I've seen similar. I've seen maps and sets used on collections whose sole purpose was to iterate over all members. Never for searching or indexing. Lists and vectors are far more apppropriate.
Greenhorn developers like to claim that CPUs are getting faster and RAM cheaper, so it doesn't matter. But as fast as our desktops are getting, the smaller our embedded systems are getting. You don't want to waste cycles and bytes on a cellphone, pacemaker, ignition system, etc.
Premature optimization is bad. But so is deliberate non-optimization.
What Intel should do: pull out of Europe. These fines are a clear signal that the EU bureaucracy does not want Intel around. So they should leave. Close all their European offices, stop all direct sales to European addresses, etc. Only an idiot would aim to be successful in a regime that actively punishes success.
This is not about monopolies, because Intel is NOWHERE close to being a monopoly. Intel and AMD vigorously compete. Rebates to manufacturers is part of that competition, and standard business practice. AMD does it too.
It's like the old Russian joke: three watchmakers are in the Gulag. The first one says he was imprisoned for having prices that were too low, proof of trying to corner the market. The second says he was imprisoned for having prices too high, proof of a monopoly position. The third says he was imprisoned for having prices the same as other watchmakers, proof that he was in collusion. Antitrust isn't about stopping monopolies it's about arbitrarily punishing those a government has in its sights. Instead of competing on quality, performance or service, businesses quickly learn they need to compete on lobbying skills.
If you want to make your software free of restrictions, then place it under a BSD, MIT, Apache or other unencumbered license. But if you desire to control, regulate and manage what other people can do with your software, then use a restrictive license like the GPL. Many businesses like the GPL because they can be "community based" while still restricting their competitor's ability to leverage the software.
What I have never understood, though, was the use of the GPL for non-commercial community software. The usual excuse is that "Microsoft can't steal my code". That displays a shocking ignorance of the nature of information. No one can take your software away from you, or away from your users. They might be able to fork it, but your original software is still there untouched. The reciprocity of the GPL can be very useful, as with commercial open source, but it has nothing to do with protecting the software. Instead it protects the fragile sensibilities of the author.
ESR is one who gets it, who understands that free software does not need to be protected and coddled beneathed layers of licensing restrictions. Anything beyond attribution and warranty disclaimers is too much.
Last time I flew in to New York, it was to La Guardia. Look at a map and it's location relative to Manhattan. We circled lower Manhattan on approach. You can't come straight in to land, otherwise you would be too low for the skyscrapers. So we weren't as low as AF1. But still, the thought of gritty New Yorkers panicking is a sad thought.
What a maroon! RMS has become so mired in his extremely narrow definition of "free" that he has lost touch with the real world. I have not lost freedom if someone else mows my lawn, or if someone else cooks my dinner, or if someone else reads a book to me. Likewise, I have not lost freedom if someone else executes software for me.
As long as my data has not been "locked-in" without my consent, then it doesn't matter what license the software is under that's running on a distant server. "Software freedom" is about the software that I possess, not the software that other people run. Now of course I can boycott services that use software that I don't like, but what they use still does not affect my freedom, only my sensibilities.
RMS might have a point if he were warning us about the very real possibility of data lock-in. But he's not. He's bitching about the licensing of software running on distant third party servers. Nobody cares if a mail server is running proprietary IMAP software, because there is no data lock-in. If I don't like that particular mail service, I can download all of that data and move it elsewhere. Likewise, no one should care of another service is running proprietary software, so long as I can get my data out and move it to another service provider.
The connectivity in Stockholm is "cheap", because the taxpayers are subsidizing it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost to the network infrastructure and its continued maintenance, and that cost is being paid. It just doesn't show up in the end user's bill.
The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.
This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.
Get rid of the Medallions. For those not in the know, the number of taxis in New York City are limited, for the express purpose of keeping supply down and prices up. This is controlled through medallions, which are exorbitantly expensive. The city government is limiting competition.
The solution is to get rid of the taxi cartel by getting rid of the medallions. Provide a license to anyone who can pass a basic driving and navigation test, regardless of whether it's a tiny jitney or a stretch limo. Then let the market weed out the bad taxis and encourage the good taxis. Not only will this lower taxi prices in general, it will promote variety in taxi services. Let individual taxi owners freely band together into associations or companies.
How do you know if a taxi is a good or bad taxi? Look it up on your cellphone or iphone! Or only use taxis from a company you trust. Or look for the Good Taxi Seal of Approval (or other private rating agency). Hotel Doormen will know which taxis to flag down for you. Airports can set standards for the taxis they let use their taxi lanes. Etc. Etc.
No, the system won't be perfect. But perfection is not an option. A truly free market for taxis might not be a utopia, but it damn well sure will be better than the hell that is today's NYC taxi system.
Believe it or not, there is a LOT of Fortran out there. I've run across quite a bit of it in the past few years. A lot of scientific, engineering and other number crunching apps were written in Fortran, and there's no reason to rewrite them just because they're thirty years old. The apps might have brand new GUI and visualization front ends, but deep in the heart there is some Fortran code encapsulating the domain specific math.
The is a balance to be struck. I have seen the opposite practice too many times to count, usually involving some fresh young college grad thinks that RAM grows on trees. Or that CPUs are infinitely fast.
Don't prematurely optimize, but at the same time, don't assume that resources are infinite. And when you do optimize, know what you're optimizing for. Because in many domains it is not speed.
Linux users get off on bitching about Microsoft. It's genetics, or the radon from the basements where they live. It's an operating system written by geeks and for geeks, and overlaid with a thick varnish of geekiness. And then they cry conspiracy when non-geeks don't rush out and install it. Don't get me wrong, I am a geek as well. But I am not so naive as to think that the lack of market penetration by a hobbyist OS is somehow the result of Microsoft's conspiratorial machinations.
Did you guys ever stop to think that the reason that Microsoft's products are so popular, is that most people want to run exactly the same software as everyone else? Linux has had incredible success against formidable odds, yet come of you still act like the world owes you for breathing.
In the US taxes are extraordinarily complicated. In some cases you don't know what you owe until AFTER you've earned the money. It's a tax system that encourages big business, because they're more able to absorb the accounting and legal costs of doing business in America.
My only hope is that with the Bush and Obama administrations so close together in time, that people will FINALLY understand that government is not their friend. For the last eight years the Democrats have wrung their fingers whining that "if only the right people were in charge...". Well the right people are now in charge, and it's getting worse. The solution is not to keep waiting for an angel from on high to run for office, the solution is to limit the power of government so the bad apples can't do much damage.
Ultimately, the name isn't the most important thing, is it?
I see you've never discussed this issue with Richard Stallman. Unfortunately I have. He might not consider it the most important thing, but it's definitely in his top five list.
It was the Debian operating system, and it remains the Debian operating system.
That's like grafting the head of a nobel prize winning surgeon onto the body of an orang-utan. Does it remain an orang-utan? No! It becomes are crazed and maddened, yet tragically misunderstood, killing machine!
I gotta agree. I can see the point of a Hurd/Debian, but FreeBSD/Debian is almost pointless. It's useful of GNU libc compatibility testing, and for just playing around, but I can't think of any real world use cases for it. Replacing ports or rc.d or BSD utils might be useful, depending on where your biases lie, but swapping out kernels while keeping the userland intact is a heck of a lot of work for very little return.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen similar. I've seen maps and sets used on collections whose sole purpose was to iterate over all members. Never for searching or indexing. Lists and vectors are far more apppropriate.
Greenhorn developers like to claim that CPUs are getting faster and RAM cheaper, so it doesn't matter. But as fast as our desktops are getting, the smaller our embedded systems are getting. You don't want to waste cycles and bytes on a cellphone, pacemaker, ignition system, etc.
Premature optimization is bad. But so is deliberate non-optimization.
What Intel should do: pull out of Europe. These fines are a clear signal that the EU bureaucracy does not want Intel around. So they should leave. Close all their European offices, stop all direct sales to European addresses, etc. Only an idiot would aim to be successful in a regime that actively punishes success.
This is not about monopolies, because Intel is NOWHERE close to being a monopoly. Intel and AMD vigorously compete. Rebates to manufacturers is part of that competition, and standard business practice. AMD does it too.
It's like the old Russian joke: three watchmakers are in the Gulag. The first one says he was imprisoned for having prices that were too low, proof of trying to corner the market. The second says he was imprisoned for having prices too high, proof of a monopoly position. The third says he was imprisoned for having prices the same as other watchmakers, proof that he was in collusion. Antitrust isn't about stopping monopolies it's about arbitrarily punishing those a government has in its sights. Instead of competing on quality, performance or service, businesses quickly learn they need to compete on lobbying skills.
Jane, you ignorant slut, look up the definition of "troll", take a douche, then get back to me.
It's not cheap internet, it's taxpayer funded internet. City governments should not be running businesses.
If you want to make your software free of restrictions, then place it under a BSD, MIT, Apache or other unencumbered license. But if you desire to control, regulate and manage what other people can do with your software, then use a restrictive license like the GPL. Many businesses like the GPL because they can be "community based" while still restricting their competitor's ability to leverage the software.
What I have never understood, though, was the use of the GPL for non-commercial community software. The usual excuse is that "Microsoft can't steal my code". That displays a shocking ignorance of the nature of information. No one can take your software away from you, or away from your users. They might be able to fork it, but your original software is still there untouched. The reciprocity of the GPL can be very useful, as with commercial open source, but it has nothing to do with protecting the software. Instead it protects the fragile sensibilities of the author.
ESR is one who gets it, who understands that free software does not need to be protected and coddled beneathed layers of licensing restrictions. Anything beyond attribution and warranty disclaimers is too much.
Last time I flew in to New York, it was to La Guardia. Look at a map and it's location relative to Manhattan. We circled lower Manhattan on approach. You can't come straight in to land, otherwise you would be too low for the skyscrapers. So we weren't as low as AF1. But still, the thought of gritty New Yorkers panicking is a sad thought.
Freedom is about choice. As such, SaaS cannot be "non-Free". Thus I am not saying what RMS has said, I am saying something very different.
And Software as Service in no way removes that freedom. If you don't want to use a service, then don't use the service. Duh.
You keep your freedom by exercising your freedom, not by wringing your hands and whining about how horrible it is that you have a choice.
What a maroon! RMS has become so mired in his extremely narrow definition of "free" that he has lost touch with the real world. I have not lost freedom if someone else mows my lawn, or if someone else cooks my dinner, or if someone else reads a book to me. Likewise, I have not lost freedom if someone else executes software for me.
As long as my data has not been "locked-in" without my consent, then it doesn't matter what license the software is under that's running on a distant server. "Software freedom" is about the software that I possess, not the software that other people run. Now of course I can boycott services that use software that I don't like, but what they use still does not affect my freedom, only my sensibilities.
RMS might have a point if he were warning us about the very real possibility of data lock-in. But he's not. He's bitching about the licensing of software running on distant third party servers. Nobody cares if a mail server is running proprietary IMAP software, because there is no data lock-in. If I don't like that particular mail service, I can download all of that data and move it elsewhere. Likewise, no one should care of another service is running proprietary software, so long as I can get my data out and move it to another service provider.
I'd prefer if the government stuck to its legitimate functions and stopped playing the subsidy shell game.
The connectivity in Stockholm is "cheap", because the taxpayers are subsidizing it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost to the network infrastructure and its continued maintenance, and that cost is being paid. It just doesn't show up in the end user's bill.
The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.
This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.
Get rid of the Medallions. For those not in the know, the number of taxis in New York City are limited, for the express purpose of keeping supply down and prices up. This is controlled through medallions, which are exorbitantly expensive. The city government is limiting competition.
The solution is to get rid of the taxi cartel by getting rid of the medallions. Provide a license to anyone who can pass a basic driving and navigation test, regardless of whether it's a tiny jitney or a stretch limo. Then let the market weed out the bad taxis and encourage the good taxis. Not only will this lower taxi prices in general, it will promote variety in taxi services. Let individual taxi owners freely band together into associations or companies.
How do you know if a taxi is a good or bad taxi? Look it up on your cellphone or iphone! Or only use taxis from a company you trust. Or look for the Good Taxi Seal of Approval (or other private rating agency). Hotel Doormen will know which taxis to flag down for you. Airports can set standards for the taxis they let use their taxi lanes. Etc. Etc.
No, the system won't be perfect. But perfection is not an option. A truly free market for taxis might not be a utopia, but it damn well sure will be better than the hell that is today's NYC taxi system.
Not just JPL. I've seen it at two National Labs, NASA, and various modeling/visualization companies.
Cluestick: That hopelessly politicized language is NOT ideal, despite what the purists and ideologues say.
Believe it or not, there is a LOT of Fortran out there. I've run across quite a bit of it in the past few years. A lot of scientific, engineering and other number crunching apps were written in Fortran, and there's no reason to rewrite them just because they're thirty years old. The apps might have brand new GUI and visualization front ends, but deep in the heart there is some Fortran code encapsulating the domain specific math.
The is a balance to be struck. I have seen the opposite practice too many times to count, usually involving some fresh young college grad thinks that RAM grows on trees. Or that CPUs are infinitely fast.
Don't prematurely optimize, but at the same time, don't assume that resources are infinite. And when you do optimize, know what you're optimizing for. Because in many domains it is not speed.
Linux users get off on bitching about Microsoft. It's genetics, or the radon from the basements where they live. It's an operating system written by geeks and for geeks, and overlaid with a thick varnish of geekiness. And then they cry conspiracy when non-geeks don't rush out and install it. Don't get me wrong, I am a geek as well. But I am not so naive as to think that the lack of market penetration by a hobbyist OS is somehow the result of Microsoft's conspiratorial machinations.
Did you guys ever stop to think that the reason that Microsoft's products are so popular, is that most people want to run exactly the same software as everyone else? Linux has had incredible success against formidable odds, yet come of you still act like the world owes you for breathing.
In the US taxes are extraordinarily complicated. In some cases you don't know what you owe until AFTER you've earned the money. It's a tax system that encourages big business, because they're more able to absorb the accounting and legal costs of doing business in America.
I've been in San Carlos all day, and not a hint of any network problems.
My only hope is that with the Bush and Obama administrations so close together in time, that people will FINALLY understand that government is not their friend. For the last eight years the Democrats have wrung their fingers whining that "if only the right people were in charge...". Well the right people are now in charge, and it's getting worse. The solution is not to keep waiting for an angel from on high to run for office, the solution is to limit the power of government so the bad apples can't do much damage.
I see you've never discussed this issue with Richard Stallman. Unfortunately I have. He might not consider it the most important thing, but it's definitely in his top five list.
That's like grafting the head of a nobel prize winning surgeon onto the body of an orang-utan. Does it remain an orang-utan? No! It becomes are crazed and maddened, yet tragically misunderstood, killing machine!
I gotta agree. I can see the point of a Hurd/Debian, but FreeBSD/Debian is almost pointless. It's useful of GNU libc compatibility testing, and for just playing around, but I can't think of any real world use cases for it. Replacing ports or rc.d or BSD utils might be useful, depending on where your biases lie, but swapping out kernels while keeping the userland intact is a heck of a lot of work for very little return.
Just because there aren't chains or ball gags does not mean that Tux isn't consenting. Maybe the penguin likes to be dominated!