I think you actually do agree with me, to a certain extent:).
What I meant was that there are few disadvantages to using an interpreted language when compared with a native language + libraries. As for things like introspection, first class functions, etc. many of them actually _can_ be imitated in a native language using a library/framework. In C++, for example, you could use multiple inheritance to define an 'interface' of sorts that returns class identification info to build in a naive form of introspection (assuming you don't want to use the C++ RTTI facility). Then you simply require all classes inherit from that 'interface'. As for first-class functions, you can create a similar base-class function object (or functor) by overloading the () operator. Whether either of these solutions is elegant is irrelevant (they're not), the point is simply that it's possible.
I take that back, that's not the point at all... The point is that these fancy 'hacks' that imitate things like introspection and first-class functions in native languages are no more efficient than the mechanisms that are provided in interpreted languages like Perl, Python, PHP, etc. So why not just use the high-level language that is easier/cheaper to work with? I've begun to take 'premature-optimization' seriously, as I have found that I end up wasting inordinate amounts of time trying to make code more efficient, then finding that the 'slow' wasn't even a bottleneck in my application. Seems to me that it's quicker/easier to write in an interpreted language, then optomize any bottlenecks (perhaps even by implementing a particular function in a native language!).
If you're writing higher end programs like games, I would recommend cross-platform libraries in a native language.
FWIW, an interpreted language has pretty much the same benefits and drawbacks as using a cross-platform library in a native language. In fact, it pretty much is a cross-platform library in a native language...
I agree, micro means "too small to be seen with the naked eye." These should be called "really little macrocups," or something similar. I was very disappointed when I saw the pictures.
Unless, of course, that is a micropenny that the cups are next to in the photos.
I am not sure about Swedish law, but in most countries simply _signing_ a treaty does not make the treaty provisions legally binding. In the United States, for example, the Congress must pass legislation that conforms with the treat provisions before any of the provisions are _law_. Further, many treaties (like the bullshit international copyright treaties) have a lot of room for interpretation, so very different laws may be crafted from the same basic framework provided by the treaty. International copyright law is enormously complex, and it's not surprising that it would be difficult for a US company to sue a person residing in another country over a copyright related matter, especially if that 'other country' is a country like Sweden.
Actually it is much more complicated than that, and like others have said, much of the difference stems from the fact that Microsoft controls a large portion of the market for PC operating system software. Most computer software (especially Operating Systems) exhibit 'network effects', which means that they become more valuable as more people use them (much like a telephone network becomes more valuable as more people are connected to the network--there would be no point in having a phone if no one else had one). Since Microsoft has control over a large portion of the market they can 'bundle' other software with their Operating System, which already has a strong user base and therefore strong network effects. This bundleing puts the product in the hands of millions of PC users, and thus increases the value of said product.
For example (hypothetical or not, you decide): Microsoft builds a crappy web browser that can't really compete with anyone else's. They get worried because another company has a more popular, and better browser that has API's which can be used to develop platform independent programs and thus weaken Microsoft's power. Microsoft now has much incentive to destroy this other company. So what does Microsoft do?
The answer is, they bundle their browser with their Operating System software, and make it just different enough from other browers that certain features are incompatible. Many web sites will cater to the most widely used web browser (now Microsoft's), and the incompatibilities will be a nuisance to those who do not use Microsoft's browser. There are _many_ other tricks Microsoft played to achieve this end, and if you read the court's decision for the Netscape case you'll understand that Microsoft did much of this intentionally, and their goal was not a better product, but securing their monopoly.
Furthermore, packaging is in many cases _inefficient_, from an economic standpoint, and _illegal_ in the United States (and Europe, I assume) if it is used in collusion to establish a monopoly power (whether this collusion is tacit, unintentional, or otherwise). In the case of a monopoly, bundling is actually a way in which a monopoly can extract more profit from consumers (from an economic standpoint this may technically be a more efficient market). The problem becomes apparent in the case of the Movie industry: theaters value different films differently--a theater in the suburbs likely values disney movies more than one in a neighborhood of single people. If the movie studios were to sell their films independently they would face a different demand cure for each individual film, and would choose the profit maximizing level of production independently. By bundleing films the studio can charge a single price for the aggregation of various films, and can increase it's profits.
There are many reasons, from an economic standpoint, why Microsoft is an inefficient economic agent. What to do about this is another question entirely, but it is somewhat reassuring that the EU is taking action rather than sitting idly by as Microsoft does whatever it wants.
Maybe you should look at the problem from another perspective--
Assume that it is all about profits. Think about it, if you wanted to explain to somebody how annoying spam is to you, or how annoying getting raped is to you, the only common commodity you could accurately describe the burden with is money.
Getting raped is obviously going to have more detrimental effects than getting a spam e-mail. Let's say you have to go to a psychiatrist, your emotional problems lead to an end in a relationship you value, and you lose your job. Maybe you personally lose $1,000,000 due to a rape (this might not be accurate, but whatever).
Now let's look at spam; each spam costs a fraction of a cent worth of bandwidth, time, hard disk space, screen real estate, etc. Perhaps a single spam message costs you 1 cent when all of these burdens are summed up.
Assuming these numbers are accurate a spammer who sends 100 messages to 1,000,000 people would have committed an offense that is equal in value to rape.
Corporate crime goes largely unpunished in the United States while common criminals recieve harsh sentences. Corporations typically get monetary fines for breaking the law, if a corporation includes these fines in their supply function calculations and find they can make more profit by breaking the law and paying the fines they will likely decide to break the law.
One easy way to get around this is to jail people rather than fining them. How much would I have to pay you to take the fall for me in a rape case, assuming you will be tried, convicted, placed on a list of known rapists, become unemployable, lose your wife children and home, etc?
While prison overcrowding is rampant in the United States, it is not due to high rates of jailing for corporate criminals. Statistically corporate crime contributes to a much larger percentage of welfare loss than other crime, and punishment is significantly more lenient.
Your analysis of the situation in this case is incorrect... I'm not quite sure where you got your information, but I can assure you that building standards are very important when it comes to failure investigations the outcome of most civil cases is based on whether the builder took a rational approach to interpreting the standards set forth and the building met all per se requirements for the structure.
In fact, the investigation of structural failures and the subsequent litigation is big business in the US, and in most cases equity is restored. My dad is a forensic engineer and has worked for the two major firms in the industry Exponent and forensic technologies, incorporated. He recently incorporated his own company, doing the same thing, and I can assure you that there is no shortage of clientelle.
I have heard stories of insurance companies or corporations found guilty of not meeting standards writing settlement checks of hundreds of thousands of dollars each to members of class action lawsuits involving hundreds of people (tens of millions of dollars in total). Not to mention the typical forensic engineer charges in the somwhere between $250 and $700/hour for his time and several experts are generally required on each side of a case, all of this is separate from the insane legal fees.
In any case, standards are typically met because construction companies realize the potential losses that can occur if they are not.
Funny you should ask, my friends and I went to the planning meeting and when they opened the mics up my friend asked if they would run Seti on it and see how fast it was and they just laughed:(
What is it going to take? Ships sinking? Trains being derailed? Satellites dropping out of orbit?
Major power outages in the northeast!? Entire DMV operations being shutdown!? Massive denial of service attacks cripleing the internet!? E-mail viruses bringing hundred thousand dollar mailservers to their knees!?
If you read the computer requirements for computer science majors you will see that they also require to you be able to run mandrake linux.
In FAQ they respond to the question "Do I have to use Windows XP Professional on my computer?"
Certain assignments or software in some classes may require the use of Windows which is available in the Computer Science undergraduate labs. If you do not run Windows on your computer, you will miss an educational opportunity to learn Windows administration, which is a marketable skill.
The Department will not check that you are, in fact, using Windows XP Professional. However, if you choose to run Windows 95 or 98, you will almost certainly experience increased difficulty in the programming classes.
The requirement is more of a guideline for people who don't know what to get. And the original poster is probably just a karma whore who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
I go to Virginia Tech, and although there is a requirement I have not yet met a teacher who is that strict about it, as long as you can run the software they provide and you can turn in your homework. They are not going to accept "I coudlnt run Inventor because I run Linux" as an excuse.
Isn't there also a requirement to dual boot into linux for junior/senior year?
Why? It's not news. I would say that the majority of people in the U.S. think windows sucks, they just don't want to deal with a new OS. And the people who don't know are not likely to read the article, they don't care.
Nice spam, but I would argue that those Boeing 747s did not in fact bring the nation to it's knees. It just pissed off some drunken rednecks and gave them an excuse to steal the rest of the worlds oil and call anyone against their plot of world domination an unpatriotic yankee.
I heard a piece on NPR about this yesterday. They said that there were three options, one was to send two more maned space missions to the hubble for repares and to attach a propulsion system to the unit so that it can safely be brought back to earth in 2010. The second was to go along with the current plan, send one more maned mission, that will do some minor upgrades and bring hubble down in 2006. The third option is to not send any more maned missions, and develop a robotic device that could be sent up and would attach the propulsion system to the unit.
NASA said that it was worried about sending more maned missions up to the hubble since it is in a different orbit than the space station and if the mission is botched the shuttle would not be able to reach the station in an emergency.
I don't see how this has to do with deregulation. It has more to do with poor design of the power infrastructure. From what I have heard, the way the power grid works is there are switching stations which link various networks together much like a router on a lan. When one switching station goes down, for whatever reason, there are fail safe systems which move affected areas over to other switches.
What can happen is, if all stations are working at or near capacity and a part of the network goes down for whatever reason (fire, or too much power being drawn for example) then when power is routed from the other switching stations they become overburdened as well and there is a ripple effect of outages across the grid.
When this occurs, power companies have to be careful when bringing power back online as they may become overburdened again as soon as they become operational. The U.S. power grid has become extremely complicated and vulnerable as it has scaled. Fail safe systems often fail in their fail safe components.
Regarding the rolling blackouts in California, they had more to do with Enron witholding power than with deregulation. I have not researched deregulation sufficiently so I can't really argue for or against it, but blaming everything on it is not helpful.
With new small input devices, and things like 7.1 surround sound being implemented in portables (new ps handheld) all we need is a better way to display output and pdas could potentially replace pcs.
Currently I don't own a pda, because I really don't think I would use it. The technology is cool, but coolness doesn't justify the price tag. However, if the current trend continues we could have a device that could be used as your primary computer in a few years. Think talking on the phone while driving is dangerous? Imagine talking on IRC.
If you like far fetched hollywood plots that have no basis in reality. Wait, this is slashdot, of course you do! Hollywood always has to sensationalize and dramatize everything to a point where it doesn't impart any knowledge or insight to the viewer.
Of course, there is the arguement that films such as this one offer an escape from reality so that the viewer can relax and forget all the day to day shit that they have to deal with. But I lost all faith in hollywood when I saw keanu reaves restart some chick's heart in the matrix reloaded, I couldn't help from bursting out in laughter in the middle of the theater.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you actually do agree with me, to a certain extent :).
What I meant was that there are few disadvantages to using an interpreted language when compared with a native language + libraries. As for things like introspection, first class functions, etc. many of them actually _can_ be imitated in a native language using a library/framework. In C++, for example, you could use multiple inheritance to define an 'interface' of sorts that returns class identification info to build in a naive form of introspection (assuming you don't want to use the C++ RTTI facility). Then you simply require all classes inherit from that 'interface'. As for first-class functions, you can create a similar base-class function object (or functor) by overloading the () operator. Whether either of these solutions is elegant is irrelevant (they're not), the point is simply that it's possible.
I take that back, that's not the point at all... The point is that these fancy 'hacks' that imitate things like introspection and first-class functions in native languages are no more efficient than the mechanisms that are provided in interpreted languages like Perl, Python, PHP, etc. So why not just use the high-level language that is easier/cheaper to work with? I've begun to take 'premature-optimization' seriously, as I have found that I end up wasting inordinate amounts of time trying to make code more efficient, then finding that the 'slow' wasn't even a bottleneck in my application. Seems to me that it's quicker/easier to write in an interpreted language, then optomize any bottlenecks (perhaps even by implementing a particular function in a native language!).
FWIW, an interpreted language has pretty much the same benefits and drawbacks as using a cross-platform library in a native language. In fact, it pretty much is a cross-platform library in a native language...
I agree, micro means "too small to be seen with the naked eye." These should be called "really little macrocups," or something similar. I was very disappointed when I saw the pictures. Unless, of course, that is a micropenny that the cups are next to in the photos.
I am not sure about Swedish law, but in most countries simply _signing_ a treaty does not make the treaty provisions legally binding. In the United States, for example, the Congress must pass legislation that conforms with the treat provisions before any of the provisions are _law_. Further, many treaties (like the bullshit international copyright treaties) have a lot of room for interpretation, so very different laws may be crafted from the same basic framework provided by the treaty. International copyright law is enormously complex, and it's not surprising that it would be difficult for a US company to sue a person residing in another country over a copyright related matter, especially if that 'other country' is a country like Sweden.
Actually it is much more complicated than that, and like others have said, much of the difference stems from the fact that Microsoft controls a large portion of the market for PC operating system software. Most computer software (especially Operating Systems) exhibit 'network effects', which means that they become more valuable as more people use them (much like a telephone network becomes more valuable as more people are connected to the network--there would be no point in having a phone if no one else had one). Since Microsoft has control over a large portion of the market they can 'bundle' other software with their Operating System, which already has a strong user base and therefore strong network effects. This bundleing puts the product in the hands of millions of PC users, and thus increases the value of said product.
For example (hypothetical or not, you decide): Microsoft builds a crappy web browser that can't really compete with anyone else's. They get worried because another company has a more popular, and better browser that has API's which can be used to develop platform independent programs and thus weaken Microsoft's power. Microsoft now has much incentive to destroy this other company. So what does Microsoft do?
The answer is, they bundle their browser with their Operating System software, and make it just different enough from other browers that certain features are incompatible. Many web sites will cater to the most widely used web browser (now Microsoft's), and the incompatibilities will be a nuisance to those who do not use Microsoft's browser. There are _many_ other tricks Microsoft played to achieve this end, and if you read the court's decision for the Netscape case you'll understand that Microsoft did much of this intentionally, and their goal was not a better product, but securing their monopoly.
Furthermore, packaging is in many cases _inefficient_, from an economic standpoint, and _illegal_ in the United States (and Europe, I assume) if it is used in collusion to establish a monopoly power (whether this collusion is tacit, unintentional, or otherwise). In the case of a monopoly, bundling is actually a way in which a monopoly can extract more profit from consumers (from an economic standpoint this may technically be a more efficient market). The problem becomes apparent in the case of the Movie industry: theaters value different films differently--a theater in the suburbs likely values disney movies more than one in a neighborhood of single people. If the movie studios were to sell their films independently they would face a different demand cure for each individual film, and would choose the profit maximizing level of production independently. By bundleing films the studio can charge a single price for the aggregation of various films, and can increase it's profits.
There are many reasons, from an economic standpoint, why Microsoft is an inefficient economic agent. What to do about this is another question entirely, but it is somewhat reassuring that the EU is taking action rather than sitting idly by as Microsoft does whatever it wants.
Maybe you should look at the problem from another perspective--
Assume that it is all about profits. Think about it, if you wanted to explain to somebody how annoying spam is to you, or how annoying getting raped is to you, the only common commodity you could accurately describe the burden with is money.
Getting raped is obviously going to have more detrimental effects than getting a spam e-mail. Let's say you have to go to a psychiatrist, your emotional problems lead to an end in a relationship you value, and you lose your job. Maybe you personally lose $1,000,000 due to a rape (this might not be accurate, but whatever).
Now let's look at spam; each spam costs a fraction of a cent worth of bandwidth, time, hard disk space, screen real estate, etc. Perhaps a single spam message costs you 1 cent when all of these burdens are summed up.
Assuming these numbers are accurate a spammer who sends 100 messages to 1,000,000 people would have committed an offense that is equal in value to rape.
Corporate crime goes largely unpunished in the United States while common criminals recieve harsh sentences. Corporations typically get monetary fines for breaking the law, if a corporation includes these fines in their supply function calculations and find they can make more profit by breaking the law and paying the fines they will likely decide to break the law.
One easy way to get around this is to jail people rather than fining them. How much would I have to pay you to take the fall for me in a rape case, assuming you will be tried, convicted, placed on a list of known rapists, become unemployable, lose your wife children and home, etc?
While prison overcrowding is rampant in the United States, it is not due to high rates of jailing for corporate criminals. Statistically corporate crime contributes to a much larger percentage of welfare loss than other crime, and punishment is significantly more lenient.
Your analysis of the situation in this case is incorrect... I'm not quite sure where you got your information, but I can assure you that building standards are very important when it comes to failure investigations the outcome of most civil cases is based on whether the builder took a rational approach to interpreting the standards set forth and the building met all per se requirements for the structure.
In fact, the investigation of structural failures and the subsequent litigation is big business in the US, and in most cases equity is restored. My dad is a forensic engineer and has worked for the two major firms in the industry Exponent and forensic technologies, incorporated. He recently incorporated his own company, doing the same thing, and I can assure you that there is no shortage of clientelle.
I have heard stories of insurance companies or corporations found guilty of not meeting standards writing settlement checks of hundreds of thousands of dollars each to members of class action lawsuits involving hundreds of people (tens of millions of dollars in total). Not to mention the typical forensic engineer charges in the somwhere between $250 and $700/hour for his time and several experts are generally required on each side of a case, all of this is separate from the insane legal fees.
In any case, standards are typically met because construction companies realize the potential losses that can occur if they are not.
Funny you should ask, my friends and I went to the planning meeting and when they opened the mics up my friend asked if they would run Seti on it and see how fast it was and they just laughed :(
In FAQ they respond to the question "Do I have to use Windows XP Professional on my computer?" The requirement is more of a guideline for people who don't know what to get. And the original poster is probably just a karma whore who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
I go to Virginia Tech, and although there is a requirement I have not yet met a teacher who is that strict about it, as long as you can run the software they provide and you can turn in your homework. They are not going to accept "I coudlnt run Inventor because I run Linux" as an excuse.
Isn't there also a requirement to dual boot into linux for junior/senior year?
Why? It's not news. I would say that the majority of people in the U.S. think windows sucks, they just don't want to deal with a new OS. And the people who don't know are not likely to read the article, they don't care.
YOU STOLE MY FLAME
Nice spam, but I would argue that those Boeing 747s did not in fact bring the nation to it's knees. It just pissed off some drunken rednecks and gave them an excuse to steal the rest of the worlds oil and call anyone against their plot of world domination an unpatriotic yankee.
No, actually the mailservers at vt.edu scan for virii, they flagged it and deleted the attachment. I ran FixSobig-F.exe just to make sure, virus free.
I heard a piece on NPR about this yesterday. They said that there were three options, one was to send two more maned space missions to the hubble for repares and to attach a propulsion system to the unit so that it can safely be brought back to earth in 2010. The second was to go along with the current plan, send one more maned mission, that will do some minor upgrades and bring hubble down in 2006. The third option is to not send any more maned missions, and develop a robotic device that could be sent up and would attach the propulsion system to the unit.
NASA said that it was worried about sending more maned missions up to the hubble since it is in a different orbit than the space station and if the mission is botched the shuttle would not be able to reach the station in an emergency.
Then what do you blame all the past outages on? This is not the first time large scale outages in major metropolitan areas has occured.
The power grid was designed and put into operation long before deregulation started.
Not to mention that the power needs in california were caused by witholding of power by Enron, not by deregulation.
I don't see how this has to do with deregulation. It has more to do with poor design of the power infrastructure. From what I have heard, the way the power grid works is there are switching stations which link various networks together much like a router on a lan. When one switching station goes down, for whatever reason, there are fail safe systems which move affected areas over to other switches.
What can happen is, if all stations are working at or near capacity and a part of the network goes down for whatever reason (fire, or too much power being drawn for example) then when power is routed from the other switching stations they become overburdened as well and there is a ripple effect of outages across the grid.
When this occurs, power companies have to be careful when bringing power back online as they may become overburdened again as soon as they become operational. The U.S. power grid has become extremely complicated and vulnerable as it has scaled. Fail safe systems often fail in their fail safe components.
Regarding the rolling blackouts in California, they had more to do with Enron witholding power than with deregulation. I have not researched deregulation sufficiently so I can't really argue for or against it, but blaming everything on it is not helpful.
With new small input devices, and things like 7.1 surround sound being implemented in portables (new ps handheld) all we need is a better way to display output and pdas could potentially replace pcs.
Currently I don't own a pda, because I really don't think I would use it. The technology is cool, but coolness doesn't justify the price tag. However, if the current trend continues we could have a device that could be used as your primary computer in a few years. Think talking on the phone while driving is dangerous? Imagine talking on IRC.
uh, you must be a business major.
3.1415926535...
If you like far fetched hollywood plots that have no basis in reality. Wait, this is slashdot, of course you do! Hollywood always has to sensationalize and dramatize everything to a point where it doesn't impart any knowledge or insight to the viewer.
Of course, there is the arguement that films such as this one offer an escape from reality so that the viewer can relax and forget all the day to day shit that they have to deal with. But I lost all faith in hollywood when I saw keanu reaves restart some chick's heart in the matrix reloaded, I couldn't help from bursting out in laughter in the middle of the theater.
Just put a teletype machine between your wall jack and your modem! DUH! If only FSF had this setup we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in!