I will remain confident that you don't know what you're talking about. Threads can have message queues associated with them, but they are not part of a thread.
Here's an excerpt from the MSDN definition of PostThreadMessage... foo...
Remarks
The thread to which the message is posted must have created a message queue, or else the call to PostThreadMessage fails
Fuck I don't like flaming people about stupid stuff like this, but you are flamebating me...
It's ignorant asses like you who think the multitasking capabilities of Windows are limited to message queues. You're not competent... don't go spreading FUD while you're at it.
Threads do not have message queues foo. Windows have message queues... And the queue is associated with the thread that created it, but that's about it.
PS. A window is neither a process, nor a thread. It's a window.
PPS. I wouldn't trust your declaration of inferiority based on the fact that you didn't know the above to be true...
Windows NT's entire IO system has always been asynchronous if you want it to. And it's architecturally very sound and useful.
You aren't going to get an answer here on/. that will be sufficient for you (and if you expect one, you are just a troller/flamer)... the best way to know is to use it a bit.
A good example of why I love it so much is that *every* object in the Kernel is synchronizable. You can wait on a file just like you can wait on a thread, process, or mutex. Once you get used to the architecture, it's very sweet.
We've all heard of the arguments about how some of MS' tech teams (for the kernel for example) are actually quite decent... so there's no need to rehash that.
I want to add a point though to your post, and that is that, in this day and age, anyone who utters "winner vs loser", black and white should be tarred, feathered and sent walking through the city center with a sign that says buffoon on it.
The fact that such a bold (and stupid) statement comes from the economist is actually surprising to me... but I guess such are the times.
PS. Btw, Async IO in NT *does* rule... all of the threading mechanisms in NT rule, IMHO.
While I agree with you that sci-fi of the west has gone down the drains, I'm not ready to quickly discredit the Matrix.
I am a fan of Akira and Ghost in the Shell as well, but there is something to be said about the goose bumps you got the first 5 times you watched the matrix and you saw trinity kicking that cops ass in bullet time.
Heck, I'm getting goose bumps just remembering how I felt the first time I saw Neo dodge the bullets.
It's all about enjoying what's there: people whine about Jar-Jar Binks, or Keanu's poor acting, but really, in the end, you come out of that theatre thinking "hey, maybe if I try real hard, I can walk on that wall"... which is exactly why I see these movies... because I want them to transport me somewhere that's not real, and just plain feels cool.
If you're going in there to come back out with the insights you get after watching Apocalypse Now, your priorities might be wrong.
As saint and altruistic as the slashdot crowd might pretend to be, there's this thing called reality. I've seen this thing, called reality, from two directions in my career: first, as a consultant, I tore my feathers out trying to explain to my boss why a certain way of doing things would be better (whether I succeeded or not is moot). Second, I've watched bosses hire 'consultants' just so they can shut their own programming team up by saying "you see, even the consultant says it's good this way"...
The sad reality of the fact is that some people hire consultants simply to bring in a voice of authority into an argument - and so sometimes, they basically want you to whore out your opinion in exchange for money.
So if you find your job is at risk because of this, you might as well be a whore... because all that opinonated boss has to do is drive down "IT crack alley" and pick up another whore.
Sad but true.
Now, if you know you're not a whore, but a lover... you might consider discussing your options over a nice candle light diner.
There are indications either way of what's going on...
On one hand, you have the seemingly clear statement: With the new technique researchers will be able to resolve details about 10 microarcconds across [...]
On the other hand you have these two:
The gas cloud acts like a lens, focusing the radio waves from the quasar, making them appear stronger. [...](from the caption on the first picture)
We'll be able to see to within a third of a light-year of the base of one of these jets
So I'm not positively clear as to whether they are picking up very faint signals that they couldn't have before, or they are actually increasing the resolution of the 'telescope'.
That telescope you speak of is the Keck Telescope, it is already functional, and yes, it blows hubble out of the water.
Except what you are talking about is a different phenomenon: these people are using the gas clouds to actually amplify the signals they receive, not to decrease image noise. They *are* extrapolating in a similar way that you describe, but it's not because the earth's view is shrouded by a haze surrounding it...
There is a sublte nuance there... A similar thing in microscopy would be to actually induce the air currents you speak of, and through a software analysis of the resulting image, obtain images that were bigger/brighter/whatever than if it were taken in absolute vaccum.
They aren't looking to make nice Kodak pictures to hang up on walls. They are measuring x-rays and radio waves from very far away. And they seem to be extrapolating the values by using the velocity of the earth. The gas clouds don't need to be focused... the focus is done by taking many many 'blurry' images, and constructing a non blurry one. It seems the point is to actually catch signals that are otherwise too faint... rather than 'zoom' in more on things that are too small.
It looks like they are going to extrapolate the original signals by measuring the same image while moving in different directions (thanks to earth's orbit). (I guess the assumption is that the glass clouds are immobile in shape and position).
No friction basically means that the force being observed is quite small...
You have to understand that article was first translated from scientific talk to reporting talk, and now it's being translated back to/. nerd talk... (which isn't scientific talk btw).
An example is how they first found the value of the constant of gravity. They put two humoungous iron balls near eachother, and noted the very tiny torque they induced just by being near each other.
The fact that the observed effects were tiny doesn't mean they don't exist.
Hah hah.... I can just see the presidential debates for that:
Martin Michlmayr: I propose a 3 tiered attack onto terrorism. Using the latest advancements in XP (Extreme Power) we will have this baby delivered on time on budget... unlike Bush over here who's going to be many many months past his deadlines, and billions off his initial cost estimates...
It took them a while though to clue in on terrorism, and what a friggin brilliant war machine it is. I mean civil wars in various countries like Columbia, and Turkey (in the recent past) went on forever with no real advance in either camps thanks to terrorism.
It's like a legitimized money laundering scheme at the government level... that's what it is.
This has nothing to do with DRM... and everything to do with specs.
You do NOT buy a 110V hair dryer and stick it in 220V just so your hair dries faster. In the same way, overclocking isn't a design spec... it's pure and simple not safe and stable, even if your computer *looks* stable. Small instablities tend to only manifest themselves after a server has been up for a long time under lots of load... not right after a reboot... Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
On a side note, neither the dryer manufacturer nor Intel will provide support for products used out of spec... but there isn't a slashcode site where people bitch about how so and so makes hair dryers that burn your hair off if you put em in 220V... (get my point?)
Well, first off, I made it very clear that I wasn't denigrating him.
Recall, I said "regardless of how well you cook, it doesn't mean you're a chef." This applies to software too, regardless how well you program, doesn't make you a software engineer.
In fact, I know a lot of good programmers, brilliant minds, who just aren't good when it comes to commercial software engineering. The contests they have at places like MIT only show one side of the beast which is software engineering... and that is (and I quote myself again) "to compile a C file". Software engineering requires *many* more skills, such as accountabiltiy, team play even when you don't like your team, estimation estimation and more estimation skills, being able to tone down your pride and speak rationally when told in a meeting that your idea/code doesn't work, perseverance, coming through with your responsabilities, did I mention estimation? And many many more things like knowing how to be able to concentrate on demand (as opposed to sitting down at your desk when you want to)...
For all I care, this guy could have invented SSH2, the math, and the open source library behind it, it doesn't qualify him as a software engineer.
Like I said, only people who have delivered multi million dollar projects, and have lived through the last 5% of those, are qualified in my eyes.
But like I said, this guy might make the best friggin Veal Sautee man kind has ever seen...
PS. I said "the crunch at the final 5% or death march for many". I didn't say "the crunch or death march at the final 5%".
Any software project, unless extremely lavishly funded will have a crunch at the end. In fact, I'm about ready to assert that any adequately funded project in whatever field it may be will have a delivery crunch. It's routine. I'm not even talking about overtime etc. I'm talking about stress running high, adrenaline pumping, egos flaring. It's in those times that professionalism can make or break the product.
It is a 'well known fact' (whatever that means) that the last 10% of a project takes 90% of the effort.
We all know it's not a fact, it's just humour to a certain extent, but the point is that tying up a project and delivering something complete is something very far from someone doodling a raytracer together over the weekend.
What makes software good isn't the ability to make the core of the functionality work somewhat. It's the ability to make the whole work seemlesly. You know it just as well as I, if you are a software engineer, that in those last 5% the 'boys' get distinguished from the 'men'.
PS. this is not a troll or flame. I'm seriously saying what I think.
While I respect your attempt at entering this playing field, I think it is a bit out of your league.
IMHO, the major problem about software in the past decade has been people's association of "oh, I can compile a C file" with "I'm a software developer". To me, anyone who hasn't gone through the final 5% of a massive project, the crunch before the deadlines that usually ends up being a death march for many, has no clue as to what is *really* involved in software engineering.
Think of it this way, any family man or woman can cook a decent meal. My parents always cooked very well actually... That doesn't make them chefs.
Anyone can cut down a tree in their back yard. That doesn't make you a lumberjack. In fact, after having seen what lumberjacks do and go through, I'm just amazed at how they still do those things.
In the grand scheme of things, nothing counts. Not the bus driver, not the stock broker on wall street, not the lawyer, not even the judge who overrules a court order... and no, not the apps [we] pump out either. It doesn't change the fact that there is definitely an art and technique involved in it.
I agree with some things you say, and I really am not answering to you in particular. Yes, there is no magic pill, and yes this guy sucks for trying to reinvent the wheel, *yet again*.
I personally find that both IM and Email checking are a symptom of boredom.
Where I work, it's quite a natural thing to let an email sit in your inbox unchecked, or leave an IM popup unanswered for up to 5 minutes. Everyone expects it on the other end.
I personally made a little plugin for my mail client that reads out the subject line of the email and a few of my colleagues use it and like it very much. It instantly lets you know what the email is about without ever having to even look in a different direction, let alone switching windows etc.
It's all about work habits, I think we live in a fast food society where people expect there to be reasons and answers to all problems...
<Great Booming Authoritative voice>The reason why we are unproductive is email.</Great Booming Authoritative voice>
But in fact, it's much more a personal habit thing. If you go to google 200 times a day, it makes sense to put a quicklink somewhere easily accessible to avoid 200 3 click steps. On the other hand, it makes no sense having your desktop cluttered with such stupid links as "Nero Burner"... how many times do you burn discs a day?
My point being that everyone makes their own productivity, there is no miracle answer, and Email is certainly not the plague it's made to be here...
Please tell me how it's not Microsoft's fault for making both partitions and the system directory shares by default
The shares you talk about, you moron, are administrative shares... If your admin password is 123, you might as well pack your stuff and become a
lumberjack or something.
Please tell me how it's not Microsoft's fault to make XP users members of the Administrators group by default (the only ones who can access those default shares).
Slashdot Mirror
Read my answer to all of you ignorant flamebaiters, and then shut up.
Here's an excerpt from the MSDN definition of PostThreadMessage... foo ...
Remarks
The thread to which the message is posted must have created a message queue, or else the call to PostThreadMessage fails
Fuck I don't like flaming people about stupid stuff like this, but you are flamebating me...
It's ignorant asses like you who think the multitasking capabilities of Windows are limited to message queues. You're not competent... don't go spreading FUD while you're at it.
Threads do not have message queues foo. Windows have message queues... And the queue is associated with the thread that created it, but that's about it.
PS. A window is neither a process, nor a thread. It's a window.
PPS. I wouldn't trust your declaration of inferiority based on the fact that you didn't know the above to be true...
You aren't going to get an answer here on /. that will be sufficient for you (and if you expect one, you are just a troller/flamer)... the best way to know is to use it a bit.
A good example of why I love it so much is that *every* object in the Kernel is synchronizable. You can wait on a file just like you can wait on a thread, process, or mutex. Once you get used to the architecture, it's very sweet.
We've all heard of the arguments about how some of MS' tech teams (for the kernel for example) are actually quite decent... so there's no need to rehash that.
I want to add a point though to your post, and that is that, in this day and age, anyone who utters "winner vs loser", black and white should be tarred, feathered and sent walking through the city center with a sign that says buffoon on it.
The fact that such a bold (and stupid) statement comes from the economist is actually surprising to me... but I guess such are the times.
PS. Btw, Async IO in NT *does* rule... all of the threading mechanisms in NT rule, IMHO.
It's nice an all, but where is the 8086 of all ships, the one from 2001??!
I am a fan of Akira and Ghost in the Shell as well, but there is something to be said about the goose bumps you got the first 5 times you watched the matrix and you saw trinity kicking that cops ass in bullet time.
Heck, I'm getting goose bumps just remembering how I felt the first time I saw Neo dodge the bullets.
It's all about enjoying what's there: people whine about Jar-Jar Binks, or Keanu's poor acting, but really, in the end, you come out of that theatre thinking "hey, maybe if I try real hard, I can walk on that wall"... which is exactly why I see these movies... because I want them to transport me somewhere that's not real, and just plain feels cool.
If you're going in there to come back out with the insights you get after watching Apocalypse Now, your priorities might be wrong.
As saint and altruistic as the slashdot crowd might pretend to be, there's this thing called reality. I've seen this thing, called reality, from two directions in my career: first, as a consultant, I tore my feathers out trying to explain to my boss why a certain way of doing things would be better (whether I succeeded or not is moot). Second, I've watched bosses hire 'consultants' just so they can shut their own programming team up by saying "you see, even the consultant says it's good this way"...
The sad reality of the fact is that some people hire consultants simply to bring in a voice of authority into an argument - and so sometimes, they basically want you to whore out your opinion in exchange for money.
So if you find your job is at risk because of this, you might as well be a whore... because all that opinonated boss has to do is drive down "IT crack alley" and pick up another whore.
Sad but true.
Now, if you know you're not a whore, but a lover... you might consider discussing your options over a nice candle light diner.
There are indications either way of what's going on...
On one hand, you have the seemingly clear statement: With the new technique researchers will be able to resolve details about 10 microarcconds across [...]
On the other hand you have these two:
The gas cloud acts like a lens, focusing the radio waves from the quasar, making them appear stronger. [...](from the caption on the first picture)
We'll be able to see to within a third of a light-year of the base of one of these jets
So I'm not positively clear as to whether they are picking up very faint signals that they couldn't have before, or they are actually increasing the resolution of the 'telescope'.
Except what you are talking about is a different phenomenon: these people are using the gas clouds to actually amplify the signals they receive, not to decrease image noise. They *are* extrapolating in a similar way that you describe, but it's not because the earth's view is shrouded by a haze surrounding it...
There is a sublte nuance there... A similar thing in microscopy would be to actually induce the air currents you speak of, and through a software analysis of the resulting image, obtain images that were bigger/brighter/whatever than if it were taken in absolute vaccum.
They aren't looking to make nice Kodak pictures to hang up on walls. They are measuring x-rays and radio waves from very far away. And they seem to be extrapolating the values by using the velocity of the earth. The gas clouds don't need to be focused... the focus is done by taking many many 'blurry' images, and constructing a non blurry one. It seems the point is to actually catch signals that are otherwise too faint... rather than 'zoom' in more on things that are too small.
(That's what I understood at least).
It looks like they are going to extrapolate the original signals by measuring the same image while moving in different directions (thanks to earth's orbit). (I guess the assumption is that the glass clouds are immobile in shape and position).
Doesn't seem to be a heretic claim.
Brilliant sig.
You have to understand that article was first translated from scientific talk to reporting talk, and now it's being translated back to /. nerd talk... (which isn't scientific talk btw).
An example is how they first found the value of the constant of gravity. They put two humoungous iron balls near eachother, and noted the very tiny torque they induced just by being near each other.
The fact that the observed effects were tiny doesn't mean they don't exist.
Hah hah.... I can just see the presidential debates for that:
Martin Michlmayr: I propose a 3 tiered attack onto terrorism. Using the latest advancements in XP (Extreme Power) we will have this baby delivered on time on budget... unlike Bush over here who's going to be many many months past his deadlines, and billions off his initial cost estimates...
It took them a while though to clue in on terrorism, and what a friggin brilliant war machine it is. I mean civil wars in various countries like Columbia, and Turkey (in the recent past) went on forever with no real advance in either camps thanks to terrorism.
It's like a legitimized money laundering scheme at the government level... that's what it is.
You do NOT buy a 110V hair dryer and stick it in 220V just so your hair dries faster. In the same way, overclocking isn't a design spec... it's pure and simple not safe and stable, even if your computer *looks* stable. Small instablities tend to only manifest themselves after a server has been up for a long time under lots of load... not right after a reboot... Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
On a side note, neither the dryer manufacturer nor Intel will provide support for products used out of spec... but there isn't a slashcode site where people bitch about how so and so makes hair dryers that burn your hair off if you put em in 220V... (get my point?)
They are used to explain some phenomena that would seem trivial from an intuitive point of view (such as sound, resonance, pendulum motion etc).
Don't let the words frighten you. At least not these... if you are looking for a monster, go look at quaternions in physics.
I tried emailing you man, that anti-spam armoring sure works well, heck, it even fooled me! =)
Recall, I said "regardless of how well you cook, it doesn't mean you're a chef." This applies to software too, regardless how well you program, doesn't make you a software engineer.
In fact, I know a lot of good programmers, brilliant minds, who just aren't good when it comes to commercial software engineering. The contests they have at places like MIT only show one side of the beast which is software engineering... and that is (and I quote myself again) "to compile a C file". Software engineering requires *many* more skills, such as accountabiltiy, team play even when you don't like your team, estimation estimation and more estimation skills, being able to tone down your pride and speak rationally when told in a meeting that your idea/code doesn't work, perseverance, coming through with your responsabilities, did I mention estimation? And many many more things like knowing how to be able to concentrate on demand (as opposed to sitting down at your desk when you want to)...
For all I care, this guy could have invented SSH2, the math, and the open source library behind it, it doesn't qualify him as a software engineer.
Like I said, only people who have delivered multi million dollar projects, and have lived through the last 5% of those, are qualified in my eyes.
But like I said, this guy might make the best friggin Veal Sautee man kind has ever seen...
PS. What's with AC? chicken?
Any software project, unless extremely lavishly funded will have a crunch at the end. In fact, I'm about ready to assert that any adequately funded project in whatever field it may be will have a delivery crunch. It's routine. I'm not even talking about overtime etc. I'm talking about stress running high, adrenaline pumping, egos flaring. It's in those times that professionalism can make or break the product.
It is a 'well known fact' (whatever that means) that the last 10% of a project takes 90% of the effort.
We all know it's not a fact, it's just humour to a certain extent, but the point is that tying up a project and delivering something complete is something very far from someone doodling a raytracer together over the weekend.
What makes software good isn't the ability to make the core of the functionality work somewhat. It's the ability to make the whole work seemlesly. You know it just as well as I, if you are a software engineer, that in those last 5% the 'boys' get distinguished from the 'men'.
PS. this is not a troll or flame. I'm seriously saying what I think.
IMHO, the major problem about software in the past decade has been people's association of "oh, I can compile a C file" with "I'm a software developer". To me, anyone who hasn't gone through the final 5% of a massive project, the crunch before the deadlines that usually ends up being a death march for many, has no clue as to what is *really* involved in software engineering.
Think of it this way, any family man or woman can cook a decent meal. My parents always cooked very well actually... That doesn't make them chefs.
Anyone can cut down a tree in their back yard. That doesn't make you a lumberjack. In fact, after having seen what lumberjacks do and go through, I'm just amazed at how they still do those things.
In the grand scheme of things, nothing counts. Not the bus driver, not the stock broker on wall street, not the lawyer, not even the judge who overrules a court order... and no, not the apps [we] pump out either. It doesn't change the fact that there is definitely an art and technique involved in it.
I agree with some things you say, and I really am not answering to you in particular. Yes, there is no magic pill, and yes this guy sucks for trying to reinvent the wheel, *yet again*.
Where I work, it's quite a natural thing to let an email sit in your inbox unchecked, or leave an IM popup unanswered for up to 5 minutes. Everyone expects it on the other end.
I personally made a little plugin for my mail client that reads out the subject line of the email and a few of my colleagues use it and like it very much. It instantly lets you know what the email is about without ever having to even look in a different direction, let alone switching windows etc.
It's all about work habits, I think we live in a fast food society where people expect there to be reasons and answers to all problems...
<Great Booming Authoritative voice>The reason why we are unproductive is email.</Great Booming Authoritative voice>
But in fact, it's much more a personal habit thing. If you go to google 200 times a day, it makes sense to put a quicklink somewhere easily accessible to avoid 200 3 click steps. On the other hand, it makes no sense having your desktop cluttered with such stupid links as "Nero Burner"... how many times do you burn discs a day?
My point being that everyone makes their own productivity, there is no miracle answer, and Email is certainly not the plague it's made to be here...
The shares you talk about, you moron, are administrative shares... If your admin password is 123, you might as well pack your stuff and become a lumberjack or something.
Please tell me how it's not Microsoft's fault to make XP users members of the Administrators group by default (the only ones who can access those default shares).
Same as above, go you lumberjack... GO NOW!