i suppose if you count training as an initial cost, and you buy RedHat enterprise edition and you have to hire experienced admins, then the initial cost isn't 0.
Michael Howard wears a t-shirt with this inscription when he gives training on Windows. I saw him at some freebie M$ seminar. He's a good speaker, and overcomes the technical flaws in his presentations with glibness and flair. He spoke about not running as admin, but ignored the issue that many if not most Windows software doesn't work if you are not admin.
Re:Make XP N mandatory: customers screwed
on
Windows XP N a Bust
·
· Score: 1
so screw the consumer to punish microsoft. that makes a lot of sense. the whole point of TFA is that no one wants XP N. Oh, wait,I forgot, consumers are too stupid to know what they want.
csh, korn, bourne and sh predate Linux. Bash is a GNU product, not Linux. Yes, usage under Linux has refined them but almost all the concepts and implementations were done separately from Linux.
also check out blatchford section on distributed processing. I have seen several media level articles blabbering on about massively distributed processing with the implication that the Cell processor automatically does this. I don't see anything in his diagrams that can't be done by any computer with a network.
Cells can distribute data to other processors (can't any computer do that?)
the local network is used, Cell doesn't care which one (ok, so it isn't the Cell that is doing the distributing after all)
OS should take care of it without user intervention (so its the software, not the processor)
I guess if all the processors are the same, then they could carry the code along with the data to get things done. But still, any computer can do this. Since he mentions SETI@home, isn't that what it does and it doesn't care about what the nodes are? I suppose you could imagine some finer grained computation scheme based on his diagram, but pretty quickly the network overhead would wreck your throughput.
my son-in-law has taken it several times and claims a 48-60 hour waking period without fatigue. He also says he can go to sleep during that time IF he wants to. My daughter says the only side effect she sees is he gets a little more cranky than usual.
Microsoft also has had DHTML+Time for years, which let you script actions based on timeouts, greatly facilitating animation and periodic update.
TFA contains gratuitous private info, like O'gara
on
VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
TFA is great work and right on target, but too bad the blog also stoops to doing some personal snooping and posting links to some personal info stuff about a couple of people involved. That brings it almost to the level of the O'gara stuff about PJ. It even points out one person's religion (ala OGara), as if that matters. You could argue that its part of the investigation of who is who in this affair. Thats a judgement call, I suppose. To me it was gratuitous.
Automatic carrier landings have been on US carriers since the 1950's. The current version on is the SPN-46, which is the latest in a long line of succession of SPN radar landing systems. The SPN-46 autolands Harriers (running, not hovering landing) as well as most other Navy aircraft.
There are differences in shipboard landing VTOL vs. conventional. They both have their issues but the VTOL thing is not an order of magnitude harder. One difference is that the energy level of a conventional landing is way higher than a VTOL landing because a multi-ton plane is moving at around 100 knots when it hits. So if something goes wrong its a bigger mess, tearing up more than just the plane. A VTOL mishap usually just wrecks the plane. I have worked on both VTOL and conventional autoland systems and the level of precision and the complexity of the system required is about the same.
The big problem JPALS and the system mentioned in TFA are trying to solve is getting good and reliable enough GPS data to land with (remember the ship is moving so you can't use conventional DGPS or RTK systems because you don't have a fixed reference point). Its actually a hard problem and thats what these folks are proud of. Thats why most autoland systems in use use tracking radars.
Sierra Nevada Corporation designed and built the system that performed the first automatic landings of VTOL and fixed wing UAV's on small ships in the mid 1990's. The VTOL UAV was the Bombardier CL-327 and the fixed wing UAV was the IAI Pioneer. See the videos. I know because I was part of the team. The level of difficulty is exactly the same as landing a manned aircraft (maybe more because there is no pilot to take over in the event of problems). We built the 35ghz tracking radar system and designed and implemented all the autoland algorithms including the special purpose autopilot code (it has to be much higher gain than a normal autopilot) and the ship motion stabilization.
A variant of this system is autolanding UAV's all over Iraq as we speak.
Agree. Due to the business boom/bust cycle, Programming/IT etc will be one of those cyclical career paths like nursing, where there is some constant number of people who actually want to do it, and then an ebb and flow of straphangers who had to pick something to major in, so they went with what was hot at the time.
Seeing as it doesn't have an x86 CPU in it, it won't natively run any Windows x86 PC software. They may implement some lame emulator. So at best it would be a thin client which has some merit as a replacement for a PC, as long as all you want is games, web browsing and email.
"yes the video card is old and sucks, but since that is all you can get from Apple, its wonderful, and besides, you don't really need a real video card".
hasn't use of Lisp been rising for about 50 years? When will it be used by more than 1% of programmers? I guess it hasn't reached the tipping point yet. at least its ahead of pascal.
Because it brings two important issues out in the open : using proprietary software tools on important projects, and reverse engineering. The whole thing is generating some really well thought out commentary (amid the reflexive flames) on both sides of the issue(s).
from TFA : SP2 offers significantly better protection against system buffer overflows. These represent a major category of exploit used by black hat hackers to steal your passwords and seize your social security number. SP2 does this by compiling many more system binaries, Microsoft says.
What exactly does this mean? Were they interpreted rather than compiled before?
It think what they mean is 'SP2 does this by fixing many more broken system binaries'. (using tools to detect and/or prevent buffer overflows)
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
TFA is a little skimpy, i guess since they are still working the issue. I don't fully understand what it is trying to say.
What does 'distribute software as a service' mean in this context?
Is it that the GPL will say that the HTML/javascript web pages that Google serves up are derived works of the underlying (modified by Google) GPL'ed software? The underlying GPL'ed server binaries aren't sent out to the client. In effect, do they want to say some types of output of GPL software is a derived work?
Or is it more straighforward thing kind of like BitKeeper. You can use our stuff for free as long as the use is noncommercial, but if you make money off of it, you need to pay? Regardless of whether you modify it or not?
Slashdot Mirror
i suppose if you count training as an initial cost, and you buy RedHat enterprise edition and you have to hire experienced admins, then the initial cost isn't 0.
Michael Howard wears a t-shirt with this inscription when he gives training on Windows. I saw him at some freebie M$ seminar. He's a good speaker, and overcomes the technical flaws in his presentations with glibness and flair. He spoke about not running as admin, but ignored the issue that many if not most Windows software doesn't work if you are not admin.
so screw the consumer to punish microsoft. that makes a lot of sense. the whole point of TFA is that no one wants XP N. Oh, wait,I forgot, consumers are too stupid to know what they want.
csh, korn, bourne and sh predate Linux. Bash is a GNU product, not Linux. Yes, usage under Linux has refined them but almost all the concepts and implementations were done separately from Linux.
sucks for the parents
- Cells can distribute data to other processors (can't any computer do that?)
- the local network is used, Cell doesn't care which one (ok, so it isn't the Cell that is doing the distributing after all)
- OS should take care of it without user intervention (so its the software, not the processor)
I guess if all the processors are the same, then they could carry the code along with the data to get things done. But still, any computer can do this. Since he mentions SETI@home, isn't that what it does and it doesn't care about what the nodes are? I suppose you could imagine some finer grained computation scheme based on his diagram, but pretty quickly the network overhead would wreck your throughput.my son-in-law has taken it several times and claims a 48-60 hour waking period without fatigue. He also says he can go to sleep during that time IF he wants to. My daughter says the only side effect she sees is he gets a little more cranky than usual.
and beans on toast for breakfast? it certainly never would have occurred to me. no wonder I get stupider every day.
Microsoft also has had DHTML+Time for years, which let you script actions based on timeouts, greatly facilitating animation and periodic update.
TFA is great work and right on target, but too bad the blog also stoops to doing some personal snooping and posting links to some personal info stuff about a couple of people involved. That brings it almost to the level of the O'gara stuff about PJ. It even points out one person's religion (ala OGara), as if that matters. You could argue that its part of the investigation of who is who in this affair. Thats a judgement call, I suppose. To me it was gratuitous.
There are differences in shipboard landing VTOL vs. conventional. They both have their issues but the VTOL thing is not an order of magnitude harder. One difference is that the energy level of a conventional landing is way higher than a VTOL landing because a multi-ton plane is moving at around 100 knots when it hits. So if something goes wrong its a bigger mess, tearing up more than just the plane. A VTOL mishap usually just wrecks the plane. I have worked on both VTOL and conventional autoland systems and the level of precision and the complexity of the system required is about the same.
The big problem JPALS and the system mentioned in TFA are trying to solve is getting good and reliable enough GPS data to land with (remember the ship is moving so you can't use conventional DGPS or RTK systems because you don't have a fixed reference point). Its actually a hard problem and thats what these folks are proud of. Thats why most autoland systems in use use tracking radars.
Sierra Nevada Corporation designed and built the system that performed the first automatic landings of VTOL and fixed wing UAV's on small ships in the mid 1990's. The VTOL UAV was the Bombardier CL-327 and the fixed wing UAV was the IAI Pioneer. See the videos. I know because I was part of the team. The level of difficulty is exactly the same as landing a manned aircraft (maybe more because there is no pilot to take over in the event of problems). We built the 35ghz tracking radar system and designed and implemented all the autoland algorithms including the special purpose autopilot code (it has to be much higher gain than a normal autopilot) and the ship motion stabilization.
A variant of this system is autolanding UAV's all over Iraq as we speak.
Agree. Due to the business boom/bust cycle, Programming/IT etc will be one of those cyclical career paths like nursing, where there is some constant number of people who actually want to do it, and then an ebb and flow of straphangers who had to pick something to major in, so they went with what was hot at the time.
Seeing as it doesn't have an x86 CPU in it, it won't natively run any Windows x86 PC software. They may implement some lame emulator. So at best it would be a thin client which has some merit as a replacement for a PC, as long as all you want is games, web browsing and email.
how about
"Shouldn't be better looking for what is known as a good thing, and block all the rest without analyzing it? "
hey, i'm over 21!
So the consensus answer to your comment is :
"yes the video card is old and sucks, but since that is all you can get from Apple, its wonderful, and besides, you don't really need a real video card".
Paul Murphy again? He's definitely getting some page impressions out of this.
God forbid that insults should appear on Slashdot!
whom do you prefer, Hitler or Stalin?
hasn't use of Lisp been rising for about 50 years? When will it be used by more than 1% of programmers? I guess it hasn't reached the tipping point yet. at least its ahead of pascal.
Because it brings two important issues out in the open : using proprietary software tools on important projects, and reverse engineering. The whole thing is generating some really well thought out commentary (amid the reflexive flames) on both sides of the issue(s).
from TFA : SP2 offers significantly better protection against system buffer overflows. These represent a major category of exploit used by black hat hackers to steal your passwords and seize your social security number. SP2 does this by compiling many more system binaries, Microsoft says.
What exactly does this mean? Were they interpreted rather than compiled before? It think what they mean is 'SP2 does this by fixing many more broken system binaries'. (using tools to detect and/or prevent buffer overflows)
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
TFA is a little skimpy, i guess since they are still working the issue. I don't fully understand what it is trying to say.
What does 'distribute software as a service' mean in this context?
Is it that the GPL will say that the HTML/javascript web pages that Google serves up are derived works of the underlying (modified by Google) GPL'ed software? The underlying GPL'ed server binaries aren't sent out to the client. In effect, do they want to say some types of output of GPL software is a derived work?
Or is it more straighforward thing kind of like BitKeeper. You can use our stuff for free as long as the use is noncommercial, but if you make money off of it, you need to pay? Regardless of whether you modify it or not?
Anyone got an explanation?