I bought a Kryptonite lock last year, and was hoping to get it replaced under their recall scheme. However, it appears that they require a proof of purchase.
Like I keep all my receipts for the past two years. Arse biscuits. I guess I'll have to buy another lock; but this time I'll avoid Kryptonite.
There are over a dozen C compilers, and several C++ compilers (ICC, GCC, OpenWatcom, Tendra).
Are you sure about this? From checking the OpenWatcom web pages, it appears that their compiler only runs on Windows and OS/2. Likewise, the Tendra documentation indicates that Linux support is aimed at kernels 1.2.8 and 2.0.27; is this compiler still being actively developed on the Linux platform?
Also, out of interest, could you name some of the dozen C compilers? And isn't Visual C++ a Microsoft product? Do they have a Linux product?
You might be right about Fortran not being dead, but you can't reach that conclusion from the facts you presented.
Why ever not? Do you really think that so many vendors would bother creating a compiler for a dead language?
I find it interesting that there are only two C/C++ compilers available for Linux, as compared with seven Fortran 90/95 compilers (soon to be eight with the release of GCC 4.0). This not only dispels the myth that Fortran is a dead language, it also suggests that there is much more of a competitive market in compiling numerical code, than in producing other types of software.
I'm not sure, but I'd guess that 4.0 is the place where major development is happening, where major changes/improvements are made, whereas 3.5 is where minor/incremental stuff is being done.
I'm afraid you're wrong. 3.5 is the current development version of GCC. Amongst other things (which include a new Fortran 95 frontend -- hurrah!), it uses a wholly-new optimization architecture known as 'Tree-SSA'. This change is so radical that it was recently decided that 3.5 should actually be released as new major revision -- i.e., 4.0 -- rather than as 3.6 (recall that many open source projects use odd minor version numbers for development branches, and even ones for stable releases). Therefore, 4.0 is what 3.5 will be once it is released as stable.
You may recall that a similar version renaming was mooted for the latest Linux kernel, but it was decided to leave it as 2.6 rather than 'upgrading' it to 3.0.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
Hell, I would have built a wetware turing machine using a dozen grad students armed with abacii. In treacle. With Natalie Portman implementing the I/O subsystem.
It's official. I'm the last surviving human who knows how to use an apostrophe properly.
Huh? You mean that apostrophe's are not used to announce the presence of an upcoming 's' on the end of word's? Surely 10 million US retailer's can't be wrong?!
Hm. I'm not familiar with supercomputers... does Fortran have some sort of built-in support for being run on them?
Yes, it does. There is a Fortran 95 language variant known as High-Performance Fortran (HPF), specifically targetted at coding for parallel computers. Fortran also sits very well with OpenMP.
Fortran does not need a JIT, since it compiles straight to machine code rather than intermediate bytecode.
I think the major reason Fortran is used is because of legacy algorithms (and legacy programmers!)
This is a common misconception, that Fortran is somehow a dead, legacy language. However, it so happens that this myth is even easier to dispel today, than on most other days. Why? Because news has just been posted to the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup that the Fortran 2003 standard has just been ratified.
But yeah, good job Bush, after losing a bunch of jobs you got some of them back.
The problem with the jobs he's got back is that they are of lower quality than the jobs lost. So, an overall net loss and the recent job gains are in sectors such as burger flipping.
...on top of the fact that his post is meaningless (see other responses), this is the 'genius' who believes in 'Artificial Intelligence from the Bible'. See, for instance, this Google post.
I didn't express an opinion, I stated a fact. Are you not the same 'Louis Savain' whose posts to sci.physics.relativity, amongst other Usenet groups, are the source of much ridicule and disdain?
Of all the scientific fields, only physicists make this idiotic claim. Why? Because they really have no clue as to what is really going on. All other sciences are based on causality, from biology to psychology to artificial intelligence and computer science. Physicists have fallen in love with ignorance and pedantry.
Says a well-known crackpot, whose loony posts to sci.physics.relativity are the sole driving force behind the ever-bouyant market for humour-related incontinence pads.
Just search through Google Newsgroups for "Louis Savain"; you're sure to get a taste of his clever fusion between conspiracy theory and moronic pseudoscience!
Furthermore, anything more complex than the two-body problem is chaotic and incapable of exact solution, so it's up to the two-body problem to carry us along.
Not quite; the restricted three-body problem, where one of the masses is infinitessimal compared to the other two, can be solved analytically. The solutions reveal the existence of five points where the net effective force on the massless third body vanishes -- these points being, of course, the Lagrange points familar to students of orbital mechanics.
I'm surprised that the reviewer found so much of the material new; do college physics courses these days not include classical mechanics and the like?
I'm sure Daniel Bernstein does not 'protect' his valuable data by calculating their MD5 checksum, and then deleting the originals. Which is the point I was making.
Agreed -- I guess I was making a mental distinction between reversible encryption for protected data storage, and irreversable encryption (i.e., hashing) for authentication.
I use MD5. Not one collision ever found in the wild.
On the off chance that this isn't a joke, and you're one of the genii on/. who thinks that MD5 has anything to do with cryptography, let's reiterate:
MD5 is a hashing algorithm. All hashing algorithms are guaranteed to collide, since hashing is the process of reducing an N-fold dataset to an M-fold one, where M<N.
Because of this, hashing is irreversable, and therefor only an idiot would use it for encryption. It's proper purpose is for checksuming.
Slashdot Mirror
... the word porn is not in the archive. I mean, how the fuck did that happen? Is this the vice that dare not speak its name?
I bought a Kryptonite lock last year, and was hoping to get it replaced under their recall scheme. However, it appears that they require a proof of purchase.
Like I keep all my receipts for the past two years. Arse biscuits. I guess I'll have to buy another lock; but this time I'll avoid Kryptonite.
There are over a dozen C compilers, and several C++ compilers (ICC, GCC, OpenWatcom, Tendra).
Are you sure about this? From checking the OpenWatcom web pages, it appears that their compiler only runs on Windows and OS/2. Likewise, the Tendra documentation indicates that Linux support is aimed at kernels 1.2.8 and 2.0.27; is this compiler still being actively developed on the Linux platform?
Also, out of interest, could you name some of the dozen C compilers? And isn't Visual C++ a Microsoft product? Do they have a Linux product?
You might be right about Fortran not being dead, but you can't reach that conclusion from the facts you presented.
Why ever not? Do you really think that so many vendors would bother creating a compiler for a dead language?
I find it interesting that there are only two C/C++ compilers available for Linux, as compared with seven Fortran 90/95 compilers (soon to be eight with the release of GCC 4.0). This not only dispels the myth that Fortran is a dead language, it also suggests that there is much more of a competitive market in compiling numerical code, than in producing other types of software.
I'm not sure, but I'd guess that 4.0 is the place where major development is happening, where major changes/improvements are made, whereas 3.5 is where minor/incremental stuff is being done.
I'm afraid you're wrong. 3.5 is the current development version of GCC. Amongst other things (which include a new Fortran 95 frontend -- hurrah!), it uses a wholly-new optimization architecture known as 'Tree-SSA'. This change is so radical that it was recently decided that 3.5 should actually be released as new major revision -- i.e., 4.0 -- rather than as 3.6 (recall that many open source projects use odd minor version numbers for development branches, and even ones for stable releases). Therefore, 4.0 is what 3.5 will be once it is released as stable.
You may recall that a similar version renaming was mooted for the latest Linux kernel, but it was decided to leave it as 2.6 rather than 'upgrading' it to 3.0.
[insert obligatory joke about old people]
(putting on best Dr. Zoidberg voice): Now that's humour! I like it, I like it!
[insert obligatory joke about overheating server]
What, you're not even going to bother coming up with the joke? Jeez, when did the youth of today become so damn lazy? People like you make me puke!
The plural of abacus is abaci - only one "i"
I was being ironic.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
Hell, I would have built a wetware turing machine using a dozen grad students armed with abacii. In treacle. With Natalie Portman implementing the I/O subsystem.
...the only sport where a match takes 5 days, and often ends in a draw. You gotta love it -- and I do!
You mean about the pasty skin, fucked up teeth and effeminate speech? You're right, I'll have to shelve those...
LOL, and this from the land where "brave" means laser-guided bombs from 20,000 feet, and helicopter gunships against unarmed civilians.
It's official. I'm the last surviving human who knows how to use an apostrophe properly.
Huh? You mean that apostrophe's are not used to announce the presence of an upcoming 's' on the end of word's? Surely 10 million US retailer's can't be wrong?!
Hm. I'm not familiar with supercomputers... does Fortran have some sort of built-in support for being run on them?
Yes, it does. There is a Fortran 95 language variant known as High-Performance Fortran (HPF), specifically targetted at coding for parallel computers. Fortran also sits very well with OpenMP.
Fortran does not need a JIT, since it compiles straight to machine code rather than intermediate bytecode.
I think the major reason Fortran is used is because of legacy algorithms (and legacy programmers!)
This is a common misconception, that Fortran is somehow a dead, legacy language. However, it so happens that this myth is even easier to dispel today, than on most other days. Why? Because news has just been posted to the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup that the Fortran 2003 standard has just been ratified.
Most of the female geeks I've met haven't looked much better than their stereotypical male counterparts.
Hurrah! Yet another opportunity to post a gratuitous link to the gorgeous ubergeekbabe Ceren Ercen . She turns my y-fronts into y-nots!
But yeah, good job Bush, after losing a bunch of jobs you got some of them back.
The problem with the jobs he's got back is that they are of lower quality than the jobs lost. So, an overall net loss and the recent job gains are in sectors such as burger flipping.
Doesn't provide as many choices or the technological /security understanding of Hardened Gentoo
While I confess to being a hard-core Gentoo nut, isn't choice often the mother of all fuck ups? What's wrong with doing one thing and doing it right?
...on top of the fact that his post is meaningless (see other responses), this is the 'genius' who believes in 'Artificial Intelligence from the Bible'. See, for instance, this Google post.
What a nutter!
And your opinion matters to me because...?
I didn't express an opinion, I stated a fact. Are you not the same 'Louis Savain' whose posts to sci.physics.relativity, amongst other Usenet groups, are the source of much ridicule and disdain?
And your opinion matters to me because...?
LOL, you even use the same kooky lines on /., as in your newsgroup ramblings.
DRINK! (and then pack it up your ass)
Of all the scientific fields, only physicists make this idiotic claim. Why? Because they really have no clue as to what is really going on. All other sciences are based on causality, from biology to psychology to artificial intelligence and computer science. Physicists have fallen in love with ignorance and pedantry.
Says a well-known crackpot, whose loony posts to sci.physics.relativity are the sole driving force behind the ever-bouyant market for humour-related incontinence pads.
Just search through Google Newsgroups for "Louis Savain"; you're sure to get a taste of his clever fusion between conspiracy theory and moronic pseudoscience!
Furthermore, anything more complex than the two-body problem is chaotic and incapable of exact solution, so it's up to the two-body problem to carry us along.
Not quite; the restricted three-body problem, where one of the masses is infinitessimal compared to the other two, can be solved analytically. The solutions reveal the existence of five points where the net effective force on the massless third body vanishes -- these points being, of course, the Lagrange points familar to students of orbital mechanics.
I'm surprised that the reviewer found so much of the material new; do college physics courses these days not include classical mechanics and the like?
Try telling that to Daniel Bernstein.
I'm sure Daniel Bernstein does not 'protect' his valuable data by calculating their MD5 checksum, and then deleting the originals. Which is the point I was making.
Agreed -- I guess I was making a mental distinction between reversible encryption for protected data storage, and irreversable encryption (i.e., hashing) for authentication.
I use MD5. Not one collision ever found in the wild.
On the off chance that this isn't a joke, and you're one of the genii on /. who thinks that MD5 has anything to do with cryptography, let's reiterate:
MD5 is a hashing algorithm. All hashing algorithms are guaranteed to collide, since hashing is the process of reducing an N-fold dataset to an M-fold one, where M<N.
Because of this, hashing is irreversable, and therefor only an idiot would use it for encryption. It's proper purpose is for checksuming.