying to be funny - but actually this is in fact dangerous. it's just like if you eat some particular species of oomycota, YES, you get the treasure antibiotic in it, but you also get the nerve toxin, or organic phosphate, or similar things that puts you to death.
Just my 0.02
as pointed out previously before, it should be regulated, not high-priced. If you distribute it as 100 dollars per pill/injection/etc, and I have 100,000 dollars and i MISUSE it, like donating it to some unnamed conuntries like china, without any instruction (They suffer from resistant-strain since they misuse antibiotics pretty badly), then the whole world is possibly doomed!
As a student learning in medical science and biochemistry, I believe that I can make a living researching in a university, and I can, also earn money from what my efforts deserve, YET, If it's about getting another 1 * 10^x (x being smaller than infinity), and one life is going away, I am NOT going to make it, unless the 10^x going away means I will die.
(REALITY check - will you sacrifice your life for other's? I don't.)
Right.
Two wrong does not make a right.
The problem is the drug should be _regulated_ not _patented_. i.e. the patient taking the drug should obtain it in a reasonable price, but he should be put in isolation in a biosafety-level-whatever center for diagnosis & treatment.
It depends on how do you define 'abuse'? selling at a googol (yes. 10 raised to its 100th power.) dollar per pill and if you don't get the money, you gotta die?
One of the way i've yet to think of is the WHO/some-major-big-corp-who-have-got-a-lot-of-$ buy the patent and open it. (It's working as in Openoffice, doesn't it?)
They should make money, yet, they should make themselves a living, not a luxery. In fact, I believe that anyone working in the pharma/biochem/medical field should have this _basic_ principle lie in their head.
And no, I am no communist. But I do think being humane is the 1st rule in the capitalist world. If not, I think our world's near its death of humanity.
'Radar detector' emit an electromagnetic wave with a definite frequency, then by detecting the beats between the wave that reflects backward, by Doppler's equation
f = f_0 ( v - v_0) / ( v - v_s)
we can get the speed of the car concerned, given the speed of the car carrying the detector (which is usually stationary.)
the detector merely detects incoming wave.
No registration required!
Warning: This goes to GOATSE.CX, and used java-script to fake the browser...
(1) Print ORGASMS, do not print ORGANS! :-P
as far as i'm concerned:
1. make a printer that print out a temperory hot girl
2. ????
3. PROFIT!
(2) IN SOVIET RUSSIA, organs prints you!
(3) Imagine a beowulf cluster of these !
Let me troll for a while.
:-)
wait the goatse guy to come, and probably we should print them the giver .
Emacs is Emacs Lisp.
If Emacs = Emacs Lisp, either that Lisp is 1 (universal truth) or Emacs is 0 (universally untrue).
Hence, this statement is somehow applicable to both vi zealots and emacs zealots, and should not be considered Emacs-speak ;-) (supporters alike - i prefer no flames on this matter, please.)
When it was ENIAC, somebody wires. Then somebody even wiser put that 'wiring part' into solid-state, electronic controlled one. That's the 'machine code'.
Then, it is the punch card era, and then somebody think it is better to write words other than bunches of 1 and 0's, hence, we have assembly language, and it comes with the operating system.
After that, somebody thinks that writing assembly language is too cumblesome and too hard to learn for some people, for example, your workmate and me, then, higher-level languages like C and FORTRAN arrives, and it comes with the operating system, yet, machine-code level tools no longer comes with the majority of the machines.
Then, when it is the year that most of the users isn't programmer, the programmer make the computer comes with programs that let you select task rather than instructions to do things, and results in 'shells' or 'command.com' (for win'ies.), it comes with the OS at that point, and programming tools are disappearing from the original package.
When it was the year that too many computer illiteracies want to learn and use computer, yet some wise men write programs that allow a user to use a mouse to click on somewhere to do some job, and hence it comes to the GUI era, and it is shipped with computer, computer no longer comes with command-line tools.
Now that the people are way too lazy to do the job even with assistance with the computer, they actually want the comptuer to do it for themselves, some eventually somebody wise enough will develop a system that allows the user to key-in the objective and the computer will automagically do it.
Don't see the analogy?
Every operating system is just some sort of translator that translate your use of language (e.g. BASH command) into machine readable thing. however, note that the above sequence need not be step-by-step completed, i.e. it may go something like this:
User command --> C program --> Machine code instruction.
In general, though:
MACHINE CODE <-- computer level
ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE <-- (e.g. AT&T assembly)
STRUCTURAL PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE (e.g. Pascal)
SCRIPTING LANGUAGE (e.g. PERL)
COMMAND-TYPE LANGUAGE (e.g. SQL)
POINT AND CLICK (e.g. X, MacOS, etc.)
DESCRIPTIVE (Natural human language, e.g. English)
Correct me if I'm wrong, follow-ups welcome.
going to be compatible with a pig's one? I have a obvious question - isn't genetic modification on sperm only result in ONE pig growing organs histocompatible with exactly ONE person only? oh well...
Or did they completely eliminated the MHC gene?