I've been running Vista Beta 1 on an Athlon64 3000+, with 512MB ram and 128MB video memory. I haven't experienced any problems so far. Are the requirements from beta 1 to the release version really going to go up that much? That seems rediculous...
Whoa, hold up there buddy. I was with you until this point. My XP install boots up in four seconds off of my SATA drive, while linux takes about 35 seconds. As much as I like linux, I highly doubt any linux install takes "no longer to boot" than XP.
Bullshit. Adding cheese to fish adds to its value too. Whatever. These could easily be separate products, used to be separate products, and should be separate products. Why are they bundled? What advantage does it bring to the consumer?
What advantage does a web browser and media player bring to the consumer? Perhaps the ability to browse the web and play media right out of the box, as consumers expect. That's why pretty much every distro of linux bundles a browser and media player and Mac OS bundles a browser and media player. I can't believe you accused the grandparent of being blind, but can't see this simple idea.
Tell me, what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating, thus creating a potential choking hazard?
The irony of this question is that you can ask the same thing about evolution -- why would we evolve with the same tube when evolving with two tubes would be superior? My guess would be that it is not superior, and there is a good reason we use the same tube for both (efficiency, perhaps?).
It involves some problem with register allocation. It seems only to miscompile KHTML, and there is already a patch attached to the GCC bug report (although the patch just disables the optimization that is causing the problem, rather than fixing the core problem itself).
You are talking out of your ass. Emerge compiles in a sandbox, and copies all of the completed files over to their normal locations at the end. If emerge crashes (which it never has for me, I might add) it just means you have to emerge again from the beginning.
We think there is a point of beginning for the universe because all existing evidence points to a beginning of the Universe. Penrose and Hawking proved the existance of the Big Bang based on general relativity.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor. It uses them more as a protective shield: as long as it has a patent on something, no small patent company looking to make a quick buck in the legal system will be able to sue them over it. In fact, Microsoft has been known to buy out companies not for the people that work for the company or the products the company has, but solely to get the patents registered to that company. As the article says, Microsoft has lost far more money to patents than it has gained. This, of course, doesn't garauntee that Microsoft will never use its patents agressively in the future; but that is all the more reason to reform the patent system now.
Those stats actually support his argument... According to them, 51% of female drivers are involved in accidents causing property damage, while only 42% of male drivers are. On the other hand,.4% of male drivers are involved in accidents resulting in a fatality, while only.2% of female drivers are involved in accidents resulting in a fatality.
This data really isn't accurate because the ACT doesn't necessarily test everyone in the state. For example, in Vermont only 12% of graduates even took the ACT, while in the apparantly horribly scoring Mississippi an overwhelming 91% of graduates took it. This is consistant throughout most of the states with high ACT scores -- they tend to have very low testing rates (Minnesota is the highest state on the list with a reasonably decent participation rate). When you take into account that the people that do take the ACT tend to be your higher acheivers, it's no wonder that states with small participation have higher scores.
(Participation data from http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html)
How is the parent modded 'flamebait', and the grandparent not? The parent contained no personal insults and no swearing -- it was as calm a rebuttal as could be. The grandparent is full of childish personal insults and rampant swearing, and is far more a candidate for 'flamebait' than the parent. I think that given most of the replies to the grandparent are flames, that it is far more likely to be 'flamebait' than the parent, which has facilitated intelligent discussion.
That guy does not seem to know what he is talking about. Exception handling (along with other things like RTTI) is an entirely optional feature of the C++ language. If you don't want it, compile without it. He had absolutely no complaints about C++ after he turned off exception handling, except that the compiler switches were different for each compiler he used (as if that wasn't the case for C compilers as well).
The price we pay for shoes (especially brand name shoes) is not artificially low. It is actually rediculously high. It costs only a couple bucks to make a shoe at most, and it would only cost a couple bucks more if cheap labor weren't available.
I disagree with your point that rich people don't reinvest in things that produce jobs. Most rich people invest their money in the stock market (like Bill Gates) where it goes directly towards producing jobs. Pretty much the only thing a rich person could do with their money that wouldn't help create jobs is bury it in a hole somewhere.
Satan is most certainly present in Judaism (in fact, Satan is a direct translation of a hebrew word found in the Old Testament). In the book of Job, he is the character that tests Job. In the book of Chronicles, Satan is the one whom incites David into numbering Israel (why this is a bad thing, I don't know, but apparantly God didn't like it very much). There are also several apocryphal rabbatical writings from a couple thousand years ago that discuss when the rabbis thought Satan had been created.
Uh, maybe you want to use your own type, like an Int class that holds a *public* int, instead of a java.lang.Integer wrapper class.
You should never be forced to break encapsulation in order to meet the requirements of the language. Of course, you should never be forced to make a class just so you can store a primitive type in an array, either.
Well yes, you have to call equals(), unlike in C++. Now why is this a problem? BTW I assume you want to compare two *objects*, not two "Classes"
Although equals isn't implmented too badly (even though it is easier and more intuitive to type == than object.equals(object)) compare the following two pieces of code for testing if one object in an array is less than another:
For glass that is probably true -- it is a fairly plentiful natural resource. However, some materials are well worth recycling. It is extremely expensive, for example, to extract aluminum from bauxite ore. Recycling aluminum is far cheaper, and you just about break even as far as the money for collecting it goes.
This also doesn't take into account the fact that thrown away garbage is either taking up space in a landfill (space that is going to become extremely scarce in the coming decades) or adding pollutants to the air from an incinerator. It is also more "fair" to society to recycle than to thrown away, because landfills and incinerators tend to get sited where nobody has the money to fight it.
They've yet to accuse somebody who "didn't do it". Illegal music filesharers beware... you have a substatial risk of having to pay the piper.
That isn't entirely true. Several months ago slashdot posted an article about some old lady with a mac that had a lawsuit filed against her by the RIAA. When the RIAA discovered this, and that she couldn't possibly be running the filesharing software they accused her of (it only ran on windows) they dropped the suit. I believe there have been other instances like this as well.
Operator overloading is a huge syntactic blessing, and its abscence in Java is one of the reasons I hate using it. It takes a highly abnormal amount of kludge in a language without operator overloading to compare two objects. For example, in Java to compare of one array element is less than another:
This is horribly ugly, especially when all I want to do is compare two integers for size. Casting, parenthesis everywhere, comparison with some arbitrarily chosen integer, etc. With operator overloading and templates, the same thing is possible in a much cleaner and more intuitive fashion:
if(a[0] < a[1])
It doesn't take any 'work' to understand what this code does. A ten year old kid could probably tell you that it involves 'less than'. This is also type-safe (I don't have to worry about if my objects actually inherit from Comparable).
I like D. In my ideal world it would replace all uses of Java everywhere and anywhere, but unfortunately I doubt that will be the case.
The same technique that is used to build DLLs is also used to build statically linked libraries, its just a matter of using the right compiler/linker switch. Claiming there is no method of generating static or dynamically linked libraries under Visual C++ is just showing ignorance.
Many of the problems worth lots of money from RSA are significantly harder than this one is. For example, it took distributed.net almost 5 years to solve RC5-64, worth $10000. The RSA factoring challenges worth lots of money are also extremeley difficult problems; the top one (2048 bits for $200,000) would probably take several thousand years even if every machine on the planet constantly worked on it and nothing else.
What exactly is your source for C++ being "too slow and inefficient to develop in"? This is a long perpetuated myth that seems to have no real backing in reality. Take a look at TopCoder -- http://www.topcoder.com. The vast majority of the highest ranked coders -- and therefore the fastest -- use C++. The problem is that most C++ developers have no idea what they are doing. Its like blunt scissors and sharp scissors: give the blunt scissors (Java and C#) to the people who don't know what they're doing, and let the people who want to use the sharp scissors use them (C++). Its a lot easier to stab yourself with sharp scissors, but if you know what you're doing you'll get the job done faster and better.
I wholeheartedly agree. It doesn't make sense to switch languages unless there is a problem with the current language. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and as far as I can tell ain't nothing broke.
Sometimes I wonder if donations like this are actually heading to the right causes. We still have world hunger, poverty, disease, and other significant problems on this planet. Would it not make more sense to solve these problems first, before donating to the minute possibility that we might discover alien life on another planet? Its his money, so he can do whatever he wants with it, but personally I don't see donating to the search for alien life being nearly as philanthropic as, say, donating towards the search for a cure for cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been running Vista Beta 1 on an Athlon64 3000+, with 512MB ram and 128MB video memory. I haven't experienced any problems so far. Are the requirements from beta 1 to the release version really going to go up that much? That seems rediculous...
Agreed. The universities here in Florida let out a month ago. Most students probably already have a summer commitment.
The irony of this question is that you can ask the same thing about evolution -- why would we evolve with the same tube when evolving with two tubes would be superior? My guess would be that it is not superior, and there is a good reason we use the same tube for both (efficiency, perhaps?).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20973& w=2
GCC bug report
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=111451142117674
KDE CVS report
It involves some problem with register allocation. It seems only to miscompile KHTML, and there is already a patch attached to the GCC bug report (although the patch just disables the optimization that is causing the problem, rather than fixing the core problem itself).
You are talking out of your ass. Emerge compiles in a sandbox, and copies all of the completed files over to their normal locations at the end. If emerge crashes (which it never has for me, I might add) it just means you have to emerge again from the beginning.
We think there is a point of beginning for the universe because all existing evidence points to a beginning of the Universe. Penrose and Hawking proved the existance of the Big Bang based on general relativity.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I cannot think of an instance where Microsoft used one of its patents aggressively against a competitor. It uses them more as a protective shield: as long as it has a patent on something, no small patent company looking to make a quick buck in the legal system will be able to sue them over it. In fact, Microsoft has been known to buy out companies not for the people that work for the company or the products the company has, but solely to get the patents registered to that company. As the article says, Microsoft has lost far more money to patents than it has gained. This, of course, doesn't garauntee that Microsoft will never use its patents agressively in the future; but that is all the more reason to reform the patent system now.
Must be a bitch to type it in... Most likely you have to constantly type in your password or it logs you out.
Those stats actually support his argument... According to them, 51% of female drivers are involved in accidents causing property damage, while only 42% of male drivers are. On the other hand, .4% of male drivers are involved in accidents resulting in a fatality, while only .2% of female drivers are involved in accidents resulting in a fatality.
This data really isn't accurate because the ACT doesn't necessarily test everyone in the state. For example, in Vermont only 12% of graduates even took the ACT, while in the apparantly horribly scoring Mississippi an overwhelming 91% of graduates took it. This is consistant throughout most of the states with high ACT scores -- they tend to have very low testing rates (Minnesota is the highest state on the list with a reasonably decent participation rate). When you take into account that the people that do take the ACT tend to be your higher acheivers, it's no wonder that states with small participation have higher scores. (Participation data from http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html)
How is the parent modded 'flamebait', and the grandparent not? The parent contained no personal insults and no swearing -- it was as calm a rebuttal as could be. The grandparent is full of childish personal insults and rampant swearing, and is far more a candidate for 'flamebait' than the parent. I think that given most of the replies to the grandparent are flames, that it is far more likely to be 'flamebait' than the parent, which has facilitated intelligent discussion.
That guy does not seem to know what he is talking about. Exception handling (along with other things like RTTI) is an entirely optional feature of the C++ language. If you don't want it, compile without it. He had absolutely no complaints about C++ after he turned off exception handling, except that the compiler switches were different for each compiler he used (as if that wasn't the case for C compilers as well).
The price we pay for shoes (especially brand name shoes) is not artificially low. It is actually rediculously high. It costs only a couple bucks to make a shoe at most, and it would only cost a couple bucks more if cheap labor weren't available. I disagree with your point that rich people don't reinvest in things that produce jobs. Most rich people invest their money in the stock market (like Bill Gates) where it goes directly towards producing jobs. Pretty much the only thing a rich person could do with their money that wouldn't help create jobs is bury it in a hole somewhere.
Satan is most certainly present in Judaism (in fact, Satan is a direct translation of a hebrew word found in the Old Testament). In the book of Job, he is the character that tests Job. In the book of Chronicles, Satan is the one whom incites David into numbering Israel (why this is a bad thing, I don't know, but apparantly God didn't like it very much). There are also several apocryphal rabbatical writings from a couple thousand years ago that discuss when the rabbis thought Satan had been created.
You should never be forced to break encapsulation in order to meet the requirements of the language. Of course, you should never be forced to make a class just so you can store a primitive type in an array, either.
Well yes, you have to call equals(), unlike in C++. Now why is this a problem? BTW I assume you want to compare two *objects*, not two "Classes"
Although equals isn't implmented too badly (even though it is easier and more intuitive to type == than object.equals(object)) compare the following two pieces of code for testing if one object in an array is less than another:
The second is more intuitive, faster to code, less prone to syntax errors, and better in every way, shape, and form than the first.For glass that is probably true -- it is a fairly plentiful natural resource. However, some materials are well worth recycling. It is extremely expensive, for example, to extract aluminum from bauxite ore. Recycling aluminum is far cheaper, and you just about break even as far as the money for collecting it goes. This also doesn't take into account the fact that thrown away garbage is either taking up space in a landfill (space that is going to become extremely scarce in the coming decades) or adding pollutants to the air from an incinerator. It is also more "fair" to society to recycle than to thrown away, because landfills and incinerators tend to get sited where nobody has the money to fight it.
This is horribly ugly, especially when all I want to do is compare two integers for size. Casting, parenthesis everywhere, comparison with some arbitrarily chosen integer, etc. With operator overloading and templates, the same thing is possible in a much cleaner and more intuitive fashion:
It doesn't take any 'work' to understand what this code does. A ten year old kid could probably tell you that it involves 'less than'. This is also type-safe (I don't have to worry about if my objects actually inherit from Comparable).
I like D. In my ideal world it would replace all uses of Java everywhere and anywhere, but unfortunately I doubt that will be the case.
The same technique that is used to build DLLs is also used to build statically linked libraries, its just a matter of using the right compiler/linker switch. Claiming there is no method of generating static or dynamically linked libraries under Visual C++ is just showing ignorance.
Many of the problems worth lots of money from RSA are significantly harder than this one is. For example, it took distributed.net almost 5 years to solve RC5-64, worth $10000. The RSA factoring challenges worth lots of money are also extremeley difficult problems; the top one (2048 bits for $200,000) would probably take several thousand years even if every machine on the planet constantly worked on it and nothing else.
What exactly is your source for C++ being "too slow and inefficient to develop in"? This is a long perpetuated myth that seems to have no real backing in reality. Take a look at TopCoder -- http://www.topcoder.com. The vast majority of the highest ranked coders -- and therefore the fastest -- use C++. The problem is that most C++ developers have no idea what they are doing. Its like blunt scissors and sharp scissors: give the blunt scissors (Java and C#) to the people who don't know what they're doing, and let the people who want to use the sharp scissors use them (C++). Its a lot easier to stab yourself with sharp scissors, but if you know what you're doing you'll get the job done faster and better.
I wholeheartedly agree. It doesn't make sense to switch languages unless there is a problem with the current language. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and as far as I can tell ain't nothing broke.
Sometimes I wonder if donations like this are actually heading to the right causes. We still have world hunger, poverty, disease, and other significant problems on this planet. Would it not make more sense to solve these problems first, before donating to the minute possibility that we might discover alien life on another planet? Its his money, so he can do whatever he wants with it, but personally I don't see donating to the search for alien life being nearly as philanthropic as, say, donating towards the search for a cure for cancer.