If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience.
No thanks. I think I'll wait for Crazy as a Sh*thouse Rat: The Darl McBride Story.
But that doesn't change the fact that some professional classes have inordinate and inappropriate amounts of power and influence. I'm thinking mainly about lawyers and the legal professional in general. Lawyers have managed to write themselves into the heart of modern society. The proliferation of frivolous lawsuits attests to this (eg SCO). Nobody is safe from a potential lawsuit. Even dogs need a legal team these days.
And at the end of the day, whoever wins or loses, the lawyers gets paid. Paid very well indeed. And the exorbitant price of justice has made it impossible for innocent but poor defendants to get justice. If you don't have money, you're screwed. Many public "defenders" simply sleep through the trials. Even when their clients are facing death row.
But what do you expect from people who can interpret the law how they choose - basically, being able to write the rules to suit them. Of course they're going to award themselves and their clients money. Of course they're going to make rulings about intellectual property rights even when they don't know anything about the intellectual property itself - especially when it's software. It truly makes you sick.
It's funny that most geeks really admire Paul Allen and Steve Wozniak but hate Gates and Jobs.
You have a point.
Creating a spaceship is all well and good and will probably advance humanity in the long run. Kudos to Paul Allen for taking the initiative.
But, in purely monetary terms, Bill Gates is much more charitable. In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's true. I suppose it's a small consolation to think that some of the "Microsoft tax" goes towards charity.
The open source community values people with skill and talent at programming. Unfortunately, the best hackers do not necessarily have the best vision or foresight (although they may well do). ESR dismissing useability experts as "being wrong" shows that you need more than gut instinct to be a good leader.
Perhaps the open source movement should take some advice from the commercial sector and hire managers who are good at managing, but not necessarily the best hackers. Planning, foresight and vision are more important qualities than having hacked together popular open source programs.
This criticism applies to any slide show, performed with software or without. Just because MIcrosoft have produced a popular and highly selling slideshow program is no reason to single them out.
so with Linux robots making cars, I can expect to be driving via a command line interface instead of a steering wheel in the future?
ignition
left
right
accelerate
break
On the other hand, it might be cool to be able to write shell scripts.
if $CAR $== $POLICE then pullover;
else accelerate;
fi
The blue-collar worker won't be eliminated. Instead robots will make particularly repetitive and simple jobs redundant. With the money that the company saves by using robots they can employ former blue-collar workers to do jobs that only humans can do, jobs that actually require human intelligence and creativity.
It didn't go into much detail as to how they were actually simulating the organs:
Sorting out which transients contributed to a qualitative sense of realness-- to a master organist -- was a job that only an experienced player could hope to achieve. Late nights and many samples led to a collection of proprietary techniques for combing the transients out of a recording and ordering them for reproduction.
So I think they just stuck to the attack/hold/release model and used extensive and clever sampling. A proper mathematical model would probably have require too much processing power even with 10 PCs, Linux or not.
This is why I've set a -6 modifier for comments rated as "funny" in my preferences. Sure, there are a lot of genuinely funny comments, but these are usually outnumbered by the cliches and throw-away lines.
Patients who are at greatest risk of dying experience diffuse or extensive hemorrhage into the skin, mucous membranes, and internal organs, including the cavities of the stomach and intestines. Swelling of the spleen, lymph nodes, kidneys, and brain occurs. In addition, there is usually evidence of interstitial pneumonia and sometimes of pancreatitis and inflammation in the eyes. By the end of the first week of acute symptoms, the patient can bleed freely from the eyes, ears, and nose. Patients begin to vomit a black "sludge" of blood and disintegrated internal organs. Capillary leakage results in vascular collapse. Patients experience coma and convulsions, followed by respiratory distress, and finally death.
Although I find kneejerk quips about SCO about as funny as cancer, your comment may have a grain of truth in it.
Genetic Technologies, a small Australian firm, own patents to "junk" DNA, a particular kind of DNA. More than 80% of the human genome is junk DNA, and I'd guess that a large portion of the ebola genome is junk DNA too. Intellectual property is just as bad for biology as for software development, it seems.
Before we start looking into the safety of nanotechhnology, I think the question of whether nanotech will ever be feasible should be addressed. Here are a few basic problems that I've yet to see any solutions for: 1. How is energy going to be supplied to the nanobots? 2. How are the nanobots going to be produced, economically? 3. How are they going to move (wheels, flying)?
I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on such a poorly-defined field of technology that has shown so little promise so far. The smaller you make things, the more difficult and expensive they are to produce. Nanotechnology seems to be just a convenient "magic" technology useful only for SF writers.
I'm sure the people of Iraq would have loved to vote a new leader when Saddam Hussein was in power
Saddam Hussein actually did a lot of good things for the Iraqi, such as nationalising the oil industry. And Hussein had a point about the fairness of tiny puppet states like Kuwait controlling an enormously disproportionate amount of oil reserves. Unfortunately, reality is not as simple as Fox News would have you believe.
But the question now is if and when the Iraqi people will get the right to vote. Since Afghanistan, which was invaded way back in `01, still hasn't had a single democratic election, Iraq's chances are slim. You see, the people of Iraq aren't exactly handing out flowers to the American invasion force (which indiscriminately slaughter opposition). In fact, most Iraqis would prefer independence, much as America's forefathers did. But the US occupation forces hardly want a government which might demand national autonomy and national control of the oil supply.
And guess what - the Baath party has been outlawed. What an auspicious beginning for American-style democracy.
I was just at a lecture about the Therac disaster. The fact that it had a bad, uninformative UI was a factor in the disaster. In no way was it "nice'n'cool".
It was text-based, and you basically pressed particular keys to get it to do things (for example 'e' put it in electron mode, 'p' performed a pulse, I think.) The problem happened when the technician kept pressing a key, thinking that an error had occurred and that nothing was happening. Meanwhile the patient was getting painfully zapped by the Therac. (Incidentally the video and audio link to the patient was broken.)
A GUI would have been able to show the internal state of the device and the concurrency problems would have been more obvious.
I KNOW this is slashdot, and I KNOW that most people here probably think a UNIX command line is better than a proper GUI, but for non-programmers, such as medical technicians, a GUI is far better way to interact with complex devices. I'd much sooner that my doctors were using devices with GUIs rather than cryptic key sequences or commands.
This comment stands at "+2 Insightful" (hah), with no negative moderation, thereby confirming this site's reputation as the online capital of anti-social, thoughtless free-software zealotry.
Is the slowest form of GC. Every time you reassign a pointer/delete an object you must update the reference counts.
It makes sense - reference counting is, by definition, the most economical system to use (in terms of memory). So you're trading off speed for memory. Which may or may not be what you want to do - but consider that, usually, memory is cheaper than speed.
The advantage of mark and sweep is that developers can tune the trade-off by increasing the frequency of garbage collection, (which will trade off speed for more memory). AFAIK, you can't tune reference counting this way (there wouldn't be any point).
There's an interesting letter by a Microsoft designer about how they found that mark and sweep was much better than reference counting for Visual Basic.NET. And they really didn't want to change from ref counting.
The capital of the survivors in the Matrix is called "Zion" - the name of the mythical Jewish homeland. Egypt has been at war with Israel not too long ago, and there is huge resentment towards Israel because of the occupation of Palestine.
It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.
Sydney Uni teaches Java *only* in the first year, and then less often in later years.
Personally I think that a C++/Python (or some other scripting language) mix provides all the benefits of Java with none of the drawbacks, but I guess I'm still an undergraduate.
A fusion warhead uses a fission bomb and a reflective metallic shell to focus the intense radiation caused by the fision explosion upon the actual tritium-deuterium mix. Great lengths are gone to ignite fusion, from choosing metals with enough radiative opacity, to finding the right mixture of tritum and deuterium. The idea of surrounding water also igniting, seems odd, to say the least.
Can you give me some kind of link or reasoning for this?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience. No thanks. I think I'll wait for Crazy as a Sh*thouse Rat: The Darl McBride Story.
But that doesn't change the fact that some professional classes have inordinate and inappropriate amounts of power and influence. I'm thinking mainly about lawyers and the legal professional in general. Lawyers have managed to write themselves into the heart of modern society. The proliferation of frivolous lawsuits attests to this (eg SCO). Nobody is safe from a potential lawsuit. Even dogs need a legal team these days.
And at the end of the day, whoever wins or loses, the lawyers gets paid. Paid very well indeed. And the exorbitant price of justice has made it impossible for innocent but poor defendants to get justice. If you don't have money, you're screwed. Many public "defenders" simply sleep through the trials. Even when their clients are facing death row.
But what do you expect from people who can interpret the law how they choose - basically, being able to write the rules to suit them. Of course they're going to award themselves and their clients money. Of course they're going to make rulings about intellectual property rights even when they don't know anything about the intellectual property itself - especially when it's software. It truly makes you sick.
It's funny that most geeks really admire Paul Allen and Steve Wozniak but hate Gates and Jobs.
You have a point.
Creating a spaceship is all well and good and will probably advance humanity in the long run. Kudos to Paul Allen for taking the initiative.
But, in purely monetary terms, Bill Gates is much more charitable. In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's true. I suppose it's a small consolation to think that some of the "Microsoft tax" goes towards charity.
The open source community values people with skill and talent at programming. Unfortunately, the best hackers do not necessarily have the best vision or foresight (although they may well do). ESR dismissing useability experts as "being wrong" shows that you need more than gut instinct to be a good leader.
Perhaps the open source movement should take some advice from the commercial sector and hire managers who are good at managing, but not necessarily the best hackers. Planning, foresight and vision are more important qualities than having hacked together popular open source programs.
This criticism applies to any slide show, performed with software or without. Just because MIcrosoft have produced a popular and highly selling slideshow program is no reason to single them out.
so with Linux robots making cars, I can expect to be driving via a command line interface instead of a steering wheel in the future? ignition left right accelerate break On the other hand, it might be cool to be able to write shell scripts. if $CAR $== $POLICE then pullover; else accelerate; fi
The blue-collar worker won't be eliminated. Instead robots will make particularly repetitive and simple jobs redundant. With the money that the company saves by using robots they can employ former blue-collar workers to do jobs that only humans can do, jobs that actually require human intelligence and creativity.
So I think they just stuck to the attack/hold/release model and used extensive and clever sampling. A proper mathematical model would probably have require too much processing power even with 10 PCs, Linux or not.
long long (but not "ultra long long") is in the C99 standard.
This is why I've set a -6 modifier for comments rated as "funny" in my preferences. Sure, there are a lot of genuinely funny comments, but these are usually outnumbered by the cliches and throw-away lines.
He meant literate as in "familiar with literature; literary" (2). But you knew that, right?
Source
So, if you have Ebola, you can literally "vomit your guts out".
Although I find kneejerk quips about SCO about as funny as cancer, your comment may have a grain of truth in it.
Genetic Technologies, a small Australian firm, own patents to "junk" DNA, a particular kind of DNA. More than 80% of the human genome is junk DNA, and I'd guess that a large portion of the ebola genome is junk DNA too. Intellectual property is just as bad for biology as for software development, it seems.
Before we start looking into the safety of nanotechhnology, I think the question of whether nanotech will ever be feasible should be addressed. Here are a few basic problems that I've yet to see any solutions for:
1. How is energy going to be supplied to the nanobots?
2. How are the nanobots going to be produced, economically?
3. How are they going to move (wheels, flying)?
I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on such a poorly-defined field of technology that has shown so little promise so far. The smaller you make things, the more difficult and expensive they are to produce. Nanotechnology seems to be just a convenient "magic" technology useful only for SF writers.
Imagine if somebody based their opinions about Slashdot based upon somebody's signature. It's stupid and hypocritical.
I think the guy just had a sense of humour. It's a shame to think that he must be getting hell for trying to lighten up his job.
I'm sure the people of Iraq would have loved to vote a new leader when Saddam Hussein was in power
Saddam Hussein actually did a lot of good things for the Iraqi, such as nationalising the oil industry. And Hussein had a point about the fairness of tiny puppet states like Kuwait controlling an enormously disproportionate amount of oil reserves. Unfortunately, reality is not as simple as Fox News would have you believe.
But the question now is if and when the Iraqi people will get the right to vote. Since Afghanistan, which was invaded way back in `01, still hasn't had a single democratic election, Iraq's chances are slim. You see, the people of Iraq aren't exactly handing out flowers to the American invasion force (which indiscriminately slaughter opposition). In fact, most Iraqis would prefer independence, much as America's forefathers did. But the US occupation forces hardly want a government which might demand national autonomy and national control of the oil supply.
And guess what - the Baath party has been outlawed. What an auspicious beginning for American-style democracy.
With that many typos in one post, I sure hope your grammar is better than your spelling.
I was just at a lecture about the Therac disaster. The fact that it had a bad, uninformative UI was a factor in the disaster. In no way was it "nice'n'cool".
It was text-based, and you basically pressed particular keys to get it to do things (for example 'e' put it in electron mode, 'p' performed a pulse, I think.) The problem happened when the technician kept pressing a key, thinking that an error had occurred and that nothing was happening. Meanwhile the patient was getting painfully zapped by the Therac. (Incidentally the video and audio link to the patient was broken.)
A GUI would have been able to show the internal state of the device and the concurrency problems would have been more obvious.
I KNOW this is slashdot, and I KNOW that most people here probably think a UNIX command line is better than a proper GUI, but for non-programmers, such as medical technicians, a GUI is far better way to interact with complex devices. I'd much sooner that my doctors were using devices with GUIs rather than cryptic key sequences or commands.
This is hilarious. I mean, I hate recompiling myself, but that's just ridiculous.
But perhaps something as important as command protocal the should have been designed before hand?
This comment stands at "+2 Insightful" (hah), with no negative moderation, thereby confirming this site's reputation as the online capital of anti-social, thoughtless free-software zealotry.
C# is a language tha has been designed to improve on Java, so your accusations that it is worse than Java need evidence.
... (java doesn't have an equivalent)?
Have you tried to program in it? Do you know the first thing of what you are talking about?
Do you understand the choice between delegates and inner clases, properties and get/set methods, attributes and
Do you realize how important it is to have a bytecode language that is not tied to a single language?
Care to explain your reasoning with facts, or are you technological views based entirely upon your politics?
Is the slowest form of GC. Every time you reassign a pointer/delete an object you must update the reference counts.
.NET. And they really didn't want to change from ref counting.
It makes sense - reference counting is, by definition, the most economical system to use (in terms of memory). So you're trading off speed for memory. Which may or may not be what you want to do - but consider that, usually, memory is cheaper than speed.
The advantage of mark and sweep is that developers can tune the trade-off by increasing the frequency of garbage collection, (which will trade off speed for more memory). AFAIK, you can't tune reference counting this way (there wouldn't be any point).
There's an interesting letter by a Microsoft designer about how they found that mark and sweep was much better than reference counting for Visual Basic
The capital of the survivors in the Matrix is called "Zion" - the name of the mythical Jewish homeland. Egypt has been at war with Israel not too long ago, and there is huge resentment towards Israel because of the occupation of Palestine.
It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.
Sydney Uni teaches Java *only* in the first year, and then less often in later years. Personally I think that a C++/Python (or some other scripting language) mix provides all the benefits of Java with none of the drawbacks, but I guess I'm still an undergraduate.
A fusion warhead uses a fission bomb and a reflective metallic shell to focus the intense radiation caused by the fision explosion upon the actual tritium-deuterium mix. Great lengths are gone to ignite fusion, from choosing metals with enough radiative opacity, to finding the right mixture of tritum and deuterium. The idea of surrounding water also igniting, seems odd, to say the least.
Can you give me some kind of link or reasoning for this?