Actually, to be a bit serious, I seem to recall through clouded memory from college days long gone by that flipping the sail around was one method to decelerate the rocket on approach to the target star. In this scenario, the rocket would have maximum velocity somewhere around the mid-point between the source and destination stars.
So, unless one had other means of propulsion to facilitate a return to Sol, one would have to change one's mind a whole heck of a lot sooner than ~half-way to Alpha Proxima, otherwise it'd just be easier to just keep on truckin'.
Seriously, I don't see the problem, so long as companies like IBM and (dare I say it) Microsoft continue to do research in this area. That is the real value of companies that are committed to *real* research in revolutionary sciences and technology.
Of course, US companies don't have a hammerlock on this research. There is a lot of work being done internationally in the area, by corporations, and by educational/research institutions.
Actually, wrt the much bally-hooed stock purchase by Microsoft, that was mostly a PR stunt by both sides to show the public that Microsoft was committed to the Apple market. While $150M is nothing to sneeze at, it didn't amount to much more than a symbolic financial prop for Apple, since Apple had, if I remember correctly, $4+ BILLION in its warchest at the time.
Most more important is that Jobs got the two things out of the deal that Apple really needed - the continued support of the worlds largest software developer, and the ability to sell the story that Macs will be able to work along side PCs in any environment. Gates got the one thing that MS really needed - the abililty to show the DOJ that MS was enlightened enough to play nice with competitors, inspite of its monopoly position.
You can be sure, though, that Gates and company did that only after doing the calculus that showed that benefits outweighted the detriments.
BTW, I use OpenOffice on my Macs, but those Apple developers at MS know their stuff. The Office on the Mac is a beaut, and has historically been a lot better than the POS that is sold to WIndows customers. Too bad it costs so damned much.
Must have 5+ years experience in programming remote controls and configuring consumer electronics. Proficiency with all major manufacturers of mid-grade consumer electronics a must. In addition, familiarity with 2 or more high-end manufacturer's desired. Educational requirements: Must not be old enough to have a high-school diploma, though exceptionally talented older engineers may be considered. Strong references from parents, relatives and neighbors required. Competitive pay commensurate with experience.
Please help, my VCR has been blinking "12:00" for three years now!
I just can't figure out what justifies that price tag. There is no way any remote control should cost this much, let alone *this* remote. The feature list is underwhelming. This paperweight-in-training shouldn't cost more than ~$150.
The key to these sort of speciality devices is the user-interface design. If Sony holds true to form, they'll have tried to fold in way too many functions, with way too little thought on how to make accessing those functions intuitive.
Plus, when you spill a beer on it and short it out , it's really gonna suck.
This remote may belong in a "smart home", but it'd be one with a really dumb owner.
It'd be nice if someone would take the lead and get rid of the legacy tech that still haunts these boxes. Floppy drive? PS/2 keybaord/mouse con ectors? For reals?
That being said, this might be worth a look as nice little media-server system to replace a Toshiba laptop that recently died on me.
Poker may not be sport, but it is definitely entertainment.
As is "competitive cheerleading". Have you seen those girls!? FOOFAH!!!
---anactofgod---
Poker and geeks have a long history together...
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 1
After all, isn't Bill Gates supposed to have been something of a poker shark at Hah-vahd? Of course, that could be just another one of those myths that have taken on the air of authenticity over time.
NPR actually had a pretty funny commentary on this very topic this week on "All Things Considered", I believe, but i can't seem to find it on the NRP site.
* Perhaps today is a good day to die... I say we ship it."
* Specifications are for the weak and timid!!
* This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium (!) processors if I am to do battle with this code.
* You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
* Indentation?! I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
* What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake!
* Klingon function calls do not have "parameters" - they have "arguments"- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
* Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
* I have challenged the entire Quality Assurance team to a Bat-Leh contest! They will not concern us again.
* A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code.
* By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!
* You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
* Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
Why don't you Google to answer your silly question on why NeXT (not Apple) chose Objective-C over C++.
You may as well as why ID chose NeXT and Objective-C over Windows and C++ to develop the original Quake engine.
But, to save you the effort of typing "Objective C versus C++" in a Google search field, I cut & paste a short paragraph out of an article (returned by said search) printed in the Linux Journal on Sept 13, 2003.
As for C#...Objective-C pre-date C# by decades. It was developed independently and comtemporaniously with C++.
---anactofgod---
An introduction to Objective-C for programmers familiar with C++ or any other OOP language.
It is a surprising fact that anyone studying GNUstep or the Cocoa Framework will notice they are nearly identical to the NEXTSTEP APIs that were defined ten years ago. A decade is an eternity in the software industry. If the framework (and its programming language--Objective C) came through untouched these past ten years, there must be something special about it. And Objective-C has done more than survive; some famous games including Quake and NuclearStrike were developed using Objective-C.
Why Should I Learn Objective-C?
Objective-C gives you the full power of a true object-oriented language with exactly one syntax addition to C and, unlike C++, about a dozen additional keywords.
Since Apple purchase Next for $400 million and Mac OS X ships with Objective-C, recycling NEXTSTEP (later called OpenStep), as well as the fact that GNUstep is delivering the rock-solid window-manager Window Maker, Objective-C is (rightly) getting more attention because it is more flexible than C++ at the cost of being slower.
In reality, Objective-C is Object C and is as close to Smalltalk as a compiled language can be. This is no surprise as Brad J. Cox added object-oriented, Smalltalk-80-based extensions to the C language.
So objective-C is a hybrid between Smalltalk and C. A string can be represented as a `char *' or as an object, whereas in Smalltalk everything is an object. As with Java (int, double,.. are no objects) this leads to faster performance.
In contrast, C++ traditionally is associated with the Simula 67 school of object-oriented programming. In C++, the static type of an object fixes what messages it can receive. In Objective-C the dynamic type of an object determines what messages it can receive. The Simula 67 format allows problems to be detected at compile time. The Smalltalk approach delays typing until runtime and therefore is more flexible.
A GNU version was written by Dennis Gladding in 1992 and then Richard Stallman took over the development. The current GNU version is derived from the version written by Kresten Thorup when he was a still a university student in 1993. He ported that version to the NeXTcube and joined NeXT.
Apple chose Objective-C for Cocoa, as NEXTSTEP was based on Objective-C. But, even if they had written it from scratch, they might have decided to use Objective-C because it is object-oriented, which is undoubtedly a must for big software projects. It extends the standard ANSI C, so that existing C programs can be adapted to use the frameworks, and programmers can chose when to stick to procedural programming and when to go the object-oriented way. C was intended to be a good language for system programming. C is fine as it allows the programmer to do exactly what she wants, all the way down to the hardware. C also keeps the gold old pointers, which can be used for efficient code.
Objective-C is simple, unambiguous and easy to learn. But most of all, it is the most dynamic language of all object-oriented languages based on C. Its dynamic late binding offers flexibility and power. Messages are not constrained by either the class of the receiver or the method selector, allowing rapid change and offering access to information about running applications.
I was an consultant for Apple back in the heady days right after NeXT acquired Apple, when Jobs was Apple's "interim CEO" (the term "iCEO" hadn't been coined yet). I had the good fortune of taking a class taught by Aaron on advanced WebObjects programming.
He struck me then as someone that falls into the category as a "Big Brain", esp wrt to training/educating on software programming. And a super nice (and patient) guy, to boot.
whoops..the full post didn't make it previously...here it is...
You are incorrect. The point that I'm making, and that you are missing, is that the guerilla tactics used by the revolutionaries were NOT acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of the time.
They are acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of OUR (late 20th/early 21st century) time. You are making the common error of applying the lens of your contemporary POV to a historical time period, and applying your contempory values to judge those actions.
In fact, those very guerilla actions by the Americans irregular militia caused the Revolutionaries were roundly critized as being dishonorable and, in fact, criminal, and caused the revolutionary cause to loose a great deal of standing in court of international public opinion.
Fortunately, the price paid on that front was more than outweighted by other factors, and the gains the militia made in "evening the odds" against the British army.
So, did the militia men (or their families) care on whit about what the Brits, Dutch, French, etc. thought about their tactics? I would bet not.
Similarly, if the populance being used as "shields" view the Iraqi resistance's cause to be just, they may very well consider that these "amoral" tactics are the price they pay, and the sacrifice they're willing to make, to winning the war against the Americans.
Yet another way the civilian American military planners stacked the deck against a favorable outcome. Remember? The Adminstration posited that we would be greeted as "liberators", completely failing to recognized the possibility that a population that had been under dictatorial rule for so long would question our motives and quickly chaffe under the "benign" rule of a foreign power?
You are incorrect. The point that I'm making, and that you are missing, is that the guerilla tactics used by the revolutionaries were NOT acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of the time.
They are acceptable by the rules of modern warfare by OUR (late 20th/early 21st century) Western time. You are making the common error of applying the lens of your contemporary POV to a historical time period, and applying your contempory values to judge those actions.
In fact, those very guerilla actions by the Americans irregular militia caused the Revolutionaries were roundly critized as being dishonorable and, in fact, criminal, and caused the revolutionary cause to loose a great deal of standing in court of international public opinion.
Fortunately, the price paid on that front was more than outweighted by other factors, and the gains the militia made in "evening the odds" against the British army.
So, did the militia men (or their families) care on whit about what the Brits, Dutch, French, etc. thought about their tactics? I would bet not.
One of the things that the US planners are continually behind to curve on is how communications is getting increasingly instantaneous and decentralized. They were behind the curve in Gulf War I, when they tried to limit the access to the battlefield of the Western news media, only to find that the Western news services reported anyway, from behind enemy lines. This left the Coalition forces with no comparable outlet to the public, and to a situation where the only POV that was NOT being broadcast was that of the US and allied military.
They countered this unacceptable situation by adopting a policy of embedding reporters with the troops in GWII. A nice plan to address the failure of GWI, but it completely failed to address the oh-so-obvious (to me, anyway) difference between that state of communication affairs between GWI and GWII. Namely, that of the rise of the Arabs *own* news services, which are completely outside the purview of Western (esp American) influence.
So, while we get stories from the embedded reporters and others in our news media, they don't have nearly the resonance with the intended target audience that Al J'zera (sp?) and other Arab news media have with *their* target audiences.
And, once again, the US military is put in a situation where it is behind the power curve in winning the overall war. Only, in this case there is no clearly defined, easily attainable goal ("the re-establishment of the government-in-exile of Kuwait"). Rather, there are nebulous, mutable desired end-results, as stated by our government ("End Iraqs ties to terrorism.", "Remove weapons of mass destruction.", "Establish a democratic government in Iraq."
Two of the many ways that the Adminstration stacked the deck against a positive outcome of this war in Iraq...
If you honestly think that a patrol in a foreign city being ambushed from a building pauses to determine whether that building is a hospital, building of religious significance or home of orphans, in order to weigh the political consequences of various courses of actions, before opening fire, then you are severely straining your own grasp of reality.
More to the point, I wasn't speaking of the US forces on the ground, in harms way, as it were. I intended to speak to the senior most military and governmental (sorry, left that out in my previous post) officials decision to actually go to war. I am suggesting that those decision makers continue to severely discount how overwhelmingly important national and international public opinion is in rendering a positive outcome to a military action.
If we (the US) fails in Iraq, it won't be because of the US military. It'll solely be the fault of the elected civilian leadership, who stacked the deck against a positive outcome occurring in so many ways, it's going to be the case study of how NOT to go to war for generations to come.
Reminds me of the (US) Revolutionary War, where the Brits were extremely put off that the American irregulars didn't follow accepted military rules of shooting from closed-line fixed formations. Worse, even, was the American penchant for setting ambushes, shooting from behind trees, hedgerows, and fences, and aiming specifically at British officers (ie. sniping). All of these actions were loudly decried at the time, and not just by the Brits.
But, what American patriot contemporary to the minutemen would blame them for using such tactics when defending home and country against a better prepared, better equipped, better commanded, numerically superior enemy? To fight in this manner was the only rational thing to do, but the values of the Americans. To fight otherwise, and accept the rules of military conduct of the Europeans would have been folly and suicide.
It was "asymetrical warfare" at it's best, and it definitely contributed to the desired (by our American POV) outcome.
No, but the little old ladies, and their families, can and do.
And, unfortunately, the ones who were doing the shooting at the little old ladies, not the ones using them as shields, are typically the ones that bear the brunt of the public scorn in the PR battle that follows.
This is so obviously a part of modern combat that I'm continually surprised that its apparently not factored by the otherwise sophisticated US military in the overall calculus of when to apply force, and the strategy of how that force should be applied.
It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
It's not enough to win and hold ground anymore. The lesson that every war since Vietnam should have taught all governments is that if they lose the battle of diplomacy (ie, international-relations PR), even if you win the military-aspect of the war, you're better off not having fought the war at all.
By your argument, equally ridiculous is the notion that someone would want, as their sole commuting vehicle, a 360hp, 8-cylinder, two-seater w storage for two golf club bags that goes 170+mph (top speed limit most places in the US is 100+mph less that that) gets a mere 18/25mpg for +$40+K.
And yet people buy Corvettes, and even more ridiculously expensive (to acquire and operate) sports cars.
You must also think even more ridiculous those people that buy, as their one-person daily beater, a 10-seat, 40+ gallon fuel tank SUV that get a mere 13/17 mpg when the price of gas nationwide (US) is $2+/gallon and going northward.
And yet people are buying Surburbans/Excursions and the like in record numbers.
It may very well be that there is no market in the US for an energy efficient single-passenger/operator car with all the feature of the Toyota PM. But, even though I'm a US citizen, I know that the US is not the World.
Not to get *too* political, but if gas was priced/taxed appropriately in the States, to account for its true cost to our society wrt the environment, national security, vulnerability to foreign interests/business, etc., more people would do a more honest assessment of their real transportation requirements, and would opt for high-performance, highly efficient vehicles, even to the point of purchasing a relatively inexpensive, single person "pod" as the daily beater.
BTW, in case you haven't figured it out, the long term assessment for the price of gas isn't good. As other countries develop the unabated appetite for energy that the US currently has, the price for all energy sources, including gas, will sky rocket. As a simple exercise, consider what will occur as the middle classes of India and China grows in numbers AND gets wealthier over the next 25-50 years, and you will see how short-sighted our energy policies (and, consequently, our overall national security policies) truly are.
This concept car is evidence that Toyota recognizes this long-term trend, and is looking to address it as the consequences of high energy prices (and hyper-populated urban centers) become an larger factor in a buyer's decision to purchase a vehicle.
Which leads to my last point (promise!)...reading these comments, I don't think that the average/.-er understands the concept of a "concept car". Until Chrysler started turning one-off concept cars into production vehicles and selling them to the publics (Viper and Prowler come easily to mind...I'm sure there are a host of others, including, I believe, the 300 and Crossfire), auto makers used concept cars merely as testbeds for new/emerging technologies, manufacturing techniques, and concepts. Most of the concepts explored in concept cars never saw the light of day in a production vehicle, and those concepts that did rarely did in form of the original concept car.
That is one of the stated goals of this distribution's creators. If you bothered to even glance at the web site, you'd have seen this, quoted directly:
"This technology gives the Gaming industry a real opportunity to move to Linux on the desktop as well as the server."
Wow! It's a wonder that architects of buildings and site supervisors/foremen haven't applied your keen insight in the performance of their jobs. Their customers are ignorant of the technology and techniques, so what possible contribution could a customer make towards the task of constructing a building?
So, have you considered that it's your (or someone else with more experience's) job to translate the customer's non-technical requirements into some facsimile of a useful specification? Or do you just code in a vacuum, absent any planning and devoid of any input or feedback, in the hope that the end result has some relevance to what the customer requested?
If so, please shut down your computer and set away from the keyboard immediately, because you are part of the problem.
---anactofgod---
Re:"I am like the ice cream man, only not..."
on
WiFi On Two Wheels
·
· Score: 2
Dedicate one to the warwalkers... Now you're in the park, babe, need a hotspot to connect to. Ah you're in the park, babe, need a hotspot to connect to. Better look out now though, Yury's got somethin' you can use. Tell ya what it is...
I'm your WiFI guy, stop me on my Magicbike. Oh my, my, I'm your WiFi guy, stop me on my Magicbike. See now all my frequencies are guaranteed to satisfy. Hold on a second baby...
I got WEP, ah, WPA, All for free, and ready to cruise, I'm your WiFi guy, baby, stop me on my Magicbike See now all my frequency are guaranteed to satisfy
Hold on, one more...
{yada, yada...the rest is left as an exercise to the reader...}
---anactofgod---
Check out what these crazy fools have done...
on
HDD Assault Cannon
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Check out what these crazy fools have done. One has to ask, exactly how much time these people have on their hands? Got a couple of old 2GB Hard drives and a slow Internet connection? You too could join in on their madness. Slashdot Assault Your Own Website for all!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, to be a bit serious, I seem to recall through clouded memory from college days long gone by that flipping the sail around was one method to decelerate the rocket on approach to the target star. In this scenario, the rocket would have maximum velocity somewhere around the mid-point between the source and destination stars.
So, unless one had other means of propulsion to facilitate a return to Sol, one would have to change one's mind a whole heck of a lot sooner than ~half-way to Alpha Proxima, otherwise it'd just be easier to just keep on truckin'.
---anactofgod---
You just have to tack into the solar wind. *grynn*
You heard it hear first -- America's Cup 2200.
---anactofgod---
I saw MacGyver do this years ago.
And *he* didn't need the scissors.
---anactofgod---
Two...I have two words for you!
Seriously, I don't see the problem, so long as companies like IBM and (dare I say it) Microsoft continue to do research in this area. That is the real value of companies that are committed to *real* research in revolutionary sciences and technology.
Of course, US companies don't have a hammerlock on this research. There is a lot of work being done internationally in the area, by corporations, and by educational/research institutions.
---anactofgod---
and close to being ready to go into production. But I got sidetracked digging these tunnels out from my basement.
Sorry.
Seymour
Actually, wrt the much bally-hooed stock purchase by Microsoft, that was mostly a PR stunt by both sides to show the public that Microsoft was committed to the Apple market. While $150M is nothing to sneeze at, it didn't amount to much more than a symbolic financial prop for Apple, since Apple had, if I remember correctly, $4+ BILLION in its warchest at the time.
Most more important is that Jobs got the two things out of the deal that Apple really needed - the continued support of the worlds largest software developer, and the ability to sell the story that Macs will be able to work along side PCs in any environment. Gates got the one thing that MS really needed - the abililty to show the DOJ that MS was enlightened enough to play nice with competitors, inspite of its monopoly position.
You can be sure, though, that Gates and company did that only after doing the calculus that showed that benefits outweighted the detriments.
BTW, I use OpenOffice on my Macs, but those Apple developers at MS know their stuff. The Office on the Mac is a beaut, and has historically been a lot better than the POS that is sold to WIndows customers. Too bad it costs so damned much.
---anactofgod---
Must have 5+ years experience in programming remote controls and configuring consumer electronics. Proficiency with all major manufacturers of mid-grade consumer electronics a must. In addition, familiarity with 2 or more high-end manufacturer's desired. Educational requirements: Must not be old enough to have a high-school diploma, though exceptionally talented older engineers may be considered. Strong references from parents, relatives and neighbors required. Competitive pay commensurate with experience.
Please help, my VCR has been blinking "12:00" for three years now!
---anactofgod---
I just can't figure out what justifies that price tag. There is no way any remote control should cost this much, let alone *this* remote. The feature list is underwhelming. This paperweight-in-training shouldn't cost more than ~$150.
The key to these sort of speciality devices is the user-interface design. If Sony holds true to form, they'll have tried to fold in way too many functions, with way too little thought on how to make accessing those functions intuitive.
Plus, when you spill a beer on it and short it out , it's really gonna suck.
This remote may belong in a "smart home", but it'd be one with a really dumb owner.
---anactofgod---
It'd be nice if someone would take the lead and get rid of the legacy tech that still haunts these boxes. Floppy drive? PS/2 keybaord/mouse con ectors? For reals?
That being said, this might be worth a look as nice little media-server system to replace a Toshiba laptop that recently died on me.
---anactofgod---
ESPN = Entertainment and SPorts Network
Poker may not be sport, but it is definitely entertainment.
As is "competitive cheerleading". Have you seen those girls!? FOOFAH!!!
---anactofgod---
After all, isn't Bill Gates supposed to have been something of a poker shark at Hah-vahd? Of course, that could be just another one of those myths that have taken on the air of authenticity over time.
NPR actually had a pretty funny commentary on this very topic this week on "All Things Considered", I believe, but i can't seem to find it on the NRP site.
---anactofgod---
* Perhaps today is a good day to die... I say we ship it."
* Specifications are for the weak and timid!!
* This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium (!) processors if I am to do battle with this code.
* You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
* Indentation?! I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
* What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake!
* Klingon function calls do not have "parameters" - they have "arguments"- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
* Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
* I have challenged the entire Quality Assurance team to a Bat-Leh contest! They will not concern us again.
* A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code.
* By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!
* You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
* Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
(sources too numerous to attribute)
---anactofgod---
Why don't you Google to answer your silly question on why NeXT (not Apple) chose Objective-C over C++.
You may as well as why ID chose NeXT and Objective-C over Windows and C++ to develop the original Quake engine.
But, to save you the effort of typing "Objective C versus C++" in a Google search field, I cut & paste a short paragraph out of an article (returned by said search) printed in the Linux Journal on Sept 13, 2003.
As for C#...Objective-C pre-date C# by decades. It was developed independently and comtemporaniously with C++.
---anactofgod---
An introduction to Objective-C for programmers familiar with C++ or any other OOP language.
It is a surprising fact that anyone studying GNUstep or the Cocoa Framework will notice they are nearly identical to the NEXTSTEP APIs that were defined ten years ago. A decade is an eternity in the software industry. If the framework (and its programming language--Objective C) came through untouched these past ten years, there must be something special about it. And Objective-C has done more than survive; some famous games including Quake and NuclearStrike were developed using Objective-C.
Why Should I Learn Objective-C?
Objective-C gives you the full power of a true object-oriented language with exactly one syntax addition to C and, unlike C++, about a dozen additional keywords.
Since Apple purchase Next for $400 million and Mac OS X ships with Objective-C, recycling NEXTSTEP (later called OpenStep), as well as the fact that GNUstep is delivering the rock-solid window-manager Window Maker, Objective-C is (rightly) getting more attention because it is more flexible than C++ at the cost of being slower.
In reality, Objective-C is Object C and is as close to Smalltalk as a compiled language can be. This is no surprise as Brad J. Cox added object-oriented, Smalltalk-80-based extensions to the C language.
So objective-C is a hybrid between Smalltalk and C. A string can be represented as a `char *' or as an object, whereas in Smalltalk everything is an object. As with Java (int, double,.. are no objects) this leads to faster performance.
In contrast, C++ traditionally is associated with the Simula 67 school of object-oriented programming. In C++, the static type of an object fixes what messages it can receive. In Objective-C the dynamic type of an object determines what messages it can receive. The Simula 67 format allows problems to be detected at compile time. The Smalltalk approach delays typing until runtime and therefore is more flexible.
A GNU version was written by Dennis Gladding in 1992 and then Richard Stallman took over the development. The current GNU version is derived from the version written by Kresten Thorup when he was a still a university student in 1993. He ported that version to the NeXTcube and joined NeXT.
Apple chose Objective-C for Cocoa, as NEXTSTEP was based on Objective-C. But, even if they had written it from scratch, they might have decided to use Objective-C because it is object-oriented, which is undoubtedly a must for big software projects. It extends the standard ANSI C, so that existing C programs can be adapted to use the frameworks, and programmers can chose when to stick to procedural programming and when to go the object-oriented way. C was intended to be a good language for system programming. C is fine as it allows the programmer to do exactly what she wants, all the way down to the hardware. C also keeps the gold old pointers, which can be used for efficient code.
Objective-C is simple, unambiguous and easy to learn. But most of all, it is the most dynamic language of all object-oriented languages based on C. Its dynamic late binding offers flexibility and power. Messages are not constrained by either the class of the receiver or the method selector, allowing rapid change and offering access to information about running applications.
The following i
I was an consultant for Apple back in the heady days right after NeXT acquired Apple, when Jobs was Apple's "interim CEO" (the term "iCEO" hadn't been coined yet). I had the good fortune of taking a class taught by Aaron on advanced WebObjects programming.
He struck me then as someone that falls into the category as a "Big Brain", esp wrt to training/educating on software programming. And a super nice (and patient) guy, to boot.
I'm gonna pick up this book asap.
---anactofgod---
whoops..the full post didn't make it previously...here it is...
You are incorrect. The point that I'm making, and that you are missing, is that the guerilla tactics used by the revolutionaries were NOT acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of the time.
They are acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of OUR (late 20th/early 21st century) time. You are making the common error of applying the lens of your contemporary POV to a historical time period, and applying your contempory values to judge those actions.
In fact, those very guerilla actions by the Americans irregular militia caused the Revolutionaries were roundly critized as being dishonorable and, in fact, criminal, and caused the revolutionary cause to loose a great deal of standing in court of international public opinion.
Fortunately, the price paid on that front was more than outweighted by other factors, and the gains the militia made in
"evening the odds" against the British army.
So, did the militia men (or their families) care on whit about what the Brits, Dutch, French, etc. thought about their tactics? I would bet not.
Similarly, if the populance being used as "shields" view the Iraqi resistance's cause to be just, they may very well consider that these "amoral" tactics are the price they pay, and the sacrifice they're willing to make, to winning the war against the Americans.
Yet another way the civilian American military planners stacked the deck against a favorable outcome. Remember? The Adminstration posited that we would be greeted as "liberators", completely failing to recognized the possibility that a population that had been under dictatorial rule for so long would question our motives and quickly chaffe under the "benign" rule of a foreign power?
---anactofgod---
You are incorrect. The point that I'm making, and that you are missing, is that the guerilla tactics used by the revolutionaries were NOT acceptable by the rules of modern Western warfare of the time.
They are acceptable by the rules of modern warfare by OUR (late 20th/early 21st century) Western time. You are making the common error of applying the lens of your contemporary POV to a historical time period, and applying your contempory values to judge those actions.
In fact, those very guerilla actions by the Americans irregular militia caused the Revolutionaries were roundly critized as being dishonorable and, in fact, criminal, and caused the revolutionary cause to loose a great deal of standing in court of international public opinion.
Fortunately, the price paid on that front was more than outweighted by other factors, and the gains the militia made in
"evening the odds" against the British army.
So, did the militia men (or their families) care on whit about what the Brits, Dutch, French, etc. thought about their tactics? I would bet not.
---anactofgod---
True to a point.
One of the things that the US planners are continually behind to curve on is how communications is getting increasingly instantaneous and decentralized. They were behind the curve in Gulf War I, when they tried to limit the access to the battlefield of the Western news media, only to find that the Western news services reported anyway, from behind enemy lines. This left the Coalition forces with no comparable outlet to the public, and to a situation where the only POV that was NOT being broadcast was that of the US and allied military.
They countered this unacceptable situation by adopting a policy of embedding reporters with the troops in GWII. A nice plan to address the failure of GWI, but it completely failed to address the oh-so-obvious (to me, anyway) difference between that state of communication affairs between GWI and GWII. Namely, that of the rise of the Arabs *own* news services, which are completely outside the purview of Western (esp American) influence.
So, while we get stories from the embedded reporters and others in our news media, they don't have nearly the resonance with the intended target audience that Al J'zera (sp?) and other Arab news media have with *their* target audiences.
And, once again, the US military is put in a situation where it is behind the power curve in winning the overall war. Only, in this case there is no clearly defined, easily attainable goal ("the re-establishment of the government-in-exile of Kuwait"). Rather, there are nebulous, mutable desired end-results, as stated by our government ("End Iraqs ties to terrorism.", "Remove weapons of mass destruction.", "Establish a democratic government in Iraq."
Two of the many ways that the Adminstration stacked the deck against a positive outcome of this war in Iraq...
---anactofgod---
If you honestly think that a patrol in a foreign city being ambushed from a building pauses to determine whether that building is a hospital, building of religious significance or home of orphans, in order to weigh the political consequences of various courses of actions, before opening fire, then you are severely straining your own grasp of reality.
More to the point, I wasn't speaking of the US forces on the ground, in harms way, as it were. I intended to speak to the senior most military and governmental (sorry, left that out in my previous post) officials decision to actually go to war. I am suggesting that those decision makers continue to severely discount how overwhelmingly important national and international public opinion is in rendering a positive outcome to a military action.
If we (the US) fails in Iraq, it won't be because of the US military. It'll solely be the fault of the elected civilian leadership, who stacked the deck against a positive outcome occurring in so many ways, it's going to be the case study of how NOT to go to war for generations to come.
---anactofgod---
Reminds me of the (US) Revolutionary War, where the Brits were extremely put off that the American irregulars didn't follow accepted military rules of shooting from closed-line fixed formations. Worse, even, was the American penchant for setting ambushes, shooting from behind trees, hedgerows, and fences, and aiming specifically at British officers (ie. sniping). All of these actions were loudly decried at the time, and not just by the Brits.
But, what American patriot contemporary to the minutemen would blame them for using such tactics when defending home and country against a better prepared, better equipped, better commanded, numerically superior enemy? To fight in this manner was the only rational thing to do, but the values of the Americans. To fight otherwise, and accept the rules of military conduct of the Europeans would have been folly and suicide.
It was "asymetrical warfare" at it's best, and it definitely contributed to the desired (by our American POV) outcome.
---anactofgod---
No, but the little old ladies, and their families, can and do.
And, unfortunately, the ones who were doing the shooting at the little old ladies, not the ones using them as shields, are typically the ones that bear the brunt of the public scorn in the PR battle that follows.
This is so obviously a part of modern combat that I'm continually surprised that its apparently not factored by the otherwise sophisticated US military in the overall calculus of when to apply force, and the strategy of how that force should be applied.
It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
It's not enough to win and hold ground anymore. The lesson that every war since Vietnam should have taught all governments is that if they lose the battle of diplomacy (ie, international-relations PR), even if you win the military-aspect of the war, you're better off not having fought the war at all.
---anactofgod---
By your argument, equally ridiculous is the notion that someone would want, as their sole commuting vehicle, a 360hp, 8-cylinder, two-seater w storage for two golf club bags that goes 170+mph (top speed limit most places in the US is 100+mph less that that) gets a mere 18/25mpg for +$40+K.
/.-er understands the concept of a "concept car". Until Chrysler started turning one-off concept cars into production vehicles and selling them to the publics (Viper and Prowler come easily to mind...I'm sure there are a host of others, including, I believe, the 300 and Crossfire), auto makers used concept cars merely as testbeds for new/emerging technologies, manufacturing techniques, and concepts. Most of the concepts explored in concept cars never saw the light of day in a production vehicle, and those concepts that did rarely did in form of the original concept car.
And yet people buy Corvettes, and even more ridiculously expensive (to acquire and operate) sports cars.
You must also think even more ridiculous those people that buy, as their one-person daily beater, a 10-seat, 40+ gallon fuel tank SUV that get a mere 13/17 mpg when the price of gas nationwide (US) is $2+/gallon and going northward.
And yet people are buying Surburbans/Excursions and the like in record numbers.
It may very well be that there is no market in the US for an energy efficient single-passenger/operator car with all the feature of the Toyota PM. But, even though I'm a US citizen, I know that the US is not the World.
Not to get *too* political, but if gas was priced/taxed appropriately in the States, to account for its true cost to our society wrt the environment, national security, vulnerability to foreign interests/business, etc., more people would do a more honest assessment of their real transportation requirements, and would opt for high-performance, highly efficient vehicles, even to the point of purchasing a relatively inexpensive, single person "pod" as the daily beater.
BTW, in case you haven't figured it out, the long term assessment for the price of gas isn't good. As other countries develop the unabated appetite for energy that the US currently has, the price for all energy sources, including gas, will sky rocket. As a simple exercise, consider what will occur as the middle classes of India and China grows in numbers AND gets wealthier over the next 25-50 years, and you will see how short-sighted our energy policies (and, consequently, our overall national security policies) truly are.
This concept car is evidence that Toyota recognizes this long-term trend, and is looking to address it as the consequences of high energy prices (and hyper-populated urban centers) become an larger factor in a buyer's decision to purchase a vehicle.
Which leads to my last point (promise!)...reading these comments, I don't think that the average
---anactofgod---
Duh.
That is one of the stated goals of this distribution's creators. If you bothered to even glance at the web site, you'd have seen this, quoted directly:
"This technology gives the Gaming industry a real opportunity to move to Linux on the desktop as well as the server."
---anactofgod---
Wow! It's a wonder that architects of buildings and site supervisors/foremen haven't applied your keen insight in the performance of their jobs. Their customers are ignorant of the technology and techniques, so what possible contribution could a customer make towards the task of constructing a building?
So, have you considered that it's your (or someone else with more experience's) job to translate the customer's non-technical requirements into some facsimile of a useful specification? Or do you just code in a vacuum, absent any planning and devoid of any input or feedback, in the hope that the end result has some relevance to what the customer requested?
If so, please shut down your computer and set away from the keyboard immediately, because you are part of the problem.
---anactofgod---
Dedicate one to the warwalkers...
Now you're in the park, babe, need a hotspot to connect to.
Ah you're in the park, babe, need a hotspot to connect to.
Better look out now though, Yury's got somethin' you can use.
Tell ya what it is...
I'm your WiFI guy, stop me on my Magicbike.
Oh my, my, I'm your WiFi guy, stop me on my Magicbike.
See now all my frequencies are guaranteed to satisfy.
Hold on a second baby...
I got WEP, ah, WPA,
All for free, and ready to cruise,
I'm your WiFi guy, baby, stop me on my Magicbike
See now all my frequency are guaranteed to satisfy
Hold on, one more...
{yada, yada...the rest is left as an exercise to the reader...}
---anactofgod---
Check out what these crazy fools have done. One has to ask, exactly how much time these people have on their hands? Got a couple of old 2GB Hard drives and a slow Internet connection? You too could join in on their madness. Slashdot Assault Your Own Website for all!
---anactofgod---