> Slashdot Libertarianism is mostly hypocritical anarchism
Naw. It's mostly totally unselfconscious, unexamined selfishness combined with a sort of odd belief in 'freedom' that is so strong that it basically amounts to belief in predestination. ("Everyone has absolute choice in everything that happens to them, so therefore it's obvious that everyone deserves exactly what they are getting. Except me, because I deserve more.")
I've found, as an IT guy, that unless the business is so strapped for cash that they're building their own boxes, you can usually browbeat upper management into getting into compliance, or at least *arguably* into compliance ('well, we only RUN one of these virtual machines at a time, so we only need one license of Win2k3 Server").
A lot of times, IT directors/managers are either unaware that they are out of compliance, or are unwilling to be firm about the need to be in compliance. And in my opinion, either one of those is a sign of a poor IT manager.
Of course, an alternate explanation is that the IT guy purposely let the company go, and then left and reported his self-made mess for a reward. Which I wouldn't put past certain people.
Ben & Jerry's did manage that (the 1:7 ratio) until they were bought out by Unilever.
Not sure how good they were at sticking to the other socially responsible business positions, but from what I understand, even in the segment of the company that is strictly Ben & Jerry's, the 1:7 ratio is no more.
I got a call from the Comcast guy a while back. It was a recorded message but it didn't have a 'if you'd like to be removed from our list, press two' so I pressed one and got a live human.
"Hello, my name is *mumble*, and I'd like to..."
"Hi, please take me off your list."
"But we've got such a great deal! It's just-"
"No. Please take me off your list. I don't even own a television set."
"...well, sir, you don't have to *lie*..."
Click... bzzz. Didn't take me off the list, either.
Takes balls, accusing your potential customer of lying to you and then ensuring that he'll get more calls from your company.
Also I think multiprocessing in the OS is less complicated than many people make it out to be. The OS isn't where the magic has to happen, it's the app. The OS already has things broken up for it in the form of threads and processes. A thread, by definition, can be executed in parallel. So the OS simply needs to decide on the optimum placement of all the threads it's being asked ot run on it's cores. Also, it doesn't have to stick with where it puts them (unless software requests a certain CPU), it can move them if there's reason to. The hard part is in the app, to break it up in to pieces that can be processed at the same time and to keep them all in sync.
Wow. Trust me when I say that scheduling and feeding multiple CPUs and maintaining cache coherency while using any sizable portion of your CPU power is not quite such a handwaving triviality as you make it out to be. In fact, multi-threading applications that do a lot of data manipulation can be completely trivial, but handling a multitasking OS that efficiently uses 8 CPUs but doesn't slow performance on a single thread when measured against a single-CPU machine is really, really hard.
My guess is that it's mostly FUD floated by anti-Windows people. There is, unfortunately, a lot of that going around. For example it was reported on/. that Vista won't support OpenGL (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/06/17725 1). Well it turns out this isn't just false, but is the exact opposite of the truth. Vista indeed supports OpenGL in three different ways...
Admittedly, this FUD was originally spread because Microsoft announced that it would not be supporting OpenGL on future operating systems. It appears they have reversed this decision; good for them.
Oh god I hate x86. I really like Macs, and I'm certainly going to get one of the new x86 Macs eventually. And I'll even take some guilty pleasure in being able to play some of my old (but not DOSBox old) Windows games on the thing. But programming an x86 in assembly is to programming a PPC (or even 680x0) in assembly as writing a GUI program in Cocoa with Interface Builder is to writing the same program in Forth with no graphics libraries. Using ed as your text editor.
I've noticed that at the company I do IT work for, the incidences of machines crashing, slowing to immobility, or actually getting corrupted have gone down significantly. However, when I do run anti-spyware on people's machines, I generally do find several pieces of spyware. (We had an anti-spyware solution installed on all the machines, but it turned out to have a conflict with our antivirus software, so we tried another, which turned out to remove one of the files from the software product that WE PRODUCE. (No, we do not manufacture anything that anyone in his wildest dreams could call spyware.) At some point when things settle down a bit I will do some research and find another one to try.
Maybe what I'm seeing is that the spyware that is out there now is less intrusive and damaging than the spyware that was out there a year and a half ago?
I find that reading your comment gives me eye strain, and digesting the content gives me a serious headache.
Might I suggest that finding the controls for default font on your browser and setting them to a monospace font would not force everyone else to read in a style that, let's face it, they would already be reading in if they found it more readable. Because, let's face it, they probably know how to change the default font on their browsers.
...is that it's better than any of the other ostensible 'Manuals of Style' out there that I've run into.
It's a great set of rules for beginners, and the fact that you don't know that ('no good author in the history of the English language') makes me a little depressed and sad. They never intended it to be a manual of style for e. e. cummings, they intended it to be a manual of style for George from Accounting and Fred the 'OMG my writting si so 1337!!11!1elevendy-one!' college student.
To learn to become an adequate writer, you need to learn the rules of writing. (Doesn't matter which rules, really, they just have to be self-consistent and lead to readable, concise writing that does not significantly offend the reader's sensibilities.) To learn to become a good writer, you need to learn when to break said rules. To learn to become a great writer, something I certainly haven't managed yet, you need to write. And write, and write, and write, and read, and write.
No, if you use a C function, you have to push the reference arguments to the stack, push a frame onto the stack, dereference the function pointer, perform your code, and then move the return value to the return register(s). Then you need to pop the frame from the stack and clean up the registers.
Doesn't that depend on how many arguments the function call has and how many free registers you have at the time? If it's a very simple function call that doesn't have much local data, the code is often inlined by any half-decent compiler anyhow. Which is sort of what you're looking for, speed-wise. But even if it isn't inlined, I seem to recall compiler implementations that can jump to simple functions (ones which require only a couple of arguments and local variables) without touching the stack. Which, again, is really what you're looking for: speeding up small, simple operations. (The bigger the called subroutine, the smaller the advantage is of avoiding the stack frame anyway.)
It's been a while since I worked with embedded systems, but I'm pretty sure I recall our (C for embedded PPC) compiler doing both of these things. Along with strewing 'EIEIO' opcodes liberally throughout the damn program for no readily apparent reason.
Gnutella client Cabos is written in Java, and is lightweight, quick, and I believe it has won an award for its interface.
I've seen it. Don't know whether to be happy that at least someone is making an effort to write open-source Java software with an acceptable interface, or deeply depressed that that's what gets awards for interface design in that world.
From what I've heard, Parallels doesn't even come close to Boot Camp on that front, probably because Apple ported its own drivers specifically for Boot Camp so that all the hardware would work at full speed.
From what I've heard, Parallels runs between 4% slower and 1% faster than XP on a MacBook Pro. The only problem area is graphics. Perhaps you mean 'doesn't even come close to Boot Camp for games? Believe it or not, that's not its target market.
...but the skillset for programming iPod games is a lot closer to the skillset for programming the iPod than it is to the skillset for programming computer games. IMO, an unlikely hire if that's what they're looking to do.
So it's an open question: does an 'advanced performance footwear research laboratory' outweigh lousy materials and sweatshop labor? It's a good question.
I'd buy these in an instant if they included a heart-rate monitor. (Yes, there'd need to be a chest-band. So?) Jogging with just my iPod, no watch (for the HRM) and no anklet (for the pedometer), would be lovely.
No snark, I'm honestly curious. I am a semi-amusing runner (you'd know what I meant if you saw me jogging to work) but I would never wear Nikes. Then again, the reason for that is the fact that I have feet of a rather unusual size, and thus I need New Balance if I want shoes that actually fit.
The inefficiency in Mac OS X, in my experience, is largely in creating new threads/processes. It's horrible, even compared to Windows (threads... it's not as bad as creating a new process on Windows). Thus, if you're running (say) MySQL or Postgres, each of which depends heavily on creating and destroying new threads or processes really quickly (and each of which takes heavy advantage of it basically being free on Linux), the performance is hideous. Hideous. The performance of things that don't do that all the time are actually not bad, though they aren't up to the level of Linux. (Admittedly, this was also based on PPC machines; I haven't gotten to play much with the Intel Macs yet.)
Not that I agree with you in any other way either, but one thing you're totally not thinking of:
> 2,000,000 people with paid-for, unsupported, $100 copies of Mac OS X on their Dells...
In many places, various US states and other countries included, it is actually illegal to sell software that you don't offer support and a warrantee for. If you've ever read a license agreement, you may recall 'if you live in Foo, Bar, Baz, or the District of Columbia, you may have other implied rights' blah blah blah? There are many places where your software has an implied warrantee. Admittedly, Microsoft has done a great deal to lower expectations, but it is not legal to sell software in the US without a warrantee and support unless you somehow keep people from various states from buying it. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Another way to test it might hypothetically be to turn off 3G (thus putting it on 2.5G) and see if it still reproduces?
-fred
You catch it from your kids.
-fred
Was some other interpretation suggested?
-fred
> Slashdot Libertarianism is mostly hypocritical anarchism
Naw. It's mostly totally unselfconscious, unexamined selfishness combined with a sort of odd belief in 'freedom' that is so strong that it basically amounts to belief in predestination. ("Everyone has absolute choice in everything that happens to them, so therefore it's obvious that everyone deserves exactly what they are getting. Except me, because I deserve more.")
-fred
I've found, as an IT guy, that unless the business is so strapped for cash that they're building their own boxes, you can usually browbeat upper management into getting into compliance, or at least *arguably* into compliance ('well, we only RUN one of these virtual machines at a time, so we only need one license of Win2k3 Server").
A lot of times, IT directors/managers are either unaware that they are out of compliance, or are unwilling to be firm about the need to be in compliance. And in my opinion, either one of those is a sign of a poor IT manager.
Of course, an alternate explanation is that the IT guy purposely let the company go, and then left and reported his self-made mess for a reward. Which I wouldn't put past certain people.
-fred
Ben & Jerry's did manage that (the 1:7 ratio) until they were bought out by Unilever.
Not sure how good they were at sticking to the other socially responsible business positions, but from what I understand, even in the segment of the company that is strictly Ben & Jerry's, the 1:7 ratio is no more.
-fred
I got a call from the Comcast guy a while back. It was a recorded message but it didn't have a 'if you'd like to be removed from our list, press two' so I pressed one and got a live human.
"Hello, my name is *mumble*, and I'd like to..."
"Hi, please take me off your list."
"But we've got such a great deal! It's just-"
"No. Please take me off your list. I don't even own a television set."
"...well, sir, you don't have to *lie*..."
Click... bzzz. Didn't take me off the list, either.
Takes balls, accusing your potential customer of lying to you and then ensuring that he'll get more calls from your company.
-fred
Yeah, I'm sure that your health insurance company is totally clean and uses all of their premiums to pay for medical care for its subscribers.
What? Record profits? Record number of claims denied? Record number of people uninsured due to preexisting conditions or high risk status?
-fred
-fred
...that you remember having made this comment when you take your 'compiler design' course in a year or two.
-fred
I'm a manager (and engineer) at a software company, and I'd sooner hire a chimpanzee than hire someone with an attitude like yours.
Just FYI.
-fred
Oh god I hate x86. I really like Macs, and I'm certainly going to get one of the new x86 Macs eventually. And I'll even take some guilty pleasure in being able to play some of my old (but not DOSBox old) Windows games on the thing. But programming an x86 in assembly is to programming a PPC (or even 680x0) in assembly as writing a GUI program in Cocoa with Interface Builder is to writing the same program in Forth with no graphics libraries. Using ed as your text editor.
With no monitor.
-fred
I've noticed that at the company I do IT work for, the incidences of machines crashing, slowing to immobility, or actually getting corrupted have gone down significantly. However, when I do run anti-spyware on people's machines, I generally do find several pieces of spyware. (We had an anti-spyware solution installed on all the machines, but it turned out to have a conflict with our antivirus software, so we tried another, which turned out to remove one of the files from the software product that WE PRODUCE. (No, we do not manufacture anything that anyone in his wildest dreams could call spyware.) At some point when things settle down a bit I will do some research and find another one to try.
Maybe what I'm seeing is that the spyware that is out there now is less intrusive and damaging than the spyware that was out there a year and a half ago?
-fred
I find that reading your comment gives me eye strain, and digesting the content gives me a serious headache.
Might I suggest that finding the controls for default font on your browser and setting them to a monospace font would not force everyone else to read in a style that, let's face it, they would already be reading in if they found it more readable. Because, let's face it, they probably know how to change the default font on their browsers.
-fred
...is that it's better than any of the other ostensible 'Manuals of Style' out there that I've run into.
It's a great set of rules for beginners, and the fact that you don't know that ('no good author in the history of the English language') makes me a little depressed and sad. They never intended it to be a manual of style for e. e. cummings, they intended it to be a manual of style for George from Accounting and Fred the 'OMG my writting si so 1337!!11!1elevendy-one!' college student.
To learn to become an adequate writer, you need to learn the rules of writing. (Doesn't matter which rules, really, they just have to be self-consistent and lead to readable, concise writing that does not significantly offend the reader's sensibilities.) To learn to become a good writer, you need to learn when to break said rules. To learn to become a great writer, something I certainly haven't managed yet, you need to write. And write, and write, and write, and read, and write.
-fred
It's been a while since I worked with embedded systems, but I'm pretty sure I recall our (C for embedded PPC) compiler doing both of these things. Along with strewing 'EIEIO' opcodes liberally throughout the damn program for no readily apparent reason.
-fred
-fred
From what I've heard, Parallels runs between 4% slower and 1% faster than XP on a MacBook Pro. The only problem area is graphics. Perhaps you mean 'doesn't even come close to Boot Camp for games? Believe it or not, that's not its target market.
-fred
...but the skillset for programming iPod games is a lot closer to the skillset for programming the iPod than it is to the skillset for programming computer games. IMO, an unlikely hire if that's what they're looking to do.
-fred
So it's an open question: does an 'advanced performance footwear research laboratory' outweigh lousy materials and sweatshop labor? It's a good question.
-fred
I'd buy these in an instant if they included a heart-rate monitor. (Yes, there'd need to be a chest-band. So?) Jogging with just my iPod, no watch (for the HRM) and no anklet (for the pedometer), would be lovely.
-fred
No snark, I'm honestly curious. I am a semi-amusing runner (you'd know what I meant if you saw me jogging to work) but I would never wear Nikes. Then again, the reason for that is the fact that I have feet of a rather unusual size, and thus I need New Balance if I want shoes that actually fit.
-fred
-fred
The inefficiency in Mac OS X, in my experience, is largely in creating new threads/processes. It's horrible, even compared to Windows (threads... it's not as bad as creating a new process on Windows). Thus, if you're running (say) MySQL or Postgres, each of which depends heavily on creating and destroying new threads or processes really quickly (and each of which takes heavy advantage of it basically being free on Linux), the performance is hideous. Hideous. The performance of things that don't do that all the time are actually not bad, though they aren't up to the level of Linux. (Admittedly, this was also based on PPC machines; I haven't gotten to play much with the Intel Macs yet.)
-fred
Not that I agree with you in any other way either, but one thing you're totally not thinking of:
> 2,000,000 people with paid-for, unsupported, $100 copies of Mac OS X on their Dells...
In many places, various US states and other countries included, it is actually illegal to sell software that you don't offer support and a warrantee for. If you've ever read a license agreement, you may recall 'if you live in Foo, Bar, Baz, or the District of Columbia, you may have other implied rights' blah blah blah? There are many places where your software has an implied warrantee. Admittedly, Microsoft has done a great deal to lower expectations, but it is not legal to sell software in the US without a warrantee and support unless you somehow keep people from various states from buying it. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
-fred