I'm not sure how they're going to leverage their monopoly for cluster computing... It's not as if they'll be giving it away with Windows Vista... More likely the purchasing officers with major enterprise vendors of cluster computing will get many free lunches in the next few months, and perhaps a free car or two.
I doubt Lenovo would be changing their tune because it seems to be that (as of 2004), Linux runs on something like 2.4% of desktops and probably less laptops. Lenovo probably is imagining their products getting smaller and competing with cell phones & PDAs. In order to do that, they're going to need to support applications written for Linux or maybe even Symbian OSs so that they can steal users from the other side of the market.
That's not very good logic. Dismissing that your link said 2.8% in 2002 and taking your stats as true, not only was 2004 a long time ago in the Linux world (it was before Ubuntu took off even) so probably the real figure would be even higher now but 2.4% itself is an amazing amount of desktops. There are, what, a few hundred million desktops in the world? At least tens of millions sold each year? 2.4% of this could be perhaps a million desktops each year, being conservative. As many people have said before, a million customers would be an entire market for most companies, so it's not something a sane corperation would shrug off lightly.
I thought the one about how the cyclones aren't going to collide just having a near miss, even though they should be close enough to affect eachother, was more obvious.
Lets look at TCP then . . . What does it need to know? It needs to know the checksum for data verification. It needs to know the sequence number and acknowledgement number for packet integrity. It needs to know the data offset to see where the data is in the packet. It needs to know the Window for flow control. It needs the control bits for simple checking as to what type of packet it is.
Yep, that seems to be everything. Which one of these are you planning on removing from TCP? Without any of those it sort of defeats the advantages of using TCP in the first place, namely Flow control, Congestion control and packet integrity.
If you're planning on hiding the data, please give me a hint on how to do so quickly and efficiently, allowing for as much traffic on the internet as there is at the moment. It's out of TCP's scope anyway.
No, rather I immediately wondered how a science political cartoon contest can be abused. Some money laundering has clearly been going on here, surely the work of terrorists.
I wonder how many people emailed him about stuff other than it being a dupe? Probably took maybe even over ten minutes to read through all that email before he got to yours... Hell even I take more than ten minutes to read my email a lot of the time and I'm not even an editor for a high volume site.
"So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks and alarm systems."
What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".
It is down a quarter from any of ther other peaks - it's pretty obvious the difference. Also remember that this is not just Pirate Bay that's down but a few other high-traffic sites.
Apart from misquoting "There is no more important cause for electronic freedoms and privacy than the call for action to stop DRM from crippling our digital future" (slightly different meaning there mate) I'm struggling to wonder why he's surprised that the free software foundation would be against DRM. Admittedly the car steering analogy is a bit silly - it's more like a car that will only steer on vendor-approved roads.
Wow, I'm struggling to remember the last time I've seen someone get so close to getting a joke yet be so far away. I think the answer to your last line would be to laugh for the moment at least.
I'm not arguing that it's not functional or anything. I just don't find the G5 asthetically appealing. I wasn't trying to troll or anything but when I saw it for the first time I thought "eek that looks horrible". Then again I said the same thing to the cases on display in the article.
Incidentally I found a pretty bad error in my original message - I meant to say "(note that this..." instead of "(not that this...". Sort of entirely changes the meaning.
I'm glad reading the grandparent's post since it shows that I'm not the only person who thinks that the Mac G5s are horrifically ugly. For me (not that this is a totally subjective argument) it's one of the ugliest cases I've seen.
The problem with the article is that it's basing an awful lot on just a domain name. I could think of many other things it *could* be, like a shopping store, an auction site a la ebay, and more. It could also be a simple ecommerce software site, which I think is the most likely. My biggest counter to the argument for a paypal site is if this Google Checkout is a commercial venture like PayPal, why haven't they snabbed GoogleCheckout.com?
I think you're firstly misunderstanding the concept of Turing Completeness. All it says is that any sufficiently complex language is logically equivalent to any other sufficiently complex language. Bugs are mistakes due to human error or environmental circumstances, and have absolutely nothing to do with Turing Completeness.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding about the concept of state in terms of modern applications. You simply can't create a modern application without some sort of loosly coupled modularity. Take your Firefox example - most probably about 46MB of that 48MB would be due to caching, and the majority of the program, since it would be loosly coupled, would only depend on that part of the memory, and as long as that part of the program works for all of its states it will work no matter what the states of the other parts of the program are. Because of this it's an addition operator between modules, not a multiplication operator. Besides this, with a properly modular program it's not nearly as hard as you make it out checking binary arrays.
Obviously most applications can't be properly tested (though it can be formally tested using an unfeasable amount of time) but the situation isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Bugs are indicative of bad programming, there's no way around that issue.
As a developer I'm not going to say that I'm a bad UI designer. Actually quite the opposite, I regard myself as a good UI designer. That doesn't mean that I can't accept advice even from users because as you say they bring a different perspective (and most notably a different skill level).
I just said that they "often" are better UI designers for rhetoric effect, it wasn't designed to be looked at with pedantry.
As an addition to this when someone asks how to do something, even if it's clearly documented in the manual the simple question "How do you think it should be done?" can be very enlightening. Often the users are better UI developers than programmers are.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. Technologist is a real, valid word: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/technologi st
I was watching the game at UNSW. Frankly, except for Croatia not winning, last night sort of sucked.
I'm not sure how they're going to leverage their monopoly for cluster computing... It's not as if they'll be giving it away with Windows Vista... More likely the purchasing officers with major enterprise vendors of cluster computing will get many free lunches in the next few months, and perhaps a free car or two.
I doubt Lenovo would be changing their tune because it seems to be that (as of 2004), Linux runs on something like 2.4% of desktops and probably less laptops. Lenovo probably is imagining their products getting smaller and competing with cell phones & PDAs. In order to do that, they're going to need to support applications written for Linux or maybe even Symbian OSs so that they can steal users from the other side of the market.
That's not very good logic. Dismissing that your link said 2.8% in 2002 and taking your stats as true, not only was 2004 a long time ago in the Linux world (it was before Ubuntu took off even) so probably the real figure would be even higher now but 2.4% itself is an amazing amount of desktops. There are, what, a few hundred million desktops in the world? At least tens of millions sold each year? 2.4% of this could be perhaps a million desktops each year, being conservative. As many people have said before, a million customers would be an entire market for most companies, so it's not something a sane corperation would shrug off lightly.
I thought the one about how the cyclones aren't going to collide just having a near miss, even though they should be close enough to affect eachother, was more obvious.
Lets look at TCP then . . . What does it need to know? It needs to know the checksum for data verification. It needs to know the sequence number and acknowledgement number for packet integrity. It needs to know the data offset to see where the data is in the packet. It needs to know the Window for flow control. It needs the control bits for simple checking as to what type of packet it is.
Yep, that seems to be everything. Which one of these are you planning on removing from TCP? Without any of those it sort of defeats the advantages of using TCP in the first place, namely Flow control, Congestion control and packet integrity.
If you're planning on hiding the data, please give me a hint on how to do so quickly and efficiently, allowing for as much traffic on the internet as there is at the moment. It's out of TCP's scope anyway.
No, rather I immediately wondered how a science political cartoon contest can be abused. Some money laundering has clearly been going on here, surely the work of terrorists.
I wonder how many people emailed him about stuff other than it being a dupe? Probably took maybe even over ten minutes to read through all that email before he got to yours... Hell even I take more than ten minutes to read my email a lot of the time and I'm not even an editor for a high volume site.
A reboot? Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop!
Sorry mate but that was a joke by Matt Groening. He only said it in passing and it went around the world before he had a chance to say "just kidding".
"So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks and alarm systems."
What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".
Perhaps that's too much to ask.
If it upsets you then perhaps you should start visiting a web site that's *not* run by the Open Source Technology Group.
It is down a quarter from any of ther other peaks - it's pretty obvious the difference. Also remember that this is not just Pirate Bay that's down but a few other high-traffic sites.
Apart from misquoting "There is no more important cause for electronic freedoms and privacy than the call for action to stop DRM from crippling our digital future" (slightly different meaning there mate) I'm struggling to wonder why he's surprised that the free software foundation would be against DRM. Admittedly the car steering analogy is a bit silly - it's more like a car that will only steer on vendor-approved roads.
An utterly idiotic article.
Wow, I'm struggling to remember the last time I've seen someone get so close to getting a joke yet be so far away. I think the answer to your last line would be to laugh for the moment at least.
I'm not arguing that it's not functional or anything. I just don't find the G5 asthetically appealing. I wasn't trying to troll or anything but when I saw it for the first time I thought "eek that looks horrible". Then again I said the same thing to the cases on display in the article.
Incidentally I found a pretty bad error in my original message - I meant to say "(note that this..." instead of "(not that this...". Sort of entirely changes the meaning.
I'm glad reading the grandparent's post since it shows that I'm not the only person who thinks that the Mac G5s are horrifically ugly. For me (not that this is a totally subjective argument) it's one of the ugliest cases I've seen.
Australia, actually.
But this is just publishing a countdown - what will be next? 5 days to Dapper, 4 days to Dapper, ... articles?
Somehow I doubt that, seeing how it's only 2 days till Dapper.
The problem with the article is that it's basing an awful lot on just a domain name. I could think of many other things it *could* be, like a shopping store, an auction site a la ebay, and more. It could also be a simple ecommerce software site, which I think is the most likely. My biggest counter to the argument for a paypal site is if this Google Checkout is a commercial venture like PayPal, why haven't they snabbed GoogleCheckout.com?
Perhaps they can make a paypal that actually doesn't suck. After all Google isn't supposed to be evil.
I think you're firstly misunderstanding the concept of Turing Completeness. All it says is that any sufficiently complex language is logically equivalent to any other sufficiently complex language. Bugs are mistakes due to human error or environmental circumstances, and have absolutely nothing to do with Turing Completeness.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding about the concept of state in terms of modern applications. You simply can't create a modern application without some sort of loosly coupled modularity. Take your Firefox example - most probably about 46MB of that 48MB would be due to caching, and the majority of the program, since it would be loosly coupled, would only depend on that part of the memory, and as long as that part of the program works for all of its states it will work no matter what the states of the other parts of the program are. Because of this it's an addition operator between modules, not a multiplication operator. Besides this, with a properly modular program it's not nearly as hard as you make it out checking binary arrays.
Obviously most applications can't be properly tested (though it can be formally tested using an unfeasable amount of time) but the situation isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Bugs are indicative of bad programming, there's no way around that issue.
As a developer I'm not going to say that I'm a bad UI designer. Actually quite the opposite, I regard myself as a good UI designer. That doesn't mean that I can't accept advice even from users because as you say they bring a different perspective (and most notably a different skill level).
I just said that they "often" are better UI designers for rhetoric effect, it wasn't designed to be looked at with pedantry.
As an addition to this when someone asks how to do something, even if it's clearly documented in the manual the simple question "How do you think it should be done?" can be very enlightening. Often the users are better UI developers than programmers are.