Buffer overflows are not caused by C/C++. They are
caused by lousy programming techniques and lousy programmers.
Any language can be brought to its knees by
crappy programming.
It's beyond belief that they would get so much money to make a camera to do what amounts to one of
the most simple image processing techniques known.
I work in image processing. 2.7 million for a principal component analysis..?? Get real.
That's like a 5 minute operation with your garden variety digital camera and off the rack software.
Where do I sign up for funding? I have algorithms that would kick that things ass, *AND*
those algos are 5-10 years old now.
Big deal. They must be someones cousin.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 2011 the end of the Mayan calendar. This means that the world, according to the calendar of the ancients, will end just as Microsoft gets it's security act together.
Well, what the heck good is that? Some of us would like to use our PC before then.
What I mean is, sure, all the earth cracking and bismuth would add a whole new dimension to playing those antique games, but we only get a year or less of game play and then we're all snuffed cataclysmically.
That's hardly what I'd call productive software engineering.
I'm not buying windows anymore. It's time to send all that money to Burt Rutan so we can get off this rock.
I wonder what's over at http://www.happypenguin.org
Yes, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration.
Not so far fetched if you consider
how little the earths temperature
actually changed
(according to the geological record)
to kill the dinosaurs.
I was speaking more of Humans, amphibians
and general furry creatures. Plants would
survive since,no matter what I do, I continue to
have crab grass in my lawn. Some insects will survive, bacteria, plankton. Mostly smaller
plants and creatures, which is what we were
30 million years ago.
The industrial revolution was a great learning experience that produced the verythings that have given us the opportunity to feed the planet and exceed the productivity of subsistance agriculture.
Having said that, GMO crops are completely unneccessary, since the problem of regional disparities in food around the globe are ALL
caused by political distribution problems and NOT by
shortages in world food supply. We choose to with-hold and not to feed the world.
As far as population goes, it is estimated that
the worlds population will plateau around 2040
and then begin a slight decline around 2100.
This is due to the education of women around the world and the developing world becoming developed.
People are coming to understand that fewer children can have a substantial economic benefit to families. This is why there are such fast growing middle classes in places like India and Thailand. That's what China has been attempting to do with the rather draconian 1 child policy. Education has provided the greatest benefits to combat overpopulation world wide.
It is a misconception that 'most of the worlds population lives off the land in relative poverty'. If you take cultural context out of the equation it becomes very difficult to define 'relative poverty' because everyones idea of wealth is different. Having a T.V. and an X-Box
or a flush toilet don't really qualify as signs of wealth. Those are things that the west aspires to. You really need to think in terms of basic human needs food, water, shelter, safe community.
If people have those things, without strife to get them, then all else is extra.
Your assertions about greed are quite apt, but I would temper that with the understanding that most
hard working people who want to better themselves are not neccessarily being greedy. Once again you need to consider social context. Most people in the west are bombarded with messages from media that having more *THINGS* will make them feel successful and happy. This is almost never true. Happiness is a purely internal factor produced by our perceptions of ourselves in juxtaposition with our environment. Therefore, nothing external (THINGS or PEOPLE) can actually make us happy. We can only make ourselves happy by deciding that we are so, and then living as though we are.
There is a certain level of material that is required by human beings to make them feel socially effective in the context of thier locale, however, it is our conspicuous consumption that is truely wasteful and immoral.
It is also immoral for us to desire global social homogeneity to make it easy for ourselves to sell our lifestyle of over consumption to the rest of the world.
We must remain optimistic, wary of materialism, and listen to those who are different.
The most efficient technology for converting
sunshine into readily usable energy has already
been developed and enhanced by genetic algorithms
over millions of man years in the most vast laboratory imaginable.
It's called a plant.
If you think for a moment that Monsanto, or anyone else for that matter, can even come close to that kind of design you're fooling yourself.
Besides, by the time we even got to finishing researching anything that even came close to what plants already do the 'cockroaches'
would already be the dominant species on the planet and we would be extinct.
These facts suggest that we need to pull our collective heads out of the sand (or our own butts as the case may be) and get on with weaning ourselves from fossil fuels.
As for changes in climate and 'shit just happens',
I'm not sure our progeny will be so impressed with that attitude. "Yeah, hey!, we screwed it up so you can't eat or get water. Sorry, shit just happens.". That's the very apathy that got us to this point in the first place.
We sure can't use solar panels to solve our problems. They take more energy to manufacture than if we just burned fuels.
-Everything using vegetable oil will cost
-more. Eventually vegetable oil production will -increase, but at what cost?
That's pretty much conjecture. Anyway, if you
look at the costs of maintaining dependence on
petrochemical fuels, which includes the eventual
death of every living thing on the planet,
biofuels are a far better alternative and need to
be considered as soon as possible.
-More fertilizer (made -from petroleum?)?
Fertilizer is made from Nitrates, Potash, and
Phosphorus compunds. These don't usually come
directly from oil or coal unless
Anhydrous ammonia is being used, which has been
proven a poor log term form of fertilization.
-Less land used for food crops (raising price of food)?
The U.S. currently subsidises production
and dumps food onto the world market. The price
of food has absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. Tax payers already pay indirectly
to maintain unneccessary food production.
-The long term question becomes "is it better to -burn vegetable oil for fuel when compared to -petroleum?" One advantage is that the carbon -released into the atmosphere from burning was -only recently trapped out of the atmosphere -(where petroleum was trapped millions of years -ago).
Yes, and this is the problem. We are burning
coal and oil that has taken millions of years
to be deposited, trapping that carbon dioxide
and removing it from the earths atmosphere, and
by burning it we are putting it back into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it was deposited.
While that carbon was being deposited all life
on earth was also evolving to cope with less
carbon dioxide, less heat, etc. These changes
created the ecosystems we see today. By suddenly
changing the atmosphere back to the CO2 content
of millions of years ago those ecosystems cannot possibly have time to evolve again to maintain
themselves, and there is way too
much that would need to be done for us to help
them evolve faster.
-One should also ask if there are more efficient -ways to take today's sunlight and turn it into -locomtion?"
We need to stop asking and start DOING. Those
long hot spells in the summer, forest fires,
dead fish, water shortages, freak weather, etc.
are indications that our thinking should have become action many years ago. If the Gulf Current
dies America is screwed. There's already an
previously unseen Arctic upwelling
(water current) killing stuff off the coast of
Oregon.
It's about time we were able to install more than one video card. Being just another PCI device I
should be allowed to install as many as I have slots if I wanted.
Same goes for sound cards too.
This would actually make a PC useful for video
and audio production beyond the home hobbyist/consumer market.
Hasn't the idea of a space plane type shuttle been proven/assessed as an inefficient way to handle payloads compared to just a rocket and a capsule style re-entry module?
Slashdot Mirror
Buffer overflows are not caused by C/C++. They are caused by lousy programming techniques and lousy programmers. Any language can be brought to its knees by crappy programming.
It's beyond belief that they would get so much money to make a camera to do what amounts to one of the most simple image processing techniques known. I work in image processing. 2.7 million for a principal component analysis..?? Get real. That's like a 5 minute operation with your garden variety digital camera and off the rack software. Where do I sign up for funding? I have algorithms that would kick that things ass, *AND* those algos are 5-10 years old now. Big deal. They must be someones cousin.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 2011 the end of the Mayan calendar. This means that the world, according to the calendar of the ancients, will end just as Microsoft gets it's security act together.
Well, what the heck good is that?
Some of us would like to use our PC before then.
What I mean is, sure, all the earth cracking and bismuth would add a whole new dimension to playing those antique games, but we only get a year or less of game play and then we're all snuffed cataclysmically.
That's hardly what I'd call productive software engineering.
I'm not buying windows anymore. It's time to
send all that money to Burt Rutan so we can get off this rock.
I wonder what's over at http://www.happypenguin.org
Yes, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Not so far fetched if you consider how little the earths temperature actually changed (according to the geological record) to kill the dinosaurs. I was speaking more of Humans, amphibians and general furry creatures. Plants would survive since,no matter what I do, I continue to have crab grass in my lawn. Some insects will survive, bacteria, plankton. Mostly smaller plants and creatures, which is what we were 30 million years ago.
The industrial revolution was a great learning experience that produced the verythings that have given us the opportunity to feed the planet and exceed the productivity of subsistance agriculture.
Having said that, GMO crops are completely unneccessary, since the problem of regional disparities in food around the globe are ALL caused by political distribution problems and NOT by shortages in world food supply. We choose to with-hold and not to feed the world.
As far as population goes, it is estimated that the worlds population will plateau around 2040 and then begin a slight decline around 2100.
This is due to the education of women around the world and the developing world becoming developed. People are coming to understand that fewer children can have a substantial economic benefit to families. This is why there are such fast growing middle classes in places like India and Thailand. That's what China has been attempting to do with the rather draconian 1 child policy. Education has provided the greatest benefits to combat overpopulation world wide.
It is a misconception that 'most of the worlds population lives off the land in relative poverty'. If you take cultural context out of the equation it becomes very difficult to define 'relative poverty' because everyones idea of wealth is different. Having a T.V. and an X-Box or a flush toilet don't really qualify as signs of wealth. Those are things that the west aspires to. You really need to think in terms of basic human needs food, water, shelter, safe community. If people have those things, without strife to get them, then all else is extra.
Your assertions about greed are quite apt, but I would temper that with the understanding that most hard working people who want to better themselves are not neccessarily being greedy. Once again you need to consider social context. Most people in the west are bombarded with messages from media that having more *THINGS* will make them feel successful and happy. This is almost never true. Happiness is a purely internal factor produced by our perceptions of ourselves in juxtaposition with our environment. Therefore, nothing external (THINGS or PEOPLE) can actually make us happy. We can only make ourselves happy by deciding that we are so, and then living as though we are.
There is a certain level of material that is required by human beings to make them feel socially effective in the context of thier locale, however, it is our conspicuous consumption that is truely wasteful and immoral.
It is also immoral for us to desire global social homogeneity to make it easy for ourselves to sell our lifestyle of over consumption to the rest of the world.
We must remain optimistic, wary of materialism, and listen to those who are different.
The most efficient technology for converting sunshine into readily usable energy has already been developed and enhanced by genetic algorithms over millions of man years in the most vast laboratory imaginable. It's called a plant. If you think for a moment that Monsanto, or anyone else for that matter, can even come close to that kind of design you're fooling yourself. Besides, by the time we even got to finishing researching anything that even came close to what plants already do the 'cockroaches' would already be the dominant species on the planet and we would be extinct. These facts suggest that we need to pull our collective heads out of the sand (or our own butts as the case may be) and get on with weaning ourselves from fossil fuels. As for changes in climate and 'shit just happens', I'm not sure our progeny will be so impressed with that attitude. "Yeah, hey!, we screwed it up so you can't eat or get water. Sorry, shit just happens.". That's the very apathy that got us to this point in the first place. We sure can't use solar panels to solve our problems. They take more energy to manufacture than if we just burned fuels.
-Everything using vegetable oil will cost -more. Eventually vegetable oil production will -increase, but at what cost? That's pretty much conjecture. Anyway, if you look at the costs of maintaining dependence on petrochemical fuels, which includes the eventual death of every living thing on the planet, biofuels are a far better alternative and need to be considered as soon as possible. -More fertilizer (made -from petroleum?)? Fertilizer is made from Nitrates, Potash, and Phosphorus compunds. These don't usually come directly from oil or coal unless Anhydrous ammonia is being used, which has been proven a poor log term form of fertilization. -Less land used for food crops (raising price of food)? The U.S. currently subsidises production and dumps food onto the world market. The price of food has absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. Tax payers already pay indirectly to maintain unneccessary food production. -The long term question becomes "is it better to -burn vegetable oil for fuel when compared to -petroleum?" One advantage is that the carbon -released into the atmosphere from burning was -only recently trapped out of the atmosphere -(where petroleum was trapped millions of years -ago). Yes, and this is the problem. We are burning coal and oil that has taken millions of years to be deposited, trapping that carbon dioxide and removing it from the earths atmosphere, and by burning it we are putting it back into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it was deposited. While that carbon was being deposited all life on earth was also evolving to cope with less carbon dioxide, less heat, etc. These changes created the ecosystems we see today. By suddenly changing the atmosphere back to the CO2 content of millions of years ago those ecosystems cannot possibly have time to evolve again to maintain themselves, and there is way too much that would need to be done for us to help them evolve faster. -One should also ask if there are more efficient -ways to take today's sunlight and turn it into -locomtion?" We need to stop asking and start DOING. Those long hot spells in the summer, forest fires, dead fish, water shortages, freak weather, etc. are indications that our thinking should have become action many years ago. If the Gulf Current dies America is screwed. There's already an previously unseen Arctic upwelling (water current) killing stuff off the coast of Oregon.
It's about time we were able to install more than one video card. Being just another PCI device I should be allowed to install as many as I have slots if I wanted. Same goes for sound cards too. This would actually make a PC useful for video and audio production beyond the home hobbyist/consumer market.
Hasn't the idea of a space plane type shuttle been proven/assessed as an inefficient way to handle payloads compared to just a rocket and a capsule
style re-entry module?
Just wondering...