It's a trend. More and more words are being euphemised.
??? -> W.C. -> Toilet -> Washroom/Bathroom. Dead-tree edition Hard copy. (Notice the direction of the arrows...) Bystander deaths -> Collateral damage.
But in this case, I'd say it really is social engineering. You are conning not individuals, but a whole group of people.
Evidently they're not accurate enough. If they were more accurate, it would not have caused so much 'collateral damage' (bystander deaths).
We don't need weapons of mass destruction. We have enough already. We need weapons of targeted minimal destruction. (What's wrong with a sharpshooter and a shotgun? Seems quite effective for human targets)
Have you considered using software from 1997 to run on your computer from 1997 rather than software from 2004 to run on a computer from 2000? All the software you've named is from 1997.
Forsooth, in what yeare of our Lorde didst thou cometh across this olde giokke? Methinks the population of this worlde is at six thousande million now, 'twas at five thousande million when I was a wee childe.
There is only one reason for this: to make it like the metric prefixes.
Recalleth this olde giokke:
An amateur thinks one kilobyte is 1000 bytes. A computer scientist thinks one kilometre is 1024 metres.
So, the standards bodies are trying to change it to be in line with their prefixes. However, trying to change existing terms to mean something else is not a good idea.
(1) He started the whole GNU project, without which you wouldn't have HURD or GNOME or (open source) XFree86 (without which you wouldn't have Xorg) etc. (2) He coded the first version of GCC, without which you wouldn't have Linux
Surely, you won't even give him respect for starting the whole shebang, without which you wouldn't have any GNU software at all?
While it might be biased, This document sheds some light on why progress on HURD is (percieved as) so slow:
It didn't really start until 1990. The previous incarnation, TRIX, which was started in the 1980s was discarded. Though, this about puts it at equal footing with Linux in terms of time; the difference being Linux probably has 10 times the number of developers as HURD (now).
If you won't even stop to give HURD the time of day, you'll never see it come to a usable state because there are few users to test it and even fewer developers to work on it, and thus you won't even stop to give HURD the time of day. It's a causal loop. And there are many, many more people like you. Don't complain about the poor progress of the HURD if you won't even try to actively use it. (It's just like those people who go about whining about GNU/Linux based on hearsay without even using it. It's just like the people who go about complaining about the slow progress of , and decide they won't help develop said software project or even use said software)
Recall that he doesn't support to use of passwords either.
RMS is the embodiment of anarchism -- he wants everyone to be a peer, and equal in privileges.
He sees it as unfortunate that trust among humans is so poor that passwords, logins, key cards are required.
And honestly, I see it as unfortunate too. The only difference is that he wants to change it, and I don't care. In some ways, his stance is better.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- Appendix to Man and Superman: Maxims for Revolutionists, George Bernard Shaw
And, when you compare it against OS X Panther ($129), which includes, among other things, a full integrated development environment, Windows XP seems to be priced too high. This is ignoring subjective claims of better or worse, of course.
A compiler has yet to figure out how to change a slow algorithm for a faster one, or a greedy algorithm for a conservative one etc.
For instance, (iterative) bubblesort is relatively conservative in terms of memory usage, as opposed to recursive quicksort; however, bubblesort is usually slower than quicksort. The compiler does not yet know how to recognise bubblesort and replace it with quicksort where appropriate.
Another, Fibbonacci numbers can be calculated recursively. (SLOW) Or, it can be calculated iteratively. (slow) Or, it can be calculated in an effectively O(1) algorithm. (phi = (1+sqrt(5))/2; f[n] = (((phi^n) - ((-phi)^(-n)))/sqrt(5)) But I doubt the compiler can do that kind of optimisation.
Remember, the compilers have yet to figure out intention. Without knowing intention, it cannot optimise very well. (Which is why higher level languages tend to be more optimisable -- the higher up you go, the more intention is encoded in to the code itself)
There were I think two tree traversal questions, and one of them was a braindead find the minimum. The other one I don't quite remember, but I think it was add a node to a tree, without balancing.
Mac is completely interoperable with windows & *nix where it counts. If it wasn't it would not exist.
Where it counts. Right. Like running the same executables. Reading the same file formats is nowhere near the order of interoperability that the grandparent post was talking about -- running the same executables.
Create a niche and that's all you will exist in.
You do realise that the Mac has long since carved a niche for itself and filled it?
The vision shown by Ximian is great - this sort of innovation displays the strength of alternative software development.
While Ximian has done some innovative things, we're talking about Mono here, which is fundamentally a copy, an alternative implementation of.NET -- there may be innovation in the implementation, but the core idea is not -- and that's what counts. Or used to. I have no idea what gimmicks geeks like today, but geeks used to appreciate innovative ideas. Hell, they used create innovative ideas. Many still do, but I'd hazard a guess that the fraction of programmers/software engineers/software designers/computer scientists that have groundbreaking new ideas is falling faster than ever before. Then again, there is less and less ground to break...
If there is one thing Mono has done, is to have ported, to have made available Microsoft "innovation" to other platforms. But it's no excuse for not working on new ideas.
But back to Linux. If all we ever do is copy, what will distinguish us from them? An equally balanced alternative is not good enough -- we must outweigh them as a operating system, as a development environment, as a computing platform.
However, I don't mind Linux being a niche player for a few more years. I don't really care for more installed base nor for more marketshare. If it is a side effect of improvements made, so be it.
In other words, we need to assume the position of a cloner.
We should not. We should strive not merely to be merely interoperable, but to be ahead of everything else -- we should have something unique, innovative -- a killer app proper.
Hm. Should stay away from marketing department.
In any case, one does not need interoperability to be viable. The Mac is not very interoperable with x86 or Windows -- only a few doubt that it is viable -- because, the Mac has unique features that other systems do not have. (Or not. But interoperability is not needed)
You want a 20MB file to be copied in approx 0.04 seconds (1/25th of a second, roughly the smallest time value you can see)... That's 500MB/s. Approx. 4,000,000,000 bits per second. That kind of hard disk speed? Unheard of. That kind of RAM speed? Getting there. Disadvantage? It's volatile. Non-volatile storage will always take longer to record.
But, yes, instant is the trademark of the generation of today (and possibly the last generation too). I want it now! No, I want it yesterday! An infusion of patience would do most of us some good...
Lemme guess... Tachyon-based logic? You must be fantasizing. Especially since tachyons have imaginary mass. Not going to happen in the real world anytime soon. Without some complex physics to go with it anyway.
In any case, just imagine what future historians will make of it.
They'll be about 4000 years apart in construction. Given that dating methods can only be somewhat accurate after many centamillenia... not to mention continental drift...
Slashdot Mirror
This is mostly because it is based on Plan 9, which was developed at Bell Labs, where UNIX was developed.
Trust me, it is all very interesting stuff. Just don't let it slip that you use the heathen UNIX, especially on #plan9 on FreeNode.
Variable width fonts makes this easier. Or not.
'iiii' probably has the same width as 'MM' in some variable width fonts.
On the other hand, fixed width fonts allows calculation of the exact amount of letters to fit in.
In any case, the 'official' font of the US Government was Courier New 12 for quite some time.
It's a trend. More and more words are being euphemised.
??? -> W.C. -> Toilet -> Washroom/Bathroom.
Dead-tree edition Hard copy. (Notice the direction of the arrows...)
Bystander deaths -> Collateral damage.
But in this case, I'd say it really is social engineering. You are conning not individuals, but a whole group of people.
It doesn't. The ratio is 1.414..., i.e. sqrt(2).
1.618 doesn't quite have the same property for aspect ratio.
I sense a new meme. The anti-You must be new here.
Evidently they're not accurate enough. If they were more accurate, it would not have caused so much 'collateral damage' (bystander deaths).
We don't need weapons of mass destruction. We have enough already. We need weapons of targeted minimal destruction. (What's wrong with a sharpshooter and a shotgun? Seems quite effective for human targets)
However, flamebait is a synonym for "Many will disagree and yell at you for it".
Have you considered using software from 1997 to run on your computer from 1997 rather than software from 2004 to run on a computer from 2000? All the software you've named is from 1997.
Forsooth, in what yeare of our Lorde didst thou cometh across this olde giokke? Methinks the population of this worlde is at six thousande million now, 'twas at five thousande million when I was a wee childe.
There is only one reason for this: to make it like the metric prefixes.
Recalleth this olde giokke:
An amateur thinks one kilobyte is 1000 bytes. A computer scientist thinks one kilometre is 1024 metres.
So, the standards bodies are trying to change it to be in line with their prefixes. However, trying to change existing terms to mean something else is not a good idea.
You do realise that:
(1) He started the whole GNU project, without which you wouldn't have HURD or GNOME or (open source) XFree86 (without which you wouldn't have Xorg) etc.
(2) He coded the first version of GCC, without which you wouldn't have Linux
Surely, you won't even give him respect for starting the whole shebang, without which you wouldn't have any GNU software at all?
While it might be biased, This document sheds some light on why progress on HURD is (percieved as) so slow:
It didn't really start until 1990. The previous incarnation, TRIX, which was started in the 1980s was discarded. Though, this about puts it at equal footing with Linux in terms of time; the difference being Linux probably has 10 times the number of developers as HURD (now).
If you won't even stop to give HURD the time of day, you'll never see it come to a usable state because there are few users to test it and even fewer developers to work on it, and thus you won't even stop to give HURD the time of day. It's a causal loop. And there are many, many more people like you. Don't complain about the poor progress of the HURD if you won't even try to actively use it. (It's just like those people who go about whining about GNU/Linux based on hearsay without even using it. It's just like the people who go about complaining about the slow progress of , and decide they won't help develop said software project or even use said software)
I call flamebait.
RMS is the embodiment of anarchism -- he wants everyone to be a peer, and equal in privileges.
He sees it as unfortunate that trust among humans is so poor that passwords, logins, key cards are required.
And honestly, I see it as unfortunate too. The only difference is that he wants to change it, and I don't care. In some ways, his stance is better.
-- Appendix to Man and Superman: Maxims for Revolutionists, George Bernard Shaw
And, when you compare it against OS X Panther ($129), which includes, among other things, a full integrated development environment, Windows XP seems to be priced too high. This is ignoring subjective claims of better or worse, of course.
What will happen to Plan 9? The commercial rights belong to Vita Nuova, but I think Lucent/Bell Labs retains the copyrights and such...
Reminds me of the 68k Mac emulator for MacOS (Classic). It had to fit in the cache... and leave space for the program too.
A compiler has yet to figure out how to change a slow algorithm for a faster one, or a greedy algorithm for a conservative one etc.
For instance, (iterative) bubblesort is relatively conservative in terms of memory usage, as opposed to recursive quicksort; however, bubblesort is usually slower than quicksort. The compiler does not yet know how to recognise bubblesort and replace it with quicksort where appropriate.
Another, Fibbonacci numbers can be calculated recursively. (SLOW) Or, it can be calculated iteratively. (slow) Or, it can be calculated in an effectively O(1) algorithm. (phi = (1+sqrt(5))/2; f[n] = (((phi^n) - ((-phi)^(-n)))/sqrt(5))
But I doubt the compiler can do that kind of optimisation.
Remember, the compilers have yet to figure out intention. Without knowing intention, it cannot optimise very well. (Which is why higher level languages tend to be more optimisable -- the higher up you go, the more intention is encoded in to the code itself)
A real example? Well, I can't really think of any that don't involve major alterations to the algorithm.
Then again...Eliminate c and i;Can always cheat though... change the algorithm:Eliminate the branch:
There were I think two tree traversal questions, and one of them was a braindead find the minimum. The other one I don't quite remember, but I think it was add a node to a tree, without balancing.
Eh? I had 1:15 for Section I and 1:45 for Section II -- 3 hours. Yes, I sat for the 2004 AP CS AB exam.
Where it counts. Right. Like running the same executables. Reading the same file formats is nowhere near the order of interoperability that the grandparent post was talking about -- running the same executables.
You do realise that the Mac has long since carved a niche for itself and filled it?
While Ximian has done some innovative things, we're talking about Mono here, which is fundamentally a copy, an alternative implementation of
If there is one thing Mono has done, is to have ported, to have made available Microsoft "innovation" to other platforms. But it's no excuse for not working on new ideas.
But back to Linux. If all we ever do is copy, what will distinguish us from them? An equally balanced alternative is not good enough -- we must outweigh them as a operating system, as a development environment, as a computing platform.
However, I don't mind Linux being a niche player for a few more years. I don't really care for more installed base nor for more marketshare. If it is a side effect of improvements made, so be it.
In other words, we need to assume the position of a cloner.
We should not. We should strive not merely to be merely interoperable, but to be ahead of everything else -- we should have something unique, innovative -- a killer app proper.
Hm. Should stay away from marketing department.
In any case, one does not need interoperability to be viable. The Mac is not very interoperable with x86 or Windows -- only a few doubt that it is viable -- because, the Mac has unique features that other systems do not have. (Or not. But interoperability is not needed)
You want a 20MB file to be copied in approx 0.04 seconds (1/25th of a second, roughly the smallest time value you can see) ... That's 500MB/s. Approx. 4,000,000,000 bits per second. That kind of hard disk speed? Unheard of. That kind of RAM speed? Getting there. Disadvantage? It's volatile. Non-volatile storage will always take longer to record.
But, yes, instant is the trademark of the generation of today (and possibly the last generation too). I want it now! No, I want it yesterday! An infusion of patience would do most of us some good...
Lemme guess... Tachyon-based logic? You must be fantasizing. Especially since tachyons have imaginary mass. Not going to happen in the real world anytime soon. Without some complex physics to go with it anyway.
In any case, just imagine what future historians will make of it.
They'll be about 4000 years apart in construction. Given that dating methods can only be somewhat accurate after many centamillenia... not to mention continental drift...