Penalising better negotiators is hardly a good thing regardless if it's trying to promote equality. Really all they're doing is saving money.
Unless being able to negotiate benefits for themselves at the expense of others (there's usually a fixed amount of money for raises etc) improves quality of their work, I don't see why being a better salary negotiator is reason to have higher salary. On the contrary, a good negotiator is likely to be able to push their inferior solutions through over better solutions from less good negotiators. Also if it leads to poorer salary (as well as envy) and therefore higher attrition rate for people whose skills lie elsewhere, it can be very damaging. Salary should be based on employee value to the company, and negotiation skills should be a factor only if they actually increase that value.
Nokia... [is] seeking to overturn a lower court’s ruling that found in Microsoft’s favour.
... and there I thought MS owned Nokia.
MS bought mobile phone business of Nokia. I guess you could say MS pwned Nokia by getting Elop as the CEO, but that too is in the past now and Elop is back to MS payroll (I mean, publicly).
The Qt 3 to Qt 4 transition was painful enough for too many projects to make similar breakage very unpalatable for the community. Sort of "been there, done that, didn't enjoy it" situation. And what you are suggesting (replace every container etc with a different one) would be even bigger breakage.
And of course from cost (be it money or time) point of view, touching basically everything in the Qt source code to strip out Qt classes would be gigantic work. Not going to happen, there's neither business case nor developer demand for breaking everything, so there's almost nobody who has any interest in making it actually happen.
Qt COW is thread safe, programmer does not need to worry about that. For performance critical parts, feel free to use something else, but for the usual GUI code, COW is very convenient. Also remember, Qt 5 is already so old that it couldn't require move semantics support from C++ toolchain, which is also a performance issue.
Moving forward, what I hope for future is, C++ enabling reflection and introspection (in ways required by Qt features) without extra code generators (like Qt's moc). That'd be great for Qt 6, if such a thing ever comes. Another thing which would greatly benefit Qt is C++ removing the need for manual implementation of the PIMPL idiom. And supporting C#-like extension methods might make transition to standard C++ containers more likely, with missing functionality added as extension methods (current need to mix methods and free functions is not very nice IMO).
"Insist duplicating"? What do you propose as alternative, when you don't want to destroy source compatibility of old applications? Qt 5 API is almost identical to Qt 4, no big break like after Qt 3, and having it any other way would have been very bad, because underneath Qt 5 has major improvements (starting from being able to connect C++11 lambdas to Qt signals, and being able to construct QStrings at compile time). So most apps still under development should and can easily be upgraded to Qt 5 (while staying Qt 4 compatible if desired, with a few #ifdefs), and this is a great thing.
It's not Qt's fault it took so long for C++ to get its act together. "Horrible naming convention" is also rather subjective. I find using undescore in names ugly, and boost-like nested namespaces hurt my eyes. Yet many seem to like them, and I don't judge them for it.
Note, tone of your post sounded like you're trolling, but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. If you are trolling, ignore above two paragraphs, and if you aren't, ignore this paragraph:-)
The energy to load the spring comes from the user as part of the normal operation cycle. That makes it unpowered.It does not bring extra energy to the operation (user walking by converting chemical energy to muscle contraction), it only changes how the energy is used.
The trick is to define the system and timeframe you are looking at sensibly. In this case you have the braces and the user taking a number of steps. The user generates the power, the braces are unpowered. If you looked at the braces for one unloading of the spring, you could say the frame is powered by the spring, but that is not very useful choice in most contexts outside design of the device.
Node.js is the server. Perl and PHP are rarely used as servers. Python's Twisted stuff resembles Node.js in many ways, I believe. Not domain expert, I'm sure someone corrects me shortly.
"try to teach everyone", yes, absolutely. Same way we try to teach everyone some arts and crafts: skills (using equipment), knowledge (knowing colors, notes, names of tools etc) and history (famous pieces and artists etc).
Not everybody will learn or remember much, but that's ok.
Carbon dioxide is about the furthest thing from toxic it is possible to get
Umm... Actually carbon dioxide is pretty deadly. 10% carbon dioxide in breathing air starts to kill people, even if there's normal level of oxygen. And this can actually happen, for example in mines (this is why canaries were used, as they're more sensitive to high CO2 levels than humans). Carbon Dioxide can kill in exceptional but realistic concentrations, so it's not very far from being toxic.
Where do I make my voice heard that I don't want the US government manipulating the climate?
Quite an extermist, you are! But realistically, the best we can hope is manipulating the climate less. That's what the whole "fighting the anthropogenic climate change" gig is all about.
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
That's one point of having representatives, who can work on what needs to be sacrificed by everybody. A voter doesn't need to decide or even have knowledge to decide themselves. All they need to do is pick a candidate they think will do the best job at that (and everything else).
If you imagine quotes around first and second paragraphs, does that put the pompousness into different light? The style was indeed intentional, though I would not call it pompous.
About you setting up straw men about "writing everything from scratch". Nobody does that. By that criteria nobody in the world understands IT. If I really meant that as useful standard, wouldn't it be a humble admission, not arrogance?
You probably failed to read the last paragraph, or then I just wrote it too poorly to be understood.
That being said, I do understand how the browser, the OS, the./ servers and databases, and the network in between work well enough, that none of it is a mystery to me. I think having this understanding is a good thing. I don't know if it is possible to have this understanding without being able to program at least a tiny bit. This sounds roughly analogous to being able to enjoy a good book vs. being able to write a good book (vs. just getting a movie made from the book...).
Hmm. If you can't read, you are restricted to looking at pictures. If there is someone to read for you, then you can hear the parts of text they choose to read for you, otherwise you are pretty much restricted to children's picture books. A lot of what happens in the world is simply a mystery to you.
If you can't program, you are restricted to using existing features in the way they are implemented. If there is someone to help you, then they can write a piece of code for you to do whatever mundane task (be it VBA, shell script, a feature or a complete application), otherwise you are pretty much restricted to clicking at links, icons and menus. A lot of what happens in the computer is a mystery to you.
A massive spinning magnetron gradually slowing down until centrifugal force can't keep it from collapsing into a black hole anymore.
If you te going to make that much popcorn, you probably should not use microwave owen anyway. Use a kettle, it's cheaper, tastes better, and easier to get seasoning and butter just right.
I think Jupiter makes sure any highly elliptical orbit coming near Jupiter's orbit would not last too many orbits before having it's orbit radically changed, like happens with comets sooner or later if they survive long enough otherwise.
At that range, you have to wonder enough time has elapsed since the formation of the solar system for them to have "cleared the neighborhood" around their orbits.
If they are detected by looking at how they herd the minor bodies in the outer solar system, then I think it is safe to say they are indeed planets.
Linux Workstation: 16cores = way faster builds than 4 cores.
Did the 4 core CPU have 1/4th of the transistor count of the 16 core CPU? Then I'd expect it to be much slower of course. Point of Linus was, a 4 core CPU with same transistor count (used for more cache, better out-of-order execution logic, more virtual registers, and so on), as 16 core CPU will be faster on almost every task. So cores beyond 4 (the number Linus threw as the ballpark count) make sense only, if you really can not spend any more transistors in making those 4 cores faster, but still have die space to spare.
Why not? Currently Firefox has problems rendering (loading) two pages simultaneously, although it should be able to handle tens, using several cores. Same with Evince (which is crap anyway), it cannot do anything in parallel, should be able to use tens of cores. Javascript? Although the language is the worst I have seen since APL, a smart compiler could at least in some cases parallelize it (maybe with speculative execution or like). And so on.
It will turn out to be as wrong as "640k".
Javascript is generally used in event driven manner, so it will perform quite well on a single core. Firefox having trouble loading multiple pages simultaneously should still be IO-bound, not CPU-bound, and if the engine has trouble, then it's an SW architecture problem where more cores will not really help.
Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.
Linus doesn't so much say that parallelism is useless, he's saying that more cache and bigger, more efficient cores is much better. Therefore, increased number of cores at the cost of single core efficiency is just stupid for general purpose computing. Better just stick more cache to the die, instead of adding a core. Or that is how I read what he says.
I'd say, number of cores should scale with IO bandwidth. You need enough cores to make parallel compilation be CPU bound. Is 4 cores enough for that? Well, I don't know, but if the cores are efficient (highly parallel out-of-order execution) and have large caches, I'd wager IO lags far behind today. Is IO catching up? When will it catch up, if it is? No idea. Maybe someone here does?
I hear there's lots less carbon in the atmosphere of the moon, we could always move there.
The problem with the moon and carbon dioxide is, just exhaling a few times will make the CO2 ppm in lunar atmosphere rise to Jurassic levels. And then next thing you know, there will be allosauruses roaming about eating the colonists. So going to moon is no solution, we'd need to be even more careful about carbon emissions there.
Chit mon, if we're already screwed, we might as well party and pollute like there's no tomorrow. Might as well use the earth all up since it's a goner anyways.
When all is lost, you don't have care anymore. Thanks, global warming alarmists.
But all is not lost. Things are just going to be bad, but just how bad, that remains to be seen.
On the other hand our ancestors lived self-sufficiently off this land for millenia. On the other hand, that was not very fun life. But then, even if global civilization collapses, information does not disappear overnight. I for one will teach my kids both to make fire with flint and steel, and create and program a robot which can make fire with flint and steel. That should cover a lot of possible futures.
By default, when the tree dies, it will rot and return all that CO2 back to the air. So it's not really a solution unless you sequester the wood after the tree dies.
Sounds like you are not seeing the forest for the trees...
you could just give the money directly to engineers and scientists to invent cool stuff
Have you ever actually worked with R&D engineers and scientists? They don't convert money into cool stuff. They convert cool problems into cool stuff, given sufficient resources to allow solving the given cool problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Penalising better negotiators is hardly a good thing regardless if it's trying to promote equality. Really all they're doing is saving money.
Unless being able to negotiate benefits for themselves at the expense of others (there's usually a fixed amount of money for raises etc) improves quality of their work, I don't see why being a better salary negotiator is reason to have higher salary. On the contrary, a good negotiator is likely to be able to push their inferior solutions through over better solutions from less good negotiators. Also if it leads to poorer salary (as well as envy) and therefore higher attrition rate for people whose skills lie elsewhere, it can be very damaging. Salary should be based on employee value to the company, and negotiation skills should be a factor only if they actually increase that value.
MS bought mobile phone business of Nokia. I guess you could say MS pwned Nokia by getting Elop as the CEO, but that too is in the past now and Elop is back to MS payroll (I mean, publicly).
The Qt 3 to Qt 4 transition was painful enough for too many projects to make similar breakage very unpalatable for the community. Sort of "been there, done that, didn't enjoy it" situation. And what you are suggesting (replace every container etc with a different one) would be even bigger breakage.
And of course from cost (be it money or time) point of view, touching basically everything in the Qt source code to strip out Qt classes would be gigantic work. Not going to happen, there's neither business case nor developer demand for breaking everything, so there's almost nobody who has any interest in making it actually happen.
Qt COW is thread safe, programmer does not need to worry about that. For performance critical parts, feel free to use something else, but for the usual GUI code, COW is very convenient. Also remember, Qt 5 is already so old that it couldn't require move semantics support from C++ toolchain, which is also a performance issue.
Moving forward, what I hope for future is, C++ enabling reflection and introspection (in ways required by Qt features) without extra code generators (like Qt's moc). That'd be great for Qt 6, if such a thing ever comes. Another thing which would greatly benefit Qt is C++ removing the need for manual implementation of the PIMPL idiom. And supporting C#-like extension methods might make transition to standard C++ containers more likely, with missing functionality added as extension methods (current need to mix methods and free functions is not very nice IMO).
"Insist duplicating"? What do you propose as alternative, when you don't want to destroy source compatibility of old applications? Qt 5 API is almost identical to Qt 4, no big break like after Qt 3, and having it any other way would have been very bad, because underneath Qt 5 has major improvements (starting from being able to connect C++11 lambdas to Qt signals, and being able to construct QStrings at compile time). So most apps still under development should and can easily be upgraded to Qt 5 (while staying Qt 4 compatible if desired, with a few #ifdefs), and this is a great thing.
It's not Qt's fault it took so long for C++ to get its act together. "Horrible naming convention" is also rather subjective. I find using undescore in names ugly, and boost-like nested namespaces hurt my eyes. Yet many seem to like them, and I don't judge them for it.
Note, tone of your post sounded like you're trolling, but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. If you are trolling, ignore above two paragraphs, and if you aren't, ignore this paragraph :-)
The energy to load the spring comes from the user as part of the normal operation cycle. That makes it unpowered.It does not bring extra energy to the operation (user walking by converting chemical energy to muscle contraction), it only changes how the energy is used.
The trick is to define the system and timeframe you are looking at sensibly. In this case you have the braces and the user taking a number of steps. The user generates the power, the braces are unpowered. If you looked at the braces for one unloading of the spring, you could say the frame is powered by the spring, but that is not very useful choice in most contexts outside design of the device.
(replying to undo mod)
Node.js is the server. Perl and PHP are rarely used as servers. Python's Twisted stuff resembles Node.js in many ways, I believe. Not domain expert, I'm sure someone corrects me shortly.
"try to teach everyone", yes, absolutely. Same way we try to teach everyone some arts and crafts: skills (using equipment), knowledge (knowing colors, notes, names of tools etc) and history (famous pieces and artists etc).
Not everybody will learn or remember much, but that's ok.
Carbon dioxide is about the furthest thing from toxic it is possible to get
Umm... Actually carbon dioxide is pretty deadly. 10% carbon dioxide in breathing air starts to kill people, even if there's normal level of oxygen. And this can actually happen, for example in mines (this is why canaries were used, as they're more sensitive to high CO2 levels than humans). Carbon Dioxide can kill in exceptional but realistic concentrations, so it's not very far from being toxic.
381
Where do I make my voice heard that I don't want the US government manipulating the climate?
Quite an extermist, you are! But realistically, the best we can hope is manipulating the climate less. That's what the whole "fighting the anthropogenic climate change" gig is all about.
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
That's one point of having representatives, who can work on what needs to be sacrificed by everybody. A voter doesn't need to decide or even have knowledge to decide themselves. All they need to do is pick a candidate they think will do the best job at that (and everything else).
If you imagine quotes around first and second paragraphs, does that put the pompousness into different light? The style was indeed intentional, though I would not call it pompous.
About you setting up straw men about "writing everything from scratch". Nobody does that. By that criteria nobody in the world understands IT. If I really meant that as useful standard, wouldn't it be a humble admission, not arrogance?
You probably failed to read the last paragraph, or then I just wrote it too poorly to be understood.
That being said, I do understand how the browser, the OS, the ./ servers and databases, and the network in between work well enough, that none of it is a mystery to me. I think having this understanding is a good thing. I don't know if it is possible to have this understanding without being able to program at least a tiny bit. This sounds roughly analogous to being able to enjoy a good book vs. being able to write a good book (vs. just getting a movie made from the book...).
Hmm. If you can't read, you are restricted to looking at pictures. If there is someone to read for you, then you can hear the parts of text they choose to read for you, otherwise you are pretty much restricted to children's picture books. A lot of what happens in the world is simply a mystery to you.
If you can't program, you are restricted to using existing features in the way they are implemented. If there is someone to help you, then they can write a piece of code for you to do whatever mundane task (be it VBA, shell script, a feature or a complete application), otherwise you are pretty much restricted to clicking at links, icons and menus. A lot of what happens in the computer is a mystery to you.
Hmm. Not convinced, myself.
A massive spinning magnetron gradually slowing down until centrifugal force can't keep it from collapsing into a black hole anymore.
If you te going to make that much popcorn, you probably should not use microwave owen anyway. Use a kettle, it's cheaper, tastes better, and easier to get seasoning and butter just right.
I think Jupiter makes sure any highly elliptical orbit coming near Jupiter's orbit would not last too many orbits before having it's orbit radically changed, like happens with comets sooner or later if they survive long enough otherwise.
At that range, you have to wonder enough time has elapsed since the formation of the solar system for them to have "cleared the neighborhood" around their orbits.
If they are detected by looking at how they herd the minor bodies in the outer solar system, then I think it is safe to say they are indeed planets.
It already is wrong...
Linux Workstation: 16cores = way faster builds than 4 cores.
Did the 4 core CPU have 1/4th of the transistor count of the 16 core CPU? Then I'd expect it to be much slower of course. Point of Linus was, a 4 core CPU with same transistor count (used for more cache, better out-of-order execution logic, more virtual registers, and so on), as 16 core CPU will be faster on almost every task. So cores beyond 4 (the number Linus threw as the ballpark count) make sense only, if you really can not spend any more transistors in making those 4 cores faster, but still have die space to spare.
Why not? Currently Firefox has problems rendering (loading) two pages simultaneously, although it should be able to handle tens, using several cores.
Same with Evince (which is crap anyway), it cannot do anything in parallel, should be able to use tens of cores.
Javascript? Although the language is the worst I have seen since APL, a smart compiler could at least in some cases parallelize it (maybe with speculative execution or like).
And so on.
It will turn out to be as wrong as "640k".
Javascript is generally used in event driven manner, so it will perform quite well on a single core. Firefox having trouble loading multiple pages simultaneously should still be IO-bound, not CPU-bound, and if the engine has trouble, then it's an SW architecture problem where more cores will not really help.
Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.
Linus doesn't so much say that parallelism is useless, he's saying that more cache and bigger, more efficient cores is much better. Therefore, increased number of cores at the cost of single core efficiency is just stupid for general purpose computing. Better just stick more cache to the die, instead of adding a core. Or that is how I read what he says.
I'd say, number of cores should scale with IO bandwidth. You need enough cores to make parallel compilation be CPU bound. Is 4 cores enough for that? Well, I don't know, but if the cores are efficient (highly parallel out-of-order execution) and have large caches, I'd wager IO lags far behind today. Is IO catching up? When will it catch up, if it is? No idea. Maybe someone here does?
I hear there's lots less carbon in the atmosphere of the moon, we could always move there.
The problem with the moon and carbon dioxide is, just exhaling a few times will make the CO2 ppm in lunar atmosphere rise to Jurassic levels. And then next thing you know, there will be allosauruses roaming about eating the colonists. So going to moon is no solution, we'd need to be even more careful about carbon emissions there.
Chit mon, if we're already screwed, we might as well party and pollute like there's no tomorrow. Might as well use the earth all up since it's a goner anyways.
When all is lost, you don't have care anymore. Thanks, global warming alarmists.
But all is not lost. Things are just going to be bad, but just how bad, that remains to be seen.
On the other hand our ancestors lived self-sufficiently off this land for millenia. On the other hand, that was not very fun life. But then, even if global civilization collapses, information does not disappear overnight. I for one will teach my kids both to make fire with flint and steel, and create and program a robot which can make fire with flint and steel. That should cover a lot of possible futures.
By default, when the tree dies, it will rot and return all that CO2 back to the air. So it's not really a solution unless you sequester the wood after the tree dies.
Sounds like you are not seeing the forest for the trees...
you could just give the money directly to engineers and scientists to invent cool stuff
Have you ever actually worked with R&D engineers and scientists? They don't convert money into cool stuff. They convert cool problems into cool stuff, given sufficient resources to allow solving the given cool problem.