"he idea is that you don't need a lot of words when you can figure out the meaning by context."
And you do you express the context? Unless you're assuming all contexts can be boiled down to a small subsection. With 60 words you don't even make a dent in all the nouns never mind , verbs , adjectives , adverbs etc. How would you describe a goose in a language with 60 words that also had to describe asteroid, linux, sugar , dreaming etc etc. Your post is either an attempt at being toungue in cheek (not very funny if it was) or you're just talking rubbish.
"routinely reads pulp books at 250 pages an hour with total recall"
Bullshit. Someone might be able to skim read the pages at that speed (if they have strong eye muscles that didn't suffer strain) , but total recall? I don't think so. Not unless she's some sort of 1 in a billion savant.
"it's quite obviously not. It's not even cutting edge, "
Its only been out for a few years , thats bleeding edge for me. Established tech IMO needs to have been around at least 5 years to iron out all the issues.
"You initial comment, basically saying 'serves you right for being cheap' is a slap in the face"
Tough. You are cheap and if you're a vonage user you might get burnt just like all those people got burnt by dot bombs in the late 90s. I'll just sit back and laugh.
I realise theres some deep seated hatred for the old telcos in the USA (something which I don't really understand not being american) but if people want to give these old telcos the finger and go with a relatively immature technology such as a VOIP phone install then unfortunately these things will happen , whether it be technological or legal issues. I'm afraid my sympathy is limited. These people wanted something cheap or free and they might get burnt. Well tough.
"You can put everything into one.exe file if you like."
That would be the sensible way to go since its unlikely any other app would ever use that.dll. But sensible isn't something that generally applies to Windows programs these days as the amount of.dll splatter from even the simplest apps testifies.
I don't know anything about Vonage , but if its like other VOIP systems it'll used lossy compression. Which is death for most kinds of digital to analogue systems running over a phone like using systems such as QAM or PSK since important information will be stripped out. This is why you can't use dial up modems over most (all?) VOIP services (why you'd want to anyway is another matter).
When it can replicate complex biological objects (eg a piece of food) or electronic or mechanical objects that work then maybe. Until then it'll just be high tech woodwork.
Re:But Digital Compact Cassette was a real flop
on
The Top 21 Tech Flops
·
· Score: 1
I don't care what it is. It sounds bloody good, far better than my mp3 player.
Re:But Digital Compact Cassette was a real flop
on
The Top 21 Tech Flops
·
· Score: 1
I've got a DCC deck. First (and last!) generation. Full of bugs, head constantly needs cleaning else it'll refuse to play a DCC tape (analogue it doesn't care about), takes ages to find a track, recording doesn't always work first time and so on. The sound however is absolutely fantastic.
I don't care if we share 97 or 99% of our DNA with them , they're not human. So what if we evolved from them or a common ancestor? We all evolved from bacteria and we dont think about their rights. Yes I'm being facetious but this is just another example of foolish anthropomorphising but the fwuffy-wuffy animal lovers brigade who seem to think animals should be on a par with humans. No , sorry. Show me any ape or other animal species that has sent some of its number to the moon , sent probes to other planets , composed music , created a work of art, has almost doubled its own lifespan through medicine it invented and so forth.
Yes , treat animals with compasion , but NEVER confuse them with us. They are NOT human and to treat them so is an insult to homo sapiens and all the things we have achieved.
Processes you can understand having exploits, no coders are perfect. But how the hell have they exposed the underlying cursor API/buffer so that someone can make an exploit out of it except via some idiotic and stupid design decision?? This really beggars belief. If the even the cursor is vulnerable is there *anything* that can be trusted to be secure on a windows PC apart from the OFF switch?
Diesel electric locos exist simply because of the difficulty of building a mechanical transmission for them. The contortions the driveshafts and gearing would have to make from engine to wheels would be horrendous, not to mention the sort of gearbox required would have to be so robust that the expense wouldn't be worth it. This is why electric and hydraulic transmission is used on locos , not for fuel efficiency reasons. In fact you lose quite a bit of efficiency converting from rotary to electric then back to rotary power again. Hydraulic transmissions are a bit more efficient I believe but if they spring a leak you're screwed plus they're not suitable for high speeds.
But try convincing all his left wing fanboys in the west of that. Its amazing how thick the blinkers on socialists can be and how quickly they get put on when it comes to realising one of their own perhaps isn't the golden boy everyone thought.
"There's no way any vehicle that flies can ever come close to that kind of fuel efficiency."
Wrong. An airship with a decent tailwind can use virtually zero fuel except that required to reach a given height and adjustment thrusters. An airships fuel efficiency is completely unrelated to that of fixed or rotor wing aircraft. In fact even without a tailwing all an airship with neutral buoancy has to do is fight air resistance , unlike other aircraft which ultimately expend fuel to stay up in the air as well as move forward.
And before you say "but what about on the way back when its going into the wind" , ask yourself this - how do you think sailing ships ever make a 2 way journey?
"The recurring seven day time period (we have come to call one week) occurs ONLY in the account of creation, and no where else, "
Really? So it doesn't occur in ancient hindu and chinese texts then? Hmm , someone better tell them their history books are wrong!
Incidentaly , you ever considered that 7 days is exactly 1 quarter of a lunar cycle? No? Well theres a susprise. You go back to reading your simpletons guide to the universe.
You accuse some people of not really understanding whats going on but you yourself don't appear to understand the reason some things are done as they are:
"Never mind that the new end of the first string would be very handy for the next strcat to that same string.)"
Yes , but only if you wanted to use another strcat() immediately afterwards. Aside from in that case the pointer would be fairly useless. strcat() like a lot of routines returns its argument so you can pipe stuff together without having to use intermediate variables. eg:
if (!strcmp(teststr,strcat(str," world")))
{
do something
} }
Obviously thats a contrived example but you get the idea - no intermetidate variable required , the 2nd parameter passed to strcmp() comes (hopefully) straight off the stack, not via an intermediate.
Slashdot Mirror
"The idea for a language where one word can have a lot of meanings actually came from studying Japanese"
You don't need japanese for that: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/set
"he idea is that you don't need a lot of words when you can figure out the meaning by context."
And you do you express the context? Unless you're assuming all contexts can be boiled down to a small subsection. With 60 words you don't even make a dent in all the nouns never mind , verbs , adjectives , adverbs etc. How would you describe a goose in a language with 60 words that also had to describe asteroid, linux, sugar , dreaming etc etc. Your post is either an attempt at being toungue in cheek (not very funny if it was) or you're just talking rubbish.
"routinely reads pulp books at 250 pages an hour with total recall"
Bullshit. Someone might be able to skim read the pages at that speed (if they have strong eye muscles that didn't suffer strain) , but total recall? I don't think so. Not unless she's some sort of 1 in a billion savant.
"it's quite obviously not. It's not even cutting edge, "
Its only been out for a few years , thats bleeding edge for me. Established tech IMO needs to have been around at least 5 years to iron out all the issues.
"You initial comment, basically saying 'serves you right for being cheap' is a slap in the face"
Tough. You are cheap and if you're a vonage user you might get burnt just like all those people got burnt by dot bombs in the late 90s. I'll just sit back and laugh.
"obviously don't understand the technology"
Don't make stupid assumptions just to build up a lame putdown. I understand it a lot better than you think.
3 years!! Wow , thats just so old!!
What do you count as bleeding edge , 3 hours?
I realise theres some deep seated hatred for the old telcos in the USA (something which I don't really understand not being american) but if people want to give these old telcos the finger and go with a relatively immature technology such as a VOIP phone install then unfortunately these things will happen , whether it be technological or legal issues. I'm afraid my sympathy is limited. These people wanted something cheap or free and they might get burnt. Well tough.
"You can put everything into one .exe file if you like."
.dll. But sensible isn't something that generally applies to Windows programs these days as the amount of .dll splatter from even the simplest apps testifies.
That would be the sensible way to go since its unlikely any other app would ever use that
I don't know anything about Vonage , but if its like other VOIP systems it'll used lossy compression. Which is death for most kinds of digital to analogue systems running over a phone like using systems such as QAM or PSK since important information will be stripped out. This is why you can't use dial up modems over most (all?) VOIP services (why you'd want to anyway is another matter).
Lets just hope Bill has a lovely XPerience and doesn't crash into the Blue Ocean of Death.
In 10 years boyfriends everywhere will be wondering why their women spend so long upstairs in the bedrooms with the printer going all the time.
When it can replicate complex biological objects (eg a piece of food) or electronic or mechanical objects that work then maybe. Until then it'll just be high tech woodwork.
I don't care what it is. It sounds bloody good, far better than my mp3 player.
I've got a DCC deck. First (and last!) generation. Full of bugs, head constantly needs cleaning else it'll refuse to play a DCC tape (analogue it doesn't care about), takes ages to find a track, recording doesn't always work first time and so on. The sound however is absolutely fantastic.
I don't care if we share 97 or 99% of our DNA with them , they're not human. So what if we evolved from them or a common ancestor? We all evolved from bacteria and we dont think about their rights. Yes I'm being facetious but this is just another example of foolish anthropomorphising but the fwuffy-wuffy animal lovers brigade who seem to think animals should be on a par with humans. No , sorry. Show me any ape or other animal species that has sent some of its number to the moon , sent probes to other planets , composed music , created a work of art, has almost doubled its own lifespan through medicine it invented and so forth.
Yes , treat animals with compasion , but NEVER confuse them with us. They are NOT human and to treat them so is an insult to homo sapiens and all the things we have achieved.
Processes you can understand having exploits, no coders are perfect. But how the hell have they exposed the underlying cursor API/buffer so that someone can make an exploit out of it except via some idiotic and stupid design decision?? This really beggars belief. If the even the cursor is vulnerable is there *anything* that can be trusted to be secure on a windows PC apart from the OFF switch?
...but it would weigh the same as a hummer. Batteries are *heavy*.
Diesel electric locos exist simply because of the difficulty of building a mechanical transmission for them. The contortions the driveshafts and gearing would have to make from engine to wheels would be horrendous, not to mention the sort of gearbox required would have to be so robust that the expense wouldn't be worth it. This is why electric and hydraulic transmission is used on locos , not for fuel efficiency reasons. In fact you lose quite a bit of efficiency converting from rotary to electric then back to rotary power again. Hydraulic transmissions are a bit more efficient I believe but if they spring a leak you're screwed plus they're not suitable for high speeds.
But try convincing all his left wing fanboys in the west of that. Its amazing how thick the blinkers on socialists can be and how quickly they get put on when it comes to realising one of their own perhaps isn't the golden boy everyone thought.
"About the only thing you could call an "external combustion engine" would be a reheat also known as an "afterburner"."
And steam engines.
"There's no way any vehicle that flies can ever come close to that kind of fuel efficiency."
Wrong. An airship with a decent tailwind can use virtually zero fuel except that required to reach a given height and adjustment thrusters. An airships fuel efficiency is completely unrelated to that of fixed or rotor wing aircraft. In fact even without a tailwing all an airship with neutral buoancy has to do is fight air resistance , unlike other aircraft which ultimately expend fuel to stay up in the air as well as move forward.
And before you say "but what about on the way back when its going into the wind" , ask yourself this - how do you think sailing ships ever make a 2 way journey?
"The recurring seven day time period (we have come to call one week) occurs ONLY in the account of creation, and no where else, "
Really? So it doesn't occur in ancient hindu and chinese texts then? Hmm , someone better tell them their history books are wrong!
Incidentaly , you ever considered that 7 days is exactly 1 quarter of a lunar cycle? No? Well theres a susprise. You go back to reading your simpletons guide to the universe.
You accuse some people of not really understanding whats going on but you yourself don't appear to understand the reason some things are done as they are:
"Never mind that the new end of the first string would be very handy for the next strcat to that same string.)"
Yes , but only if you wanted to use another strcat() immediately afterwards. Aside from in that case the pointer would be fairly useless. strcat() like a lot of routines returns its argument so you can pipe stuff together without having to use intermediate variables. eg:
void func(char *teststr)
{
char str[100] = "hello";
if (!strcmp(teststr,strcat(str," world")))
{
do something
}
}
Obviously thats a contrived example but you get the idea - no intermetidate variable required , the 2nd parameter passed to strcmp() comes (hopefully) straight off the stack, not via an intermediate.
>you can put pthread mutexes and condition variables
If the implementation underneath uses pointers you're buggered. mutexes are only guaranteed to work between threads , not processes.
I'm not convinced clone() is even used anymore in the latest versions of libc with 2.6 since "real" threads were implemented in the kernel.