Well if you consider numerous articles I've read on the subject and a science background nothing, then sure. But feel free to elaborate your ideas, if you have any and you're not just another A/C troll.
Where from? The amounts of rock minerals from space dust and organics from reactions on the surface are probably minute. I suspect any significant minerals come from the moons core which AFAIK is thought to be made of rock.
Anyway, we have no idea what conditions are required for life to start. There may well be a minimum energy requirement which europa doesn't even get close to. Also you need some kind of energy gradiant. In an ocean sealed off dozens or even hundreds of km below the surface I suspect that gradient is shallow in the extreme.
"Sigh... as soon as we do either fork or use pthreads, the rest will be in C/C++ and not in Java."
Which goes back to my point that java doesn't support multiprocess - it has to use another languages API and even then it can't support it properly.
"Perhaps you want to look at a shell (e.g. Bash) or a true batch language like JCL to understand "job control"."
How do you think the shell does it you muppet, what language do you think its written in? Job control is nothing more than spawing child processes, creating pipes between them, controlling the suspension and resumation of them using SIGTSTP, SIGCONT and reaping them when they exit. Most of which you can't do in Java.
"no idea what your problem is."
Clearly. It seems the difference between java file descriptors and the descriptors, handlers etc internal to the JWM which the java program knows nothing about is confusing you, but don't worry about it. Stick to your sandboxed JWM and let others worry about systems programming. Over and out.
Ok, you fork in java. How do you close the child JVM file descriptors? What about signals? Sockets? The JVM won't know its been forked and so won't act accordingly.
No you couldn't use pthreads easily since there's more to using pthreads than just calling functions. Mutexs, attirbutes, rwlocks etc all need to be defined external to those functions using C typedefs which are not going to have a 1 -> 1 mapping with a java type. How to you plan on doing that from within a java program?
No, I mean the posix multiprocess API. You know, functions like fork(), exec(), wait(), kill() etc.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the difference between processes and threads before replying again. And no, you couldn't use pthreads in java effectively because it requires types that java doesn't support natively and if you try and fork off a JVM from within java you're probably in for a world of pain as all internal file handlers, signals, semaphores etc are duplicated which are easy to deal with in C/C++ but no in a language that knows nothing about them.
"Maybe if you read the article you'd see the reasons are for less noise pollution and greater fuel efficency"
Except the noise from an engine comes from the 500mph stream of air out the back, not burning of fuel and it won't be more efficient.
"Next you'll tell me that hybrid electric locomotives don't make sense either."
There arn't any. There are diesel electrics which are used instead of pure diesel because its mechanically simpler to have 4 or 6 electric motors on the axles with some cables linking them to a central generator than it is to have 4 or 6 diffs and the associated hugely complex mechanical linkages.
"The turbine powering the generator will run on jet fuel and provide power for the electric engine."
Ok, but with the inherent loses in that cycle why not just put the turbine directly on the wing and , err , call it a jet engine?
Hybrid cars are good in cities compared to ICE engines where's there's lot of stop start and fuel isn't wasted idling. They utterly suck on long journeys at a constant speed which is essentially what aircraft do. I really don't get the point of this unless its just to test the systems for a fully electric plane or perhaps simply to reduce pollution when taxying by using electric only (however there is another system powering the nosewheel that already does that), because otherwise a hybrid plane IMO is a nonsense.
Or perhaps the programmers you've worked with weren't good enough to handle them to had to be prevented from using them. A good workman doesn't blame his tools.
C++ isn't the problem - when you use threads with it you either use pthreads which are a thin layer on top of the OS threading subsystem or more recently C++ threads which are ditto since its a systems programming language first and foremost that can also be used to develop applications.
Java is an purely an applications programming language and so is higher level and abstracts its threading away from the OS and doesn't even have to use OS threads at all.
"we concluded C++ was not reliable enough or secure enough for large-scale multithreaded applications."
That should have been "we concluded multithreading was not reliable enough or secure for large scale applications".
When your browser switched from multiprocess to multithreaded back in the day (presumably to make it easier to port to windows) its reliability went down the toilet. Now you're making a big deal about going back to multiprocess. Well whoop-de-doo.
There is nothing wrong with C++ for large scale applications , in fact that was one of its design ideals.
I'd be interested to see how these "communities" manage to afford to lay their own billion dollar T1 backbone infrastructure. Good luck rattling the tin for the funds for that! You might as well say people who are fed up with traffic laws should built their own highways - a dose of realism is needed here people. Infrastructure is NOT cheap.
Are you seriously suggesting a program should run with root privs just for the sake of ease of updating?? I hope you're never employed as a sys admin, your company would be owned within months.
Last time I checked they hadn't, and while I'm sure googles coders think they're infallable and there won't be any exploitable bugs in their sandbox, I for one am not prepared to take that risk. There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
Those independants can go off and live in their caves with their guns , pickups and tins of food (all made by the society they think they're not part of) and contribute nothing if they want, but they can't expect the rest of the world to change for them.
"Unfortunately, the leaders don't like those who will not follow, so they'll use their hordes of brainwashed followers to crush any independents."
Oh dear, been reading the anarchists cookbook have we? You'll grow out of it.
Cut and pasted from some undergraduate anarchist society leaflet was thats?
Human nature is tribal and possesive of land, and humans divide into leaders and followers. This alone gives rise to rulers and states and leaderless consensus has failed in every single off-the-grid hippy commune its been tried in. If you think otherwise then you're either a naive adolescent/student or a fool.
I think you rather missed the point - the computers in aircraft have an easier time than would computers in a completely automated car, yet they still have to hand back control to the pilots from time to time.
No, we're not. We're actually bloody good at it considering we never evolved to drive something weighing 1.5 tons at anything up to 10 times our maximum running speed alongside other vehicles doing similar speeds.
People cite accident statistics as if they're significant. When you consider the TRILLIONS of miles driven every year by the worlds drivers and the number of potential accidents that DIDN'T happen because drivers reacted properly, the actual number of accidents is a statistical blip.
If you think computers are so much better at these sorts of tasks than humans then you might like to consider why Airbus computers will hand over control to the pilot if they're unable to handle the situation. And these are computers in a $200,000,000 aircraft, not a $20,000 car!
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you consider numerous articles I've read on the subject and a science background nothing, then sure. But feel free to elaborate your ideas, if you have any and you're not just another A/C troll.
Where from? The amounts of rock minerals from space dust and organics from reactions on the surface are probably minute. I suspect any significant minerals come from the moons core which AFAIK is thought to be made of rock.
Anyway, we have no idea what conditions are required for life to start. There may well be a minimum energy requirement which europa doesn't even get close to. Also you need some kind of energy gradiant. In an ocean sealed off dozens or even hundreds of km below the surface I suspect that gradient is shallow in the extreme.
"Sigh ... as soon as we do either fork or use pthreads, the rest will be in C/C++ and not in Java."
Which goes back to my point that java doesn't support multiprocess - it has to use another languages API and even then it can't support it properly.
"Perhaps you want to look at a shell (e.g. Bash) or a true batch language like JCL to understand "job control"."
How do you think the shell does it you muppet, what language do you think its written in? Job control is nothing more than spawing child processes, creating pipes between them, controlling the suspension and resumation of them using SIGTSTP, SIGCONT and reaping them when they exit. Most of which you can't do in Java.
"no idea what your problem is."
Clearly. It seems the difference between java file descriptors and the descriptors, handlers etc internal to the JWM which the java program knows nothing about is confusing you, but don't worry about it. Stick to your sandboxed JWM and let others worry about systems programming. Over and out.
Ok, you fork in java. How do you close the child JVM file descriptors? What about signals? Sockets? The JVM won't know its been forked and so won't act accordingly.
No you couldn't use pthreads easily since there's more to using pthreads than just calling functions. Mutexs, attirbutes, rwlocks etc all need to be defined external to those functions using C typedefs which are not going to have a 1 -> 1 mapping with a java type. How to you plan on doing that from within a java program?
No, I mean the posix multiprocess API. You know, functions like fork(), exec(), wait(), kill() etc.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the difference between processes and threads before replying again. And no, you couldn't use pthreads in java effectively because it requires types that java doesn't support natively and if you try and fork off a JVM from within java you're probably in for a world of pain as all internal file handlers, signals, semaphores etc are duplicated which are easy to deal with in C/C++ but no in a language that knows nothing about them.
Fab size is limited by where the engines can be mounted. The fans on an A380 are already pretty much at the practical limit.
"Maybe if you read the article you'd see the reasons are for less noise pollution and greater fuel efficency"
Except the noise from an engine comes from the 500mph stream of air out the back, not burning of fuel and it won't be more efficient.
"Next you'll tell me that hybrid electric locomotives don't make sense either."
There arn't any. There are diesel electrics which are used instead of pure diesel because its mechanically simpler to have 4 or 6 electric motors on the axles with some cables linking them to a central generator than it is to have 4 or 6 diffs and the associated hugely complex mechanical linkages.
"The turbine powering the generator will run on jet fuel and provide power for the electric engine."
Ok, but with the inherent loses in that cycle why not just put the turbine directly on the wing and , err , call it a jet engine?
Hybrid cars are good in cities compared to ICE engines where's there's lot of stop start and fuel isn't wasted idling. They utterly suck on long journeys at a constant speed which is essentially what aircraft do. I really don't get the point of this unless its just to test the systems for a fully electric plane or perhaps simply to reduce pollution when taxying by using electric only (however there is another system powering the nosewheel that already does that), because otherwise a hybrid plane IMO is a nonsense.
Or perhaps the programmers you've worked with weren't good enough to handle them to had to be prevented from using them. A good workman doesn't blame his tools.
It can use the posix multiprocess API. Good luck trying that with java.
Oh, and FWIW , java's multi process handling and job control is an absolute joke.
C++ isn't the problem - when you use threads with it you either use pthreads which are a thin layer on top of the OS threading subsystem or more recently C++ threads which are ditto since its a systems programming language first and foremost that can also be used to develop applications.
Java is an purely an applications programming language and so is higher level and abstracts its threading away from the OS and doesn't even have to use OS threads at all.
" Large ones have pre-push hooks that run static checkers that enforce rules like no bare pointer and no operator new / delete."
Yeah, right. And unicorns write these hooks while riding moonbeams in their spare time.
The projects YOU have worked on might have done so, I've been on dozens that didn't.
"we concluded C++ was not reliable enough or secure enough for large-scale multithreaded applications."
That should have been "we concluded multithreading was not reliable enough or secure for large scale applications".
When your browser switched from multiprocess to multithreaded back in the day (presumably to make it easier to port to windows) its reliability went down the toilet. Now you're making a big deal about going back to multiprocess. Well whoop-de-doo.
There is nothing wrong with C++ for large scale applications , in fact that was one of its design ideals.
I'd be interested to see how these "communities" manage to afford to lay their own billion dollar T1 backbone infrastructure. Good luck rattling the tin for the funds for that! You might as well say people who are fed up with traffic laws should built their own highways - a dose of realism is needed here people. Infrastructure is NOT cheap.
Are you seriously suggesting a program should run with root privs just for the sake of ease of updating?? I hope you're never employed as a sys admin, your company would be owned within months.
We're talking about unix/linux here, no one gives a shit about what happens about Windows where security is a joke anyway.
Its a shame you don't apparently understand how to use google search as well as you seem to think you understand google chrome.
Last time I checked they hadn't, and while I'm sure googles coders think they're infallable and there won't be any exploitable bugs in their sandbox, I for one am not prepared to take that risk. There is ZERO reason for ANY part of a browser to strart up or run with root privs.
... then probably very similar to that. Tho I can't remember when potatoes became common.
Bollocks to you bloody bell-ends across the pond with your minging dialect! I wouldn't adam and eve'd it if I hadn't heard it!
Those independants can go off and live in their caves with their guns , pickups and tins of food (all made by the society they think they're not part of) and contribute nothing if they want, but they can't expect the rest of the world to change for them.
"Unfortunately, the leaders don't like those who will not follow, so they'll use their hordes of brainwashed followers to crush any independents."
Oh dear, been reading the anarchists cookbook have we? You'll grow out of it.
Cut and pasted from some undergraduate anarchist society leaflet was thats?
Human nature is tribal and possesive of land, and humans divide into leaders and followers. This alone gives rise to rulers and states and leaderless consensus has failed in every single off-the-grid hippy commune its been tried in. If you think otherwise then you're either a naive adolescent/student or a fool.
I think you rather missed the point - the computers in aircraft have an easier time than would computers in a completely automated car, yet they still have to hand back control to the pilots from time to time.
"Humans are on average really bad drivers"
No, we're not. We're actually bloody good at it considering we never evolved to drive something weighing 1.5 tons at anything up to 10 times our maximum running speed alongside other vehicles doing similar speeds.
People cite accident statistics as if they're significant. When you consider the TRILLIONS of miles driven every year by the worlds drivers and the number of potential accidents that DIDN'T happen because drivers reacted properly, the actual number of accidents is a statistical blip.
If you think computers are so much better at these sorts of tasks than humans then you might like to consider why Airbus computers will hand over control to the pilot if they're unable to handle the situation. And these are computers in a $200,000,000 aircraft, not a $20,000 car!