It's still a pull architecture at heart, so your assertion that it won't scale because it's a push architecture is erroneous at best.
Secondly, there is no standard for naming files, period, regardless of the distribution mechanism. Gnutella and Napster suffer the same problem.
You can't force me to name Tori Amos's 'Sugar' anything in particular. If I feel like naming it Don Quixote, the Remix, then that's my business, and you can kindly bugger off.
Christian fundamentalists aren't worried about how undercrowded 'heaven' will be if you don't follow their ways (some seem downright smug about it, which makes me wonder why they don't just put a sock in it and let me go to Hell in peace).
Environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that your 'sin' is going to take them down with you. The problem, though, is that while they can afford to be wrong, you can't. Biological cycles limp along for a very long time before they show gross signs of trouble, at which point it requires herculean effort to keep the system from collapsing. Ever have a fish tank?
I have talked to a number of folk who tried and gave up on working as contractors at Microsoft (talented programmers, mind you, whom I respect, not just bitter never-were spouting off at the mouth), and it's fairly plain that Microsoft is a religion.
Aside from the whole "Us and Them" treatment of contractors (Blue badges are Gods, all else are worthless scum), it extends to their view of the world in general. You're different. You're special. You're a rebel, changing the world. Especially if you can handle 75+ hours a week. They're told that they're the Elite, and generally indoctrinated in unsettling ways.
My biggest gripe with Microsoft is not that they tie everything together, or that they produce crappy software. It's that they produce software that is of a similar caliber to that of other companies, and them imagine themselves superior to these other companies. If you're going to claim to be better than everybody else, you'd better damned well put your money where your mouth is.
Firstly, programmers transitioning to other design paradigmns is always fraught with trouble. It surprises me very little to hear you say that functional programmers didn't see the big deal with two OO languages. Now, if you'd said Smalltalk, Objective C or C++ programmers, we'd have a different discussion.
Limbo is Just Another Procedural Language. Most people fighting over the future of programming either side with functional, OO, or something yet to be determined. You don't hear too many well thought-out debates by respected individuals calling for a return to our software roots. And even were it not a procedural language, it has a very unimpressive set of primitive types, and some grammar changes are a tease. You're likely to forget you're not programming in C-progeny syntax, and botch something mightily.
I looked at Inferno when it first came out, and it was very impressive in 1996, and it's still impressive today. Javasoft is attempting to target the same market with Jini, and meeting with equally glazed eyes, unfortunately.
But what sent me running away screaming was the programming language you were expected to use. Here was a language that looked like it was a solid step backward from C! And I'm sure everyone from procedural to functional programmers and everything in between can agree that this is an undesirable first impression to make upon someone.
Someone about a year ago claimed they had a technique for shaving a silicon chip down to remove the substrate, and bonding the remaining IC to the top of another chip. The idea was to make modular chips.
Since the time it takes to do nanolathing is a function of the number of features, instead of the number of layers as with photolithography, it may be useful to have a machine that's responsible for producing only part of a particular chip, instead of the whole thing, to keep complexity down.
One configuration of lithography machine could then produce cache memory for the whole product line, or FPUs. Only the control layers would vary, in that they would have to handle N-way parallelism, where N is controlled by the type of processor (consumer, workstation, server).
I can't seem to come up with the right search engine incantation to locate the announcement, however. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about?
Actually, if you read their homepage, things get a little more interesting. It seems that they bought a company named DataSonics, which invented the technique. So this is not just a case of one company buying into a bad idea (Yay, sound pollution!), but another company buying into it to the point of ponying up the cash to purchase them outright.
How, pray tell, do you intend to allow me to anonymously post a manifesto on the horrors of, say, working conditions at the Acme Toy factory, and yet simultaneously prevent me from posting the last chapter of Stephen King's newest novel?
Half the sci-fi writers throughout history wrote or specialized in stories about technology gone wrong. Do you think they're all a bunch of luddite fear the future dumbasses too?
Besides, fear is good for you. People with no fear tend to do stupid shit, like stick their arms into cages with bengal tigers in them. Fear keeps you on your toes. Now terror? That's quite another story.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the adhesive clouded due to exposure to the read light.
-
This train uses ground effects
on
Flying Trains
·
· Score: 1
And that means you can't put it on pilons more than a few feet high, and even then, the ground beneath them needs to be even, and so you still have to control it.
-
Re:Too much infrastructure required
on
Flying Trains
·
· Score: 1
ISTR seeing a couple, but you'd have the problem of getting around/past ships, and I'm not sure if the turning radius for a ship @ 6 knots is compatible with a flying train at 80 mph (assuming they slow down for turns).
But be that as it may, since Japan has so much costal water, and mountain ranges, I seriously doubt that the canals go where the trains want to go. If you need to move a boat along a costal area, you get a sea-faring barge or run close to the cost with a river/costal barge. Most of the canals, then, will be perpendicular to the coastline, while the trains will run parallel to it.
-
Too much infrastructure required
on
Flying Trains
·
· Score: 3
They really, really, should look at designing a lifting-body train, instead of this monstrosity. Something you can use on existing track designs would be optimal. Instead of vertical wing sections, shorter diagonal sections should extend from the undercarriage.
The train tracks and siderails in Japan look a lot like ours. They're too close together for one of these and another train to pass, and they frequently travel through urban areas, where the extra right of way is going to be a bitch to acquire.
I remember about two years ago, IBM releasing a press release talking about how they'd been granted a patent on an electron-beam technique that would allow them to create.08 micron features (the same size claimed in this article), but that we probably wouldn't need such a beast until 2005. I'm thinking 1) this is the same technique, but with a better prototype, and 2) They miscalculated the timeline.
The Gregorian Calendar states that there are 365.2425 days in a year. This fraction is equal to 1/4 - 3/400, or 97/400, hence the three rule ruleset. The further irony is that the actual solar year hasn't been 365.2425 days long since 4000 B.C., so we're still getting drift. Scientists argue over why the earth is moving outward in orbit, but if nothing else, tidal locking tends to push bodies farther apart, if the larger one is spinning faster than the orbit of the smaller object.
These big news conglomerates need to start investing some serious time and money into Xerox PARC, and the folks at MIT working on digital paper/ink. This stuff could be less than five years away from being feasible, and will help any news organization (paper-, or web-based) that can successfully make the transition. If they don't start looking at solutions like this, and online subscriptions soon, there won't be much left in five or ten years, at the rate we're going.
I switched to Dvorak a couple years ago, and it helped a lot. But I don't think it was Dvorak itself that made the difference, so much as it made me stop typing so much for the couple of weeks it took me to get back up to full speed.
The important thing here is to learn to work smarter, not harder. Are you spending a lot of time online just fucking around? If so, then maybe you need to consider that your future meals probably depend on your ability to type, and so maybe you should get your priorities straight.
Are you using your tools to their utmost? Have you learned all the shortcuts? Made new ones where possible (such as shell aliases, as another poster pointed out)? If not, today would be a good day to sit down and learn them (and give your hands a rest in the process).
Are you making unnecessary work for yourself? Are you writing and rewriting things because you didn't talk about them enough with coworkers before writing them the first time, or because you didn't spend an extra ten minutes considering the matter?
In other words: If you don't have to type it twice, don't. Ever. Your hands will thank you.
eLisp's hardware-agnostic design made it a total failure? How Perl's has killed it? Or Python's?
Speaking of Smalltalk, were you aware that the most popular Java IDE at the moment is written entirely in Smalltalk?
As others in this thread have already stated, and as has been stated since time began, ad nauseum, raw number-crunching isn't everything it's cracked up to be. Remember that class where they told you the right algorithm will beat the socks off of the wrong algorithm implemented cleverly? Well, this is exactly the same thing. You can spend all day bit twiddling, or you can fix the problem in a better way.
You're always at someone's mercy. The standard library implementation. Your lazy coworker whose code you always have to double-check because they're a putz. The OS. Your own errors.
And the fact of the matter is, your friend is right. It won't be until JDK 1.3 that a Java implementation has a first-class garbage collector, one that truly begins to exploit the qualities of a well-behaved memory pool.
The point is, for $3500 bucks, he can get a much faster machine, even if the G4 were the fastest chip on the market (which I doubt) Spouting back that the G4 can to SMP doesn't prove a damned thing, except that you'll know how to bend over really far when the bill comes.
Wait... if this thing is 22" diagonal, then at 1600x1024 it's significantly less than the standard 100dpi. Around 85 dpi, and it's still that expensive? What a piece of crap. I'll save my pennies for the SGI monitor, or wait for the 200+ dpi units to come out.
My biggest question is: What the hell are these guys smoking? It may be politically correct to limit your mad scientist experiments to mice and rats, but most of this research doesn't involve trying to build a better animal. If you're going to go trying to improve the beast, why not pick one that we don't already fight a losing battle with? Maybe after they create some gene therapy from this research, they should feed some of it to the scientist who dreamed up this brainfart in the first place.
Go right to the source, and ask the horse...
on
Wearable PCs
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Again, read the specs.
It's still a pull architecture at heart, so your assertion that it won't scale because it's a push architecture is erroneous at best.
Secondly, there is no standard for naming files, period, regardless of the distribution mechanism. Gnutella and Napster suffer the same problem.
You can't force me to name Tori Amos's 'Sugar' anything in particular. If I feel like naming it Don Quixote, the Remix, then that's my business, and you can kindly bugger off.
-
Christian fundamentalists aren't worried about how undercrowded 'heaven' will be if you don't follow their ways (some seem downright smug about it, which makes me wonder why they don't just put a sock in it and let me go to Hell in peace).
Environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that your 'sin' is going to take them down with you. The problem, though, is that while they can afford to be wrong, you can't. Biological cycles limp along for a very long time before they show gross signs of trouble, at which point it requires herculean effort to keep the system from collapsing. Ever have a fish tank?
-
I have talked to a number of folk who tried and gave up on working as contractors at Microsoft (talented programmers, mind you, whom I respect, not just bitter never-were spouting off at the mouth), and it's fairly plain that Microsoft is a religion.
Aside from the whole "Us and Them" treatment of contractors (Blue badges are Gods, all else are worthless scum), it extends to their view of the world in general. You're different. You're special. You're a rebel, changing the world. Especially if you can handle 75+ hours a week. They're told that they're the Elite, and generally indoctrinated in unsettling ways.
My biggest gripe with Microsoft is not that they tie everything together, or that they produce crappy software. It's that they produce software that is of a similar caliber to that of other companies, and them imagine themselves superior to these other companies. If you're going to claim to be better than everybody else, you'd better damned well put your money where your mouth is.
-
It suprises me very little to hear you say that PROCEDURAL programmers didn't see the big deal with OO languages.
-
Firstly, programmers transitioning to other design paradigmns is always fraught with trouble. It surprises me very little to hear you say that functional programmers didn't see the big deal with two OO languages. Now, if you'd said Smalltalk, Objective C or C++ programmers, we'd have a different discussion.
Limbo is Just Another Procedural Language. Most people fighting over the future of programming either side with functional, OO, or something yet to be determined. You don't hear too many well thought-out debates by respected individuals calling for a return to our software roots. And even were it not a procedural language, it has a very unimpressive set of primitive types, and some grammar changes are a tease. You're likely to forget you're not programming in C-progeny syntax, and botch something mightily.
-
I looked at Inferno when it first came out, and it was very impressive in 1996, and it's still impressive today. Javasoft is attempting to target the same market with Jini, and meeting with equally glazed eyes, unfortunately.
But what sent me running away screaming was the programming language you were expected to use. Here was a language that looked like it was a solid step backward from C! And I'm sure everyone from procedural to functional programmers and everything in between can agree that this is an undesirable first impression to make upon someone.
-
Someone about a year ago claimed they had a technique for shaving a silicon chip down to remove the substrate, and bonding the remaining IC to the top of another chip. The idea was to make modular chips.
Since the time it takes to do nanolathing is a function of the number of features, instead of the number of layers as with photolithography, it may be useful to have a machine that's responsible for producing only part of a particular chip, instead of the whole thing, to keep complexity down.
One configuration of lithography machine could then produce cache memory for the whole product line, or FPUs. Only the control layers would vary, in that they would have to handle N-way parallelism, where N is controlled by the type of processor (consumer, workstation, server).
I can't seem to come up with the right search engine incantation to locate the announcement, however. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about?
-
Actually, if you read their homepage, things get a little more interesting. It seems that they bought a company named DataSonics, which invented the technique. So this is not just a case of one company buying into a bad idea (Yay, sound pollution!), but another company buying into it to the point of ponying up the cash to purchase them outright.
Madness.
-
How, pray tell, do you intend to allow me to anonymously post a manifesto on the horrors of, say, working conditions at the Acme Toy factory, and yet simultaneously prevent me from posting the last chapter of Stephen King's newest novel?
-
Half the sci-fi writers throughout history wrote or specialized in stories about technology gone wrong. Do you think they're all a bunch of luddite fear the future dumbasses too?
Besides, fear is good for you.
People with no fear tend to do stupid shit, like stick their arms into cages with bengal tigers in them. Fear keeps you on your toes. Now terror? That's quite another story.
-
Have they tested this long term?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the adhesive clouded due to exposure to the read light.
-
And that means you can't put it on pilons more than a few feet high, and even then, the ground beneath them needs to be even, and so you still have to control it.
-
ISTR seeing a couple, but you'd have the problem of getting around/past ships, and I'm not sure if the turning radius for a ship @ 6 knots is compatible with a flying train at 80 mph (assuming they slow down for turns).
But be that as it may, since Japan has so much costal water, and mountain ranges, I seriously doubt that the canals go where the trains want to go. If you need to move a boat along a costal area, you get a sea-faring barge or run close to the cost with a river/costal barge. Most of the canals, then, will be perpendicular to the coastline, while the trains will run parallel to it.
-
They really, really, should look at designing a lifting-body train, instead of this monstrosity.
Something you can use on existing track designs would be optimal. Instead of vertical wing sections, shorter diagonal sections should extend from the undercarriage.
The train tracks and siderails in Japan look a lot like ours. They're too close together for one of these and another train to pass, and they frequently travel through urban areas, where the extra right of way is going to be a bitch to acquire.
-
I was thinking of SCALPEL, apparently.
-
I remember about two years ago, IBM releasing a press release talking about how they'd been granted a patent on an electron-beam technique that would allow them to create .08 micron features (the same size claimed in this article),
but that we probably wouldn't need such a beast until 2005. I'm thinking 1) this is the same technique, but with a better prototype, and 2) They miscalculated the timeline.
-
The Gregorian Calendar states that there are 365.2425 days in a year. This fraction is equal to 1/4 - 3/400, or 97/400, hence the three rule ruleset. The further irony is that the actual solar year hasn't been 365.2425 days long since 4000 B.C., so we're still getting drift.
Scientists argue over why the earth is moving outward in orbit, but if nothing else, tidal locking tends to push bodies farther apart, if the larger one is spinning faster than the orbit of the smaller object.
-
These big news conglomerates need to start investing some serious time and money into Xerox PARC, and the folks at MIT working on digital paper/ink. This stuff could be less than five years away from being feasible, and will help any news organization (paper-, or web-based)
that can successfully make the transition.
If they don't start looking at solutions like this, and online subscriptions soon, there won't be much left in five or ten years, at the rate we're going.
-
I switched to Dvorak a couple years ago, and it helped a lot. But I don't think it was Dvorak itself that made the difference, so much as it made me stop typing so much for the couple of weeks it took me to get back up to full speed.
The important thing here is to learn to work smarter, not harder. Are you spending a lot of time online just fucking around? If so, then maybe you need to consider that your future meals probably depend on your ability to type, and so maybe you should get your priorities straight.
Are you using your tools to their utmost? Have you learned all the shortcuts? Made new ones where possible (such as shell aliases, as another poster pointed out)? If not, today would be a good day to sit down and learn them (and give your hands a rest in the process).
Are you making unnecessary work for yourself? Are you writing and rewriting things because you didn't talk about them enough with coworkers before writing them the first time, or because you didn't spend an extra ten minutes considering the matter?
In other words: If you don't have to type it twice, don't. Ever. Your hands will thank you.
-
eLisp's hardware-agnostic design made it a total failure? How Perl's has killed it? Or Python's?
Speaking of Smalltalk, were you aware that the most popular Java IDE at the moment is written entirely in Smalltalk?
As others in this thread have already stated, and as has been stated since time began, ad nauseum, raw number-crunching isn't everything it's cracked up to be. Remember that class where they told you the right algorithm will beat the socks off of the wrong algorithm implemented cleverly?
Well, this is exactly the same thing. You can spend all day bit twiddling, or you can fix the problem in a better way.
-
You're always at someone's mercy. The standard library implementation. Your lazy coworker whose code you always have to double-check because they're a putz. The OS. Your own errors.
And the fact of the matter is, your friend is right. It won't be until JDK 1.3 that a Java implementation has a first-class garbage collector, one that truly begins to exploit the qualities of a well-behaved memory pool.
-
The point is, for $3500 bucks, he can get a much faster machine, even if the G4 were the fastest chip on the market (which I doubt)
Spouting back that the G4 can to SMP doesn't prove a damned thing, except that you'll know how to bend over really far when the bill comes.
Wait... if this thing is 22" diagonal, then at 1600x1024 it's significantly less than the standard 100dpi. Around 85 dpi, and it's still that expensive? What a piece of crap. I'll save my pennies for the SGI monitor, or wait for the 200+ dpi units to come out.
My biggest question is: What the hell are these guys smoking? It may be politically correct to limit your mad scientist experiments to mice and rats, but most of this research doesn't involve trying to build a better animal. If you're going to go trying to improve the beast, why not pick one that we don't already fight a losing battle with? Maybe after they create some gene therapy from this research, they should feed some of it to the scientist who dreamed up this brainfart in the first place.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thad.Starner/