Hehe. I'm a programmer. Here's another part of the problem:
Programming is, to a good extent, a lot like art. There is a LOT of design work involved. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. Just opinion.
Can you imagine getting together 1000 world-class artists, asking them for a portrait, and then trying to get them to agree in what style to paint and what colors to use?
Good god no.
Everyone has there opinion on how things should be done. Some people agree to a good extent, or atleast to enough of an extent that they can work together happily. Hence Crystal Space and Linux. But, it's not always that pretty. A lot of people just have conflicting styles and shouldn't be allowed in the same room when discussing proramming.
Man, you are so right. Same thing with those damned stamp collectors.
I mean, why the hell do they do it by themselves. It's not like they are going to have the best one in the world with so many people competing against them.
Instead, everyone in the world should join ONE BIG stamp collecting group. Then they'd have the BEST collection of stamps in the WORLD!
Whoooo!!!
Oh, wait. What do you mean they do it for fun? They program because the like learning? Enjoy it? Not for the purpose of taking over the world or pleasing others?
Oh god. So confused.
Justin Dubs
Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Keep talking tough guy. Someone will believe you.
There's nothing in CSS that would not permit it to be processed in to code in a dynamically interpreted language. Say Python. Using say TCL.
Or hell, just turn the css + html into C, call the compiler, make it a dynamically loadable library, load it, and use it to render. Yes, this is a dumb idea, but it's just one very obvious way of turning it into native widgets.
There are many better ways which don't involve the compile/load step, which would be very simple with any dynamic language.
Anyone who has the attitude that anything will "never" be possible is full of shit.
Or are you saying that it is beyond the scope of a turning machine to do this kind of thing? In which case you are also wrong.
Just shut the fuck up and sit down and let daddy do the work for you you incompetant bafoon.
He's not knocking it. He's making a joke. You know, funny, ha ha. Some people enjoy making jokes, laughing at jokes, and humor in general. General. Get it. Hah hah.
You seem to not be one of those people. And that's okay. But no need to get defensive. I doubt he has anything particularly against you, TheCabal, or the military.
People make fun of things. Things get made fun of. The army isn't special in this. And they shouldn't be one of the exceptions. If we make them a group that you "can't" make fun of, then we lose some of that precious freedom that you are trying to protect.
So, either laugh with them, or just ignore them, but no need to berade the man for having a sense of humor.
It has nothing to do with anti-religions slander. It has to do with poking fun at a current news topic.
If the media for the last few weeks had been full of articles about black people molesting fried chickens, then your post would have been modded up to funny too.
Besides, it's not ignorance, slander or hatred. It's humor. Just because your sense of humor doesn't include the post you are flaming doesn't make it not funny. It just makes it not funny to you.
The one thing no one ever seems to realize is that things external to yourself don't have the ability to directly effect your emotions. Only after being processed by your brain/soul, whatever you choose to believe in, do these things have the ability to affect your emotions.
So, just because this post angers you and you don't find it funny doesn't mean that the post is angering or that the post is not funny. The post has no such properties. It is just words. What it means is that the post angered you and that you don't find it to be funny. This may not be true for all people, or even for most people.
So, you are a bit pre-mature in your flame of what I thought to be a simple, but effective, joke.
Actually, Command-Q is kinda legacy. Most of the new Mac folk call it Apple-Q. Thus, the Apple key is the direct equivalent of the Windows key, right down to the little picture of the Apple mirroring the little Windows logo.
But I degress...
Speaking to the intuitive-ness of the chosen keystroke, I suggest a comparison.
Apple: Apple+Q
As the Q obviously stands for quit, as you can see by looking at the Application menu of any program and seeing the Apple-Q written next to the Quit option, this makes a bit of sense. It is also consistent as most things done to windows in Apple-land are done via Apple-X combinations.
Windows: Alt+F4
This is incredibly intuitive as F4 is obviously code for F * 4. As F is the 6th letter of the alphabet, this makes the value of F4 equal to 24, or X. As X is the second letter in eXit, this should have been obvious to everyone.
Plus, I mean, F1 was taken for the obvious Help, F2 for the incredibly intuitive rename and F3 is left bare for the obvious reason that it's so damned hard to find.
I mean, F1, first F key, no problem. F2, right next to F1. F4, last of the first group of F keys, assuming they are in blocks of 4. But F3, good god, where the hell is it? Do I even have one?
Linux: ???
Due to Linux's deathly fear of standards and even defaults there is no global close window key. Several window managers have it bound to Alt+F4 though for the sake of Windows-compatibility. Other's have none. Others are pseudo-randomly generated and run-time it would seem, given how much sense they make.
I just use Ctrl+Alt+Backspace cause, I mean, what the hell is X doing running on my server anyway?
You can always just use whatever hostname seems logical, disable all the NetBIOS shit on the windows boxes, and then setup and internal DNS server to resolve the names.
This way you can create something more hierarchical and verbose.
Example:
# joe dehli's first workstation (ws) jdehli1.ws.mydomain.com # joe dehli's second workstation (ws) jdehli2.ws.mydomain.com
# first mass-storage file server (srv) files1.srv.mydomain.com # second mass-storage file server (srv) files2.srv.mydomain.com
You can even go so far as to use LDAP for resolution depending on what platforms you plan on supporting and what needs you have for this naming system.
You just have to Apple-Drag now. Works with arbitrary amount of text and with images, hypterlinks, html, rtf and most anything else you can think of. Very useful indeed.
Pretend that OS X and linux are functionally equivalent. All of a sudden linux introduces accelerated support for alpha blending and better looking fonts and a beautiful animated GUI that blows OS X out of the water.
Linux communities response:
Woohoo! We are so much more l33t and advanced than OS X. Our fonts are better and everything is animated and pretty. We win!
Scenario:
Pretend that OS X and linux are functionally equivalent. All of a sudden OS Xintroduces accelerated support for alpha blending and better looking fonts and a beautiful animated GUI that blows linux out of the water.
Linux communities response:
Stupid Macs are so slow now. So they are pretty, but all those features are really worthless and just suck up RAM. The GUI just hides you from the command line, the fonts are just way to easy to read and take the challenge out of using unix, and the alpha blending is just a way to force me into buying more expensive hardware just to get the GUI to be responsive.
Step 1 is realizing that Aqua is, contrary to popular belief, NOT a CPU hog. On my G4 PowerBook at 667Mhz, with 8 windows open and the dock with a shitload of icons in it I am currently using between 0.5% and 2% of my CPU time for Aqua.
Step 2 is realizing that Mac OS X is NOT the only OS that will run on PPC hardware. Put on Linux or NetBSD if that will make you happier.
A G4 is capable of between 7 and 8 Gigaflops. So, You'r number of 152 G4's is reasonable. However, your price of $440,000 divided by the 152 G4's indicates a per unit price of $2894.
This is bullshit.
At $2894 you are $100 away from getting a Dual G4. You can get a single-proc G4 at 800Mhz at $1400. Not counting the quantity discount.
Using the Dual G4's you would need 67 of them, for a total price of $201,000. With the single G4's at 800Mhz you would need 156 of them for a total of $218,000.
Now, the Athon critique:
Let me see her. 64.5GFlops with 64 machines, that's 1Flop per machine. That's at 700Mhz. At 1400Mhz like you said, that's 2GFlops per machine. So, you need 500 of them. Using your figure of $600 per machine, this would be $300,000. If you went with Dual Thunderbirds you could get this down to 250 machines at closer to $100 a piece taking it down to $250,000. Not counting the quantity discount.
So, we have $250k to $201k using my rough mathematics. This is $49k price different in favor of the Apples, not counting the fact that you need 4 times as many Athlons.
Other miscellaneous critiques:
Doubling the speed of the Athon does NOT double the throughput in Gigaflops. That was a nice try though.
The problem is that unix-based is not unix. Yes, Mac OS X is unix-based. Which parts of it are unix-based is what you seem to be unclear on.
The kernel is unix-based. The file-system structure and memory-management is unix-based. The networking is unix-based. The GUI is not.
Mac is only partially derived from unix.
Unix DOES have bad fonts. Horrible ones. The Unix GUI is horrible.
The Mac GUI is not the unix gui and DOES have beautiful fonts.
Anyway, my point is, if you are going to go off on a rant about closure and quantification than you should have avoided the phrase unix-based as this phrase indicates not equality but similarity and therefore, I believe, my statements were in fact not contradictory.
By the way, Windows 2000 is also unix-based in some respects. It uses the BSD networking code and other unix-ish things. Therefore, I must also have been indicating that Windows has horrible fonts.
I run RedHat on my main workstation and BSD on a bunch of my servers. I also have a PC running Win2K, a G4 Titanium PowerBook and a Solaris boxen.
I by far prefer the working environment of linux to all of the others, aside from the Mac. Sorry, Mac OS 10.1 is absolutely fabulous.
The only thing about the unix environment, especially the linux environment, that really gets to me is the complete lack of good fonts.
Windows, love it or loathe it, has very nice true-type, well-hinted fonts. They are very easy to read, even when small. They have serif, they have sans-serif, and both are beautiful.
Mac OS 10.1 has even better fonts, I think, although many might disagree. Regardless, not far removed in quality from that of windows, whether better or worse.
However, what no will will disagree about is that the fonts in linux suck. They are ugly. They are unreadable when small. They are badly aliased. They need to be put out of their misery.
Some may think this is inconsiquential, but I feel otherwise. I believe that until linux can produce some wonderful fonts of it's own, and use them by default without having to install anything, and have every program use them, even old ones that were written before the fonts were around, linux will never be able to touch windows or mac on the desktop.
The average has nothing to do with the middle, the half-way point, the 50% mark. The average is the average.
In a class of 10 people if you have 9 100%'s and 1 0%, your average is ((9*100 + 1*0) / 10) = 90%. You'd be hard-pressed to find 5 out of those ten people that are below 90%.
The word you were looking for is median. The median is the one in the middle and 50% of people are necessarily below that.
The mean, or the average, is the sum of all the values divided by the number of values and is not related to the median at all.
OpenGL 2.0 is due out "shortly." If you've followed it's deveopment much or read any of the proposed specs that 3dfx has released than you would probably feel differently.
Yes, DirectX has a fast development cycle. This also implies that they release new APIs frequently and force code migration.
OpenGL is far more mature as evidenced that even though no new OpenGL spec has come out for years it is still just as feature-rich as Direct3D.
With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.
Haha. That's a very interesting topic. And it has two basic kinds of solutions. You have to end up using the data as code, or using the code as data. Regardless, the kind of program you are talking about is called a quine. Yes, a quine. If you google it you should get some good tutorials. Hehe. Oh the memories. Have fun,
Slashdot Mirror
That's not going to happen. I'd remember it. :-)
Justin Dubs
Hehe. I'm a programmer. Here's another part of the problem:
Programming is, to a good extent, a lot like art. There is a LOT of design work involved. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. Just opinion.
Can you imagine getting together 1000 world-class artists, asking them for a portrait, and then trying to get them to agree in what style to paint and what colors to use?
Good god no.
Everyone has there opinion on how things should be done. Some people agree to a good extent, or atleast to enough of an extent that they can work together happily. Hence Crystal Space and Linux. But, it's not always that pretty. A lot of people just have conflicting styles and shouldn't be allowed in the same room when discussing proramming.
Justin Dubs
Man, you are so right. Same thing with those damned stamp collectors.
I mean, why the hell do they do it by themselves. It's not like they are going to have the best one in the world with so many people competing against them.
Instead, everyone in the world should join ONE BIG stamp collecting group. Then they'd have the BEST collection of stamps in the WORLD!
Whoooo!!!
Oh, wait. What do you mean they do it for fun? They program because the like learning? Enjoy it? Not for the purpose of taking over the world or pleasing others?
Oh god. So confused.
Justin Dubs
Keep talking tough guy. Someone will believe you.
There's nothing in CSS that would not permit it to be processed in to code in a dynamically interpreted language. Say Python. Using say TCL.
Or hell, just turn the css + html into C, call the compiler, make it a dynamically loadable library, load it, and use it to render. Yes, this is a dumb idea, but it's just one very obvious way of turning it into native widgets.
There are many better ways which don't involve the compile/load step, which would be very simple with any dynamic language.
Anyone who has the attitude that anything will "never" be possible is full of shit.
Or are you saying that it is beyond the scope of a turning machine to do this kind of thing? In which case you are also wrong.
Just shut the fuck up and sit down and let daddy do the work for you you incompetant bafoon.
Dubs
He's not knocking it. He's making a joke. You know, funny, ha ha. Some people enjoy making jokes, laughing at jokes, and humor in general. General. Get it. Hah hah.
You seem to not be one of those people. And that's okay. But no need to get defensive. I doubt he has anything particularly against you, TheCabal, or the military.
People make fun of things. Things get made fun of. The army isn't special in this. And they shouldn't be one of the exceptions. If we make them a group that you "can't" make fun of, then
we lose some of that precious freedom that you are trying to protect.
So, either laugh with them, or just ignore them, but no need to berade the man for having a sense of humor.
Justin Dubs
It has nothing to do with anti-religions slander. It has to do with poking fun at a current news topic.
If the media for the last few weeks had been full of articles about black people molesting fried chickens, then your post would have been modded up to funny too.
Besides, it's not ignorance, slander or hatred. It's humor. Just because your sense of humor doesn't include the post you are flaming doesn't make it not funny. It just makes it not funny to you.
The one thing no one ever seems to realize is that things external to yourself don't have the ability to directly effect your emotions. Only after being processed by your brain/soul, whatever you choose to believe in, do these things have the ability to affect your emotions.
So, just because this post angers you and you don't find it funny doesn't mean that the post is angering or that the post is not funny. The post has no such properties. It is just words. What it means is that the post angered you and that you don't find it to be funny. This may not be true for all people, or even for most people.
So, you are a bit pre-mature in your flame of what I thought to be a simple, but effective, joke.
"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
Justin
Actually, Command-Q is kinda legacy. Most of the new Mac folk call it Apple-Q. Thus, the Apple key is the direct equivalent of the Windows key, right down to the little picture of the Apple mirroring the little Windows logo.
But I degress...
Speaking to the intuitive-ness of the chosen keystroke, I suggest a comparison.
Apple: Apple+Q
As the Q obviously stands for quit, as you can see by looking at the Application menu of any program and seeing the Apple-Q written next to the Quit option, this makes a bit of sense. It is also consistent as most things done to windows in Apple-land are done via Apple-X combinations.
Windows: Alt+F4
This is incredibly intuitive as F4 is obviously code for F * 4. As F is the 6th letter of the alphabet, this makes the value of F4 equal to 24, or X. As X is the second letter in eXit, this should have been obvious to everyone.
Plus, I mean, F1 was taken for the obvious Help, F2 for the incredibly intuitive rename and F3 is left bare for the obvious reason that it's so damned hard to find.
I mean, F1, first F key, no problem. F2, right next to F1. F4, last of the first group of F keys, assuming they are in blocks of 4. But F3, good god, where the hell is it? Do I even have one?
Linux: ???
Due to Linux's deathly fear of standards and even defaults there is no global close window key. Several window managers have it bound to Alt+F4 though for the sake of Windows-compatibility. Other's have none. Others are pseudo-randomly generated and run-time it would seem, given how much sense they make.
I just use Ctrl+Alt+Backspace cause, I mean, what the hell is X doing running on my server anyway?
Justin Dubs
How in the world do you linux people put up with those shitty ass fonts?
Those screenshots for the new Gnome have just about the ugliest fonts I've ever seen in my life, next to the rest of linux that is.
I just have trouble believing that in the year 2002 you guys still don't have nice hinted fonts shipping and in-use by default with X.
I'm looking at these screenshots on my Titanium PowerBook G4, and I just glance back and forth between the screenshots and Aqua, and I laugh.
Justin Dubs
IBM seems to have a passion for products with there own proprietary widget toolsets...
*cough* eclipse *cough*
Justin Dubs
Just curious if you sig says what I think it says:
"If you try and force peace, prepare for war."
Just curious. If so, I like it.
Have fun,
Justin dubs
You can always just use whatever hostname seems logical, disable all the NetBIOS shit on the windows boxes, and then setup and internal DNS server to resolve the names.
This way you can create something more hierarchical and verbose.
Example:
# joe dehli's first workstation (ws)
jdehli1.ws.mydomain.com
# joe dehli's second workstation (ws)
jdehli2.ws.mydomain.com
# first mass-storage file server (srv)
files1.srv.mydomain.com
# second mass-storage file server (srv)
files2.srv.mydomain.com
You can even go so far as to use LDAP for resolution depending on what platforms you plan on supporting and what needs you have for this naming system.
Just some ideas.
Justin Dubs
OS X ships by default with Perl. Perl 5.6.1 in fact. Built natively for Darwin.
So, unless you need the added functionality of MacPerl, I wouldn't worry about it.
Justin Dubs
You just have to Apple-Drag now. Works with arbitrary amount of text and with images, hypterlinks, html, rtf and most anything else you can think of. Very useful indeed.
Have fun,
Justin Dubs
News Flash! Poor Counties Choose Free Operating Systems!
Justin Dubs
The funny part is thus:
Scenario:
Pretend that OS X and linux are functionally equivalent. All of a sudden linux introduces accelerated support for alpha blending and better looking fonts and a beautiful animated GUI that blows OS X out of the water.
Linux communities response:
Woohoo! We are so much more l33t and advanced than OS X. Our fonts are better and everything is animated and pretty. We win!
Scenario:
Pretend that OS X and linux are functionally equivalent. All of a sudden OS Xintroduces accelerated support for alpha blending and better looking fonts and a beautiful animated GUI that blows linux out of the water.
Linux communities response:
Stupid Macs are so slow now. So they are pretty, but all those features are really worthless and just suck up RAM. The GUI just hides you from the command line, the fonts are just way to easy to read and take the challenge out of using unix, and the alpha blending is just a way to force me into buying more expensive hardware just to get the GUI to be responsive.
Justin Dubs
This will be great because sometimes I like to wear hats.
Justin Dubs
Step 1 is realizing that Aqua is, contrary to popular belief, NOT a CPU hog. On my G4 PowerBook at 667Mhz, with 8 windows open and the dock with a shitload of icons in it I am currently using between 0.5% and 2% of my CPU time for Aqua.
Step 2 is realizing that Mac OS X is NOT the only OS that will run on PPC hardware. Put on Linux or NetBSD if that will make you happier.
Justin Dubs
If only any of your math made any sense at all.
First the Apple critique:
A G4 is capable of between 7 and 8 Gigaflops. So, You'r number of 152 G4's is reasonable. However, your price of $440,000 divided by the 152 G4's indicates a per unit price of $2894.
This is bullshit.
At $2894 you are $100 away from getting a Dual G4. You can get a single-proc G4 at 800Mhz at $1400. Not counting the quantity discount.
Using the Dual G4's you would need 67 of them, for a total price of $201,000. With the single G4's at 800Mhz you would need 156 of them for a total of $218,000.
Now, the Athon critique:
Let me see her. 64.5GFlops with 64 machines, that's 1Flop per machine. That's at 700Mhz. At 1400Mhz like you said, that's 2GFlops per machine. So, you need 500 of them. Using your figure of $600 per machine, this would be $300,000. If you went with Dual Thunderbirds you could get this down to 250 machines at closer to $100 a piece taking it down to $250,000. Not counting the quantity discount.
So, we have $250k to $201k using my rough mathematics. This is $49k price different in favor of the Apples, not counting the fact that you need 4 times as many Athlons.
Other miscellaneous critiques:
Doubling the speed of the Athon does NOT double the throughput in Gigaflops. That was a nice try though.
Anyway, have fun,
Justin Dubs
The problem is that unix-based is not unix. Yes, Mac OS X is unix-based. Which parts of it are unix-based is what you seem to be unclear on.
The kernel is unix-based. The file-system structure and memory-management is unix-based. The networking is unix-based. The GUI is not.
Mac is only partially derived from unix.
Unix DOES have bad fonts. Horrible ones. The Unix GUI is horrible.
The Mac GUI is not the unix gui and DOES have beautiful fonts.
Anyway, my point is, if you are going to go off on a rant about closure and quantification than you should have avoided the phrase unix-based as this phrase indicates not equality but similarity and therefore, I believe, my statements were in fact not contradictory.
By the way, Windows 2000 is also unix-based in some respects. It uses the BSD networking code and other unix-ish things. Therefore, I must also have been indicating that Windows has horrible fonts.
Anyway, have a good night,
Justin Dubs
I run RedHat on my main workstation and BSD on a bunch of my servers. I also have a PC running Win2K, a G4 Titanium PowerBook and a Solaris boxen.
I by far prefer the working environment of linux to all of the others, aside from the Mac. Sorry, Mac OS 10.1 is absolutely fabulous.
The only thing about the unix environment, especially the linux environment, that really gets to me is the complete lack of good fonts.
Windows, love it or loathe it, has very nice true-type, well-hinted fonts. They are very easy to read, even when small. They have serif, they have sans-serif, and both are beautiful.
Mac OS 10.1 has even better fonts, I think, although many might disagree. Regardless, not far removed in quality from that of windows, whether better or worse.
However, what no will will disagree about is that the fonts in linux suck. They are ugly. They are unreadable when small. They are badly aliased. They need to be put out of their misery.
Some may think this is inconsiquential, but I feel otherwise. I believe that until linux can produce some wonderful fonts of it's own, and use them by default without having to install anything, and have every program use them, even old ones that were written before the fonts were around, linux will never be able to touch windows or mac on the desktop.
But, hey, I'm just talking here...
Justin Dubs
There's a strange sort of irony in your sig.
The average has nothing to do with the middle, the half-way point, the 50% mark. The average is the average.
In a class of 10 people if you have 9 100%'s and 1 0%, your average is ((9*100 + 1*0) / 10) = 90%. You'd be hard-pressed to find 5 out of those ten people that are below 90%.
The word you were looking for is median. The median is the one in the middle and 50% of people are necessarily below that.
The mean, or the average, is the sum of all the values divided by the number of values and is not related to the median at all.
Justin Dubs
Yeah. Sorry. Typo. It's been a long day, I knew it started with a 3d and the brain said 3dfx. Nostalgia I suppose.
Justin Dubs
OpenGL 2.0 is due out "shortly." If you've followed it's deveopment much or read any of the proposed specs that 3dfx has released than you would probably feel differently.
Yes, DirectX has a fast development cycle. This also implies that they release new APIs frequently and force code migration.
OpenGL is far more mature as evidenced that even though no new OpenGL spec has come out for years it is still just as feature-rich as Direct3D.
With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.
Justin Dubs
Haha. That's a very interesting topic. And it has two basic kinds of solutions. You have to end up using the data as code, or using the code as data. Regardless, the kind of program you are talking about is called a quine. Yes, a quine. If you google it you should get some good tutorials. Hehe. Oh the memories. Have fun,
Justin Dubs
Unfortunately, having tacked on support for "[evaluating] lambda-calculus expressions" is not the same as being lambda-calculus based.
The former implies that the lambda syntax is optional and not universal.
The latter implies that the language itself is rooted soley in lambda-calculus.
Mathematical provability does you no good at all with a mix of lambda and non-lambda syntax.
Nice link though. Thanks,
Justin Dubs