What is actually being caclulated and given the stupid name of spread is simply the square of the sine of an angle... I totally don't understand what is new at all about this stuff. It is simply a way of working around the use of some things by using existing trig and giving the same old things other (stupid!) names. If you care about this total bs 'accuracy' that is gained, just use normal trig and avoid certain operations, and yes -- you will be doing *exactly* what this guy is... If that is easier to teach, then teach it like that.. sans the new names that will only serve to confuse in the future... I mean it isn't like you can avoid the definition of quadrance = d^2 anyway...
And if we compared that to a 486.. we could say it made a significant difference. Work out that the percentage change in performance is pretty negligible, and that it is actually not far off from what happens in systems by accident anyway.
He may work on that, but his article talks about the issue in general. My point was simply that if people used a less architecture specific model of programming then the issue of portability would shift away from individual projects and towards each of the minority groups that manage implementations of the VM for their platform. This is preferable to confusing the code within a bunch of other projects with architecture and OS specific oddities.
This is a ridiculous comment. You make a name for yourself by doing something new. You are just really lucky because you have a whole slab of code to stand on top of to get there a lot quicker!
If all you need to do is hook a few apis up together then you could be doing it in a novel way.
If you think you can do a better job, then go and improve some of the APIs, I am sure that would get you even more attention...
Um, you seem to have no idea what I was saying: Maybe it isn't actually slower after all, it just runs some additional optimisations.
If you are hacking the kernel I would not be surprised if you first do some basic tests on a less optimised build (which should be just as fast!).... Although you would probably be surprised to know that some things are more likely to break in more highly optimised code.. Anyway.
Um, duh... But at MSN Search there is an Encarta selection alongside Images, etc..
It would be possible to use different searching techniques (trust the value of links more, etc) and if it became a first class entity then more people would know how to actually use it...
Nice story, apart from the fact it is complete bullshit. Unless you mean you set up your database user to be in the sysadmin role...
And if you program using the normal database APIs you won't be having any injection attacks anyway... creating SQL commands by concatenating user input is just an ass of an idea anyway...
By providing something with a lower total cost. Putting aside any opinions on the quality of either alternative, you would have to agree that although it is possible to get 'free' water by lapping it up out of the gutter, it might be a better proposition to spend money and get something decent. So the way you compete with something that is free is to simply provide as much of a benefit over the free product as the cost at which you are selling it.
Microsoft represents the antithesis of empowering people through software - they want to trap customers in their proprietary environment, and make it as costly as possible to leave.
I don't really know where to begin with this. It may be difficult to migrate away from Microsoft software, but why would you expect this to be a particularly important concern for them. The truth is that they are in the business of selling software to people and those people buy the software because they believe it enables them to get the job done. Your view that the world is full of helpless retards that only use 'inferior' Microsoft software on their PCs because they have been unfairly 'trapped' by the evil empire is childish and a world away from the truth. I have both used and developed in various flavors of Windows and Linux, and I can say that in general my experience on Windows has been far superior and has enabled me to work far more efficiently.
Then why did RIM have to come out with the Blackberry? Why didn't Microsoft release software for a device like that? I'll tell you why - because Microsoft has never developed a "lightweight" or "simple" piece of software. They may have bought a few products which met that description, but they're incapable of developing such a beast.
Simple minded zealots sprouting unfounded crap like that are the single biggest threat to open source software. There are thousands of highly skilled and well paid developers at Microsoft, and I would have far greater confidence in their ability to write good software than many other groups. They have often missed oppourtunities in emerging markets, but this is not to say they will not compete in the future. See MSN Search, and the challenge they are now putting to google. You look at the XBox as a failure but they are a new player and already well established. Look at the amount of money spent on a single game (Halo 2) in such a short period of time.
While you can flippantly discard any of these pushes into new markets, I can assure you that Sony and Google do not do the same. It is clear that Microsoft are in a powerful position and have a great oppourtunity of executing in many markets, and it is completely foolish to dismiss them outright becuase of your own petty prejudices.
Oh I agree - that's the conventional wisdom, that MS will make up in volume what it loses in margin. I think that's a load of hooey, though. Margins in the electronics business are razor thin, even compared to the PC business these days, and there's absolutely no reason why these devices need access to MS-specific software.
Of course nobody needs to use MS software, but it is clearly an area in which they are willing to compete. I would say they have an initial advantage over many other competitors.
Phones, TV's, stereos and cameras can work
perfectly well running software written on Linux or some other OSS (i.e. free) alternative.
And they can also work running Microsoft software. And to suggest that it is 'free' for a company to use OSS is just ridiculous. Additionally in a competitive environment it is necessary by the terms of the GPL to release at least part of the software they write for the device (this is of course another thorny issue). Really the only issue is setting the right price and making it easy for device manufacturers.
RIM's Blackberry has proven you don't need a portable version of Outlook to do e-mail on a pocket device. These devices are all about simplicity, which is the very antithesis of the Microsoft model with Windows and Office of adding more complexity with each release.
This is a completely ridiculous statement. Microsoft aims to empower people with new capability through software. In a PC environment this means adding additional complexity and using the new power of modern PCs to do things that would be considered wasteful in other contexts. If a lightweight device running simple software empowers users in a way that is valuable and marketable then Microsoft will do it.
People don't want a TV or a phone that's complicated - they want one that works.
Which is why if Microsoft competes in that marketplace that is what they will have to deliver to customers.
And we're already seeing cheap PCs coming with Linux as a result. Expect to see that trend accelerate, especially overseas where most of the real growth in the PC market will take place over the next decade.
And take note of the current strategies Microsoft is looking into to make the cost of Windows less significant on cheap hardware or in other countries. You are forgetting that the only reason that Windows is not on these machines is because of cost, not because the people buying the machines don't want Windows.
It's not like MS will go bankrupt tomorrow, but their growth is certainly going to be curtailed at some point, and they haven't yet developed an effective Plan B to milking the Windows desktop monopoly, in spite of numerous attempts (XBox, Win CE, etc.).
Clearly it is impossible to continue the incredible growth that Microsoft has had without moving into new markets. I am not convinced that OSS poses as significant a threat to Microsoft as many in here would like. I see the marketplace becoming more competitive which is a great thing for the consumer, and even if growth stops at some point the company can and will continue to make money...
They'll probably just buy the next big thing, whatever that is, unless whoever comes up with it is so huge they can't buy them (i.e. IBM).
Slashdot Mirror
Doing so would be pointless. My point was that this 'new' thing isn't at all new. So what exactly is the point of any of it?
Making up new names or avoiding ones in common use is just a bad idea in general...
What is actually being caclulated and given the stupid name of spread is simply the square of the sine of an angle... I totally don't understand what is new at all about this stuff. It is simply a way of working around the use of some things by using existing trig and giving the same old things other (stupid!) names. If you care about this total bs 'accuracy' that is gained, just use normal trig and avoid certain operations, and yes -- you will be doing *exactly* what this guy is... If that is easier to teach, then teach it like that.. sans the new names that will only serve to confuse in the future... I mean it isn't like you can avoid the definition of quadrance = d^2 anyway...
And if we compared that to a 486.. we could say it made a significant difference. Work out that the percentage change in performance is pretty negligible, and that it is actually not far off from what happens in systems by accident anyway.
He may work on that, but his article talks about the issue in general. My point was simply that if people used a less architecture specific model of programming then the issue of portability would shift away from individual projects and towards each of the minority groups that manage implementations of the VM for their platform. This is preferable to confusing the code within a bunch of other projects with architecture and OS specific oddities.
This is a reason we should be using languages other than C/C++.
Then we only have one (significant, sure) platform dependant application.
Dealing with platform oddities on every program is always going to be a far more difficult problem.
Well, apart from the fact that Foster's actually pofits from almost all of the beer we drink as it owns the most popular brands...
There is still a good reason: It is non-volatile.
M64058e
But were you sensible enough to design and fab custom hardware, because you know how terrible the standard off the shelf stuff is?
This is a ridiculous comment. You make a name for yourself by doing something new. You are just really lucky because you have a whole slab of code to stand on top of to get there a lot quicker!
If all you need to do is hook a few apis up together then you could be doing it in a novel way.
If you think you can do a better job, then go and improve some of the APIs, I am sure that would get you even more attention...
Pictures?
:)
The biggest issue is actually assisting suicide, which, unlike suicide itself, can be a repeat offence!
Um, you seem to have no idea what I was saying: Maybe it isn't actually slower after all, it just runs some additional optimisations.
If you are hacking the kernel I would not be surprised if you first do some basic tests on a less optimised build (which should be just as fast!).... Although you would probably be surprised to know that some things are more likely to break in more highly optimised code.. Anyway.
That sounds really clever. Because the only thing I care about with an ahead of time optimizing compiler is the compile time.
*Maybe* that 2x is giving a couple percent of additional performance...
Um?
Please explain...
Um, sorry but slashdot cliche #4137 doesn't apply here...
I would be pretty certain that if you were maintaining code then you would have access to it...
*sigh*
Is when nuclear energy is going to be put back on the agenda. I mean compared to coal it is squeaky clean!
When are people going to realise that the problem with single sign on isn't a technical one....
Um, duh... But at MSN Search there is an Encarta selection alongside Images, etc..
It would be possible to use different searching techniques (trust the value of links more, etc) and if it became a first class entity then more people would know how to actually use it...
Nice story, apart from the fact it is complete bullshit. Unless you mean you set up your database user to be in the sysadmin role...
And if you program using the normal database APIs you won't be having any injection attacks anyway... creating SQL commands by concatenating user input is just an ass of an idea anyway...
Sort of like a drug. You know it is killing you but you keep coming back for more..
Is there a slashdot addict support group?
And if you want to use a database with the benefits of both, try MSSQL :)
This is simply a strategic move to compete with Microsoft and it's inclusion of Encarta in MSN Search...
How do you compete with something that's free?
By providing something with a lower total cost. Putting aside any opinions on the quality of either alternative, you would have to agree that although it is possible to get 'free' water by lapping it up out of the gutter, it might be a better proposition to spend money and get something decent. So the way you compete with something that is free is to simply provide as much of a benefit over the free product as the cost at which you are selling it.
Microsoft represents the antithesis of empowering people through software - they want to trap customers in their proprietary environment, and make it as costly as possible to leave.
I don't really know where to begin with this. It may be difficult to migrate away from Microsoft software, but why would you expect this to be a particularly important concern for them. The truth is that they are in the business of selling software to people and those people buy the software because they believe it enables them to get the job done. Your view that the world is full of helpless retards that only use 'inferior' Microsoft software on their PCs because they have been unfairly 'trapped' by the evil empire is childish and a world away from the truth. I have both used and developed in various flavors of Windows and Linux, and I can say that in general my experience on Windows has been far superior and has enabled me to work far more efficiently.
Then why did RIM have to come out with the Blackberry? Why didn't Microsoft release software for a device like that? I'll tell you why - because Microsoft has never developed a "lightweight" or "simple" piece of software. They may have bought a few products which met that description, but they're incapable of developing such a beast.
Simple minded zealots sprouting unfounded crap like that are the single biggest threat to open source software. There are thousands of highly skilled and well paid developers at Microsoft, and I would have far greater confidence in their ability to write good software than many other groups. They have often missed oppourtunities in emerging markets, but this is not to say they will not compete in the future. See MSN Search, and the challenge they are now putting to google. You look at the XBox as a failure but they are a new player and already well established. Look at the amount of money spent on a single game (Halo 2) in such a short period of time.
While you can flippantly discard any of these pushes into new markets, I can assure you that Sony and Google do not do the same. It is clear that Microsoft are in a powerful position and have a great oppourtunity of executing in many markets, and it is completely foolish to dismiss them outright becuase of your own petty prejudices.
Oh I agree - that's the conventional wisdom, that MS will make up in volume what it loses in margin. I think that's a load of hooey, though. Margins in the electronics business are razor thin, even compared to the PC business these days, and there's absolutely no reason why these devices need access to MS-specific software.
Of course nobody needs to use MS software, but it is clearly an area in which they are willing to compete. I would say they have an initial advantage over many other competitors.
Phones, TV's, stereos and cameras can work perfectly well running software written on Linux or some other OSS (i.e. free) alternative.
And they can also work running Microsoft software. And to suggest that it is 'free' for a company to use OSS is just ridiculous. Additionally in a competitive environment it is necessary by the terms of the GPL to release at least part of the software they write for the device (this is of course another thorny issue). Really the only issue is setting the right price and making it easy for device manufacturers.
RIM's Blackberry has proven you don't need a portable version of Outlook to do e-mail on a pocket device. These devices are all about simplicity, which is the very antithesis of the Microsoft model with Windows and Office of adding more complexity with each release.
This is a completely ridiculous statement. Microsoft aims to empower people with new capability through software. In a PC environment this means adding additional complexity and using the new power of modern PCs to do things that would be considered wasteful in other contexts. If a lightweight device running simple software empowers users in a way that is valuable and marketable then Microsoft will do it.
People don't want a TV or a phone that's complicated - they want one that works.
Which is why if Microsoft competes in that marketplace that is what they will have to deliver to customers.
And we're already seeing cheap PCs coming with Linux as a result. Expect to see that trend accelerate, especially overseas where most of the real growth in the PC market will take place over the next decade.
And take note of the current strategies Microsoft is looking into to make the cost of Windows less significant on cheap hardware or in other countries. You are forgetting that the only reason that Windows is not on these machines is because of cost, not because the people buying the machines don't want Windows.
It's not like MS will go bankrupt tomorrow, but their growth is certainly going to be curtailed at some point, and they haven't yet developed an effective Plan B to milking the Windows desktop monopoly, in spite of numerous attempts (XBox, Win CE, etc.).
Clearly it is impossible to continue the incredible growth that Microsoft has had without moving into new markets. I am not convinced that OSS poses as significant a threat to Microsoft as many in here would like. I see the marketplace becoming more competitive which is a great thing for the consumer, and even if growth stops at some point the company can and will continue to make money...
They'll probably just buy the next big thing, whatever that is, unless whoever comes up with it is so huge they can't buy them (i.e. IBM).