Probably BECAUSE speech is a niche market , MS don't want to spend the money on making it any better. So long as it sort-of works then the marketing droids have something apparently bleeding edge to waffle on about in the sales pitch knowing full well very few people will use it and discover how crap it is, and the ones who do are such a small percentage anyway that they won't care.
"It's not until you learn another foreign language that you realise how complex languages are, and how subtle."
And how wierd sometimes. English for example loves to use the word "up" in all sorts of unsuitable places:
give up shut up fed up wash up fuck up laid up muck up turn up free up look up make up put up screw up hang up wrap up hold up grow up
Wtf?
And home come we say "didn't he.." but in longhand its "did he not...". Shouldn't it be "did not he"? Why does the "not" shift to the other side of the pronoun? But then all languages have similar wierd , illogical syntax.
>It's like all things linux. It works, but it takes time and energy to get it to that stage
And therein lies the disparity between what users want and what techies *think* users want. Yes , users want a nice stable OS, but even *more* than that they want an OS where they can just plug in a card , hit the install button and It Just Works. They DO NOT want to hunt around in the net for 2 hours, searching through unintelligable esoteric notes on stuff they don't understand just to get the same functionality they get on other OSes within a few minutes.
Sure , the Ostriches will mod me down because I've dared slander the holy name of Linux, but tthis is the way it is in the *real* world guys.
>If you're using a rpm based distro such as Fedora, you might look into setting >up Livna as a repository for yum and then just get the appropriate ndiswrapper >rpm from them. The folks at Livna do a really good job of publishing a >recompiled ndiswrapper rpm whenever the kernel gets updated.
And people wonder why non technical users are put off Linux....
Anyone ever told you yanks that an "ass" is an animal and your backside is actually spelt "arse"? No , probably not. Still , for you either hole is a suitable description.
There could be special adaptations of equipment for the disabled etc. When was the last time you saw a standard car that a disabled person could drive? Stop looking for discrimination everywhere just so you have something to bitch about and can feel self righteous.
They're not talking about the valid exceptions to the rule you moron. God help you're wife ifs shes stuck in a wheelchair and has to listen to your thick witted ramblings all day.
People like you need to be told , because it seems you're too dumb to work it out yourselves. I suppose you think all that electricity you use comes from an electricty tree maintained by magical electricity pixies, using no resources at all and causing no problems.
"The problem is that standby is very convenient. I don't want to have to walk upto my TV to turn it on."
Why not? How long would that take , 10 seconds? Or perhaps you live in some manor house with a 100 foot long TV room. Or maybe you're just a fat doughball who can barely wheeze his way out of bed. At any rate , you're just lazy and more than a bit pathetic IMO.
There could be trillions of bacteria on a keyboard but if they're mostly harmless bacteria you find all over a room who cares? But I bet the bacteria on a toilet seat are anything but harmless. I'd sooner eat a million staph bacteria than a single cholera spore!
A lot of googles success to date has been because it was a small(ish) lithe fleet footed company that managed to wrongfoot the large sluggish opposition corporations such as MS that find it almost impossible to make snap decisions. However recently google seems to be putting lots of fingers in lots of pies and getting rather fat. I'm wondering how long before this golden child of the dot come revolution turns into yet the type of fat bloated corporation that its founders we so successful in outdoing....
There must be 100s of thousands of lifts (maybe even millions) all over the world. At the moment they almost all use the rope and counterweight method which is extremely efficient as the counterweight means the motor at most only ever has to lift the maximum load (but usually only half that) and the lift car itself is balanced out by the couterweight so that effectively gets lifted for free.
With maglev the system will have to lift the *entire* weight of car + load. Imagine the amount power required to lift a 1 or 2 ton lift car up a shaft then times that by a few thousand trips a day. The amount of electricity required will be phenomenal!
I hope for this reason (and lots of others mentioned in other posts) that these types of systems *never* get used.
You've been reading too many sci-fi books my friend. Just a couple of minor points you might want to consider:
- The ability to keep a large lift shaft in vacuum in the first place. - The stresses on the building resulting from doing so. - The complex airlocks required instead of standard lift doors. - The problem of an air leak in the lift. - Provision of an emergency air supply for passengers. - Emergency evacuation procedure issues. - Removal of heat from the lift. - Maintenance issues (will the maintenance guys have to wear space suits??)
And probably lots of other little details I haven't even thought of. It might sound cool when in a Philip K Dick novel but in the real world its a bloody stupid idea.
Re:Perl 6 is evolving the language into awesome!
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
Very true. Who needs logical consistency between basic operators anyway? I always thought "+" for overrated for addition , lets use "&" instead. And how about using "->" for equals. 2 & 2 -> 4. Much better don't you think?
Re:Perl 6 is evolving the language into awesome!
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"sugguests that the order of the items being operated on has no effect on the answer..."
And a dot suggests a decimal point. Plus or double bar are used as concat almost everywhere else. Using a dot was not very logical. But I guess that follows the general philosphy of perl syntax anyway.
Re:Perl 6 is evolving the language into awesome!
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Because concatenation was already a single dot"
And wasn't that well thought out. Who needs "+" for concat like most other scripting languages when you can use a "." instead. Doh.
Hey , lets leverage some pro-active synergy here!
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
"My problem I see"
Your problem is you talk bullshit. Period. Go and relearn to speak english like a human and not a marketing droid and we might listen to you.
No , Perl taught you data structures.
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I hope you're sitting down since this might come as a shock but... theres more to C++ than the STL! Yes , I know , its amazing isn't it that a language thats only been around 20 years and is based on C which has been around for over 30 is more complex than this , but, well son , its true. Until you understand not just all the cool trendy OO and generic side but also understand pointer arithmetic, indirection , word boundary alignment issues and 101 other low level topics inherited from C then you DO NOT "know" C++ at all.
The network side of ACE is a pointless wrapper to the sockets API which does little if anything to simplify it but just adds an extra layer to slow the code down.
"By finally proving the interfaces between fragments of slice "
In a modern OS there may be dozens of sub systems and any of them could potentially link to a number of others individually or simultaniously leading to an exponential number of permutations. Unless you prove ALL those permutations your proof isn't worth the paper is written on.
"Provided your proofs are satisfactory, "
And here we hit the infinite regression problem. How do you prove the proofs? And how do you prove the methods that proved the proofs? Some people say that if the proofs wrong you'll notice because it disproves valid code. Well, how do you prove that codes valid? Its a circular argument.
Personally while I think formal proofs do have a place in testing , they're not the panacea that some people would have us believe.
I have. For a small mickey mouse program they're fine. For a huge program such as an OS they're pie in the sky. Its almost impossible to formally prove the entire OS because:
A) Its not a single "process". It has multiple interlinked processes (I don't mean kernel processes, I'm mean logically seperate processing flows) so you'd need multiple levels of proofs.
B) Someone has to write those proofs. If theres a *single* flaw in *any* proof the whole exercise is null and void. Since proofs are written by humans I can guarantee there'll be flaws.
C) The proofs have to be run through a formal proof program which itself must be formally proved if its to be of any worth.
You beginning to see the problem?
Re:Don't talk to me about Boost
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
How many people require a sort for every possible type? 99% of sorts will be integers or strings. And writing 2 functions is hardly a chore so its hardly theoretical.
"In C++, you write it once and the compiler does the specialization for you"
You seem to be forgetting that to compare complex objects you have to write your own overload of > and for every object type. This is hardly a case "just use templates" on a standard sort function and in fact its no simpler than writing seperate sort functions in C.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably BECAUSE speech is a niche market , MS don't want to spend the
money on making it any better. So long as it sort-of works then the marketing
droids have something apparently bleeding edge to waffle on about in the sales
pitch knowing full well very few people will use it and discover how crap it
is, and the ones who do are such a small percentage anyway that they won't care.
"It's not until you learn another foreign language that you realise how complex languages are, and how subtle."
And how wierd sometimes. English for example loves to use the word "up" in all
sorts of unsuitable places:
give up
shut up
fed up
wash up
fuck up
laid up
muck up
turn up
free up
look up
make up
put up
screw up
hang up
wrap up
hold up
grow up
Wtf?
And home come we say "didn't he.." but in longhand its "did he not...". Shouldn't
it be "did not he"? Why does the "not" shift to the other side of the pronoun?
But then all languages have similar wierd , illogical syntax.
...they should send it to Glasgow on a saturday night just after the pubs
have closed.
"Ye loooiii ahhh me jimmeh??! *belch* C'mere ya wee electrahnich bastid, I'll
shoo ye!"
>It's like all things linux. It works, but it takes time and energy to get it to that stage
And therein lies the disparity between what users want and what techies *think*
users want. Yes , users want a nice stable OS, but even *more* than that they
want an OS where they can just plug in a card , hit the install button and
It Just Works. They DO NOT want to hunt around in the net for 2 hours, searching
through unintelligable esoteric notes on stuff they don't understand just to
get the same functionality they get on other OSes within a few minutes.
Sure , the Ostriches will mod me down because I've dared slander the holy
name of Linux, but tthis is the way it is in the *real* world guys.
>If you're using a rpm based distro such as Fedora, you might look into setting
>up Livna as a repository for yum and then just get the appropriate ndiswrapper
>rpm from them. The folks at Livna do a really good job of publishing a
>recompiled ndiswrapper rpm whenever the kernel gets updated.
And people wonder why non technical users are put off Linux....
Anyone ever told you yanks that an "ass" is an animal and your backside
is actually spelt "arse"? No , probably not. Still , for you either hole is
a suitable description.
There could be special adaptations of equipment for the disabled etc.
When was the last time you saw a standard car that a disabled person
could drive? Stop looking for discrimination everywhere just so you have
something to bitch about and can feel self righteous.
They're not talking about the valid exceptions to the rule you moron. God
help you're wife ifs shes stuck in a wheelchair and has to listen to your
thick witted ramblings all day.
People like you need to be told , because it seems you're too dumb to work it
out yourselves. I suppose you think all that electricity you use comes from
an electricty tree maintained by magical electricity pixies, using no
resources at all and causing no problems.
Moron.
"The problem is that standby is very convenient. I don't want to have to walk upto my TV to turn it on."
Why not? How long would that take , 10 seconds? Or perhaps you live in some
manor house with a 100 foot long TV room. Or maybe you're just a fat doughball
who can barely wheeze his way out of bed. At any rate , you're just lazy and
more than a bit pathetic IMO.
There could be trillions of bacteria on a keyboard but if they're mostly
harmless bacteria you find all over a room who cares? But I bet the
bacteria on a toilet seat are anything but harmless. I'd sooner eat a
million staph bacteria than a single cholera spore!
Sarcasm might be the lowest form of wit , but you didn't even manage to
get that high.
Whats their search engine go to do with it? That can just leave it as is.
I'm talking about their ability to come up with new stuff fast.
A lot of googles success to date has been because it was a small(ish) lithe
fleet footed company that managed to wrongfoot the large sluggish opposition
corporations such as MS that find it almost impossible to make snap decisions.
However recently google seems to be putting lots of fingers in lots of pies
and getting rather fat. I'm wondering how long before this golden child of
the dot come revolution turns into yet the type of fat bloated corporation
that its founders we so successful in outdoing....
There must be 100s of thousands of lifts (maybe even millions) all over
the world. At the moment they almost all use the rope and counterweight
method which is extremely efficient as the counterweight means the motor
at most only ever has to lift the maximum load (but usually only half that)
and the lift car itself is balanced out by the couterweight so that
effectively gets lifted for free.
With maglev the system will have to lift the *entire* weight of car + load.
Imagine the amount power required to lift a 1 or 2 ton lift car up a shaft
then times that by a few thousand trips a day. The amount of electricity
required will be phenomenal!
I hope for this reason (and lots of others mentioned in other posts) that
these types of systems *never* get used.
You've been reading too many sci-fi books my friend. Just a couple of minor
points you might want to consider:
- The ability to keep a large lift shaft in vacuum in the first place.
- The stresses on the building resulting from doing so.
- The complex airlocks required instead of standard lift doors.
- The problem of an air leak in the lift.
- Provision of an emergency air supply for passengers.
- Emergency evacuation procedure issues.
- Removal of heat from the lift.
- Maintenance issues (will the maintenance guys have to wear space suits??)
And probably lots of other little details I haven't even thought of. It might
sound cool when in a Philip K Dick novel but in the real world its a bloody
stupid idea.
Very true. Who needs logical consistency between basic operators anyway?
I always thought "+" for overrated for addition , lets use "&" instead.
And how about using "->" for equals. 2 & 2 -> 4. Much better don't you think?
"sugguests that the order of the items being operated on has no effect on the answer..."
And a dot suggests a decimal point. Plus or double bar are used as concat
almost everywhere else. Using a dot was not very logical. But I guess that
follows the general philosphy of perl syntax anyway.
"Because concatenation was already a single dot"
And wasn't that well thought out. Who needs "+" for concat like most
other scripting languages when you can use a "." instead. Doh.
"My problem I see"
Your problem is you talk bullshit. Period. Go and relearn to speak
english like a human and not a marketing droid and we might listen to you.
I hope you're sitting down since this might come as a shock but ... theres
more to C++ than the STL! Yes , I know , its amazing isn't it that a language
thats only been around 20 years and is based on C which has been around for
over 30 is more complex than this , but, well son , its true. Until you
understand not just all the cool trendy OO and generic side but also understand
pointer arithmetic, indirection , word boundary alignment issues and 101 other
low level topics inherited from C then you DO NOT "know" C++ at all.
The network side of ACE is a pointless wrapper to the sockets
API which does little if anything to simplify it but just
adds an extra layer to slow the code down.
"By finally proving the interfaces between fragments of slice "
In a modern OS there may be dozens of sub systems and any of them could
potentially link to a number of others individually or simultaniously
leading to an exponential number of permutations. Unless you prove ALL
those permutations your proof isn't worth the paper is written on.
"Provided your proofs are satisfactory, "
And here we hit the infinite regression problem. How do you prove the proofs?
And how do you prove the methods that proved the proofs? Some people say
that if the proofs wrong you'll notice because it disproves valid code. Well,
how do you prove that codes valid? Its a circular argument.
Personally while I think formal proofs do have a place in testing , they're
not the panacea that some people would have us believe.
I have. For a small mickey mouse program they're fine. For a huge program
such as an OS they're pie in the sky. Its almost impossible to formally
prove the entire OS because:
A) Its not a single "process". It has multiple interlinked processes (I don't
mean kernel processes, I'm mean logically seperate processing flows) so
you'd need multiple levels of proofs.
B) Someone has to write those proofs. If theres a *single* flaw in *any*
proof the whole exercise is null and void. Since proofs are written by humans
I can guarantee there'll be flaws.
C) The proofs have to be run through a formal proof program which itself
must be formally proved if its to be of any worth.
You beginning to see the problem?
How many people require a sort for every possible type? 99% of sorts will
be integers or strings. And writing 2 functions is hardly a chore so its
hardly theoretical.
"In C++, you write it once and the compiler does the specialization for you"
You seem to be forgetting that to compare complex objects you have to
write your own overload of > and for every object type. This is hardly
a case "just use templates" on a standard sort function and in fact its
no simpler than writing seperate sort functions in C.