Maybe you should refrain yourself from practicing a brain-dead approach to searching, such as "I will search only Google". Maybe if you typed your query on dmoz.org, you would have gotten www.learn-spanish-online.de as the second hit. Maybe if you tried something else than Google, you would see the world in a whole new light...
The bluish tint on every one of those round things combined with the fact that every one of them is colored in the shades of what one would be expecting on the ground below it (only slightly blurred) should tell you that this is most likely condensed on the lens, most likely water.
That would be hard, MSH leverages.NET quite extensively. You might see a Mono Shell, or a Python Shell using the same concepts though.
Not really. To implement object pipelining instead of textual output pipelining, they will be utilizing.NET reflection.
Reflection is nothing new, obviously. It's the fact that they leverage a fully object-oriented language and the reflection part of its API to implement object-piping scripting language, that's the real innovation in here.
Simply put, it's how you put the wheels together, not the wheels themselves.
The vast majority of software running on a Windows platform was not written with command line operability or scripting in mind.
The vast majority of software running on Windows requires interactivity with the user. Running such software in the command-line-style pipelining mode is therefore irrelevant.
If you want to automate some of those software packages, the object models are out there. E.g. the entire MS Office suite is built upon a set of objects that you can script.
If you cared enough to get out of the box when thinking about the command line and actually listened to what Jeffery Snover says in the "Monad Revised" interview, you would realize one important innovation that they are bringing with Monad.
In Unix/Linux command line automation, you end up calling commands A | B | C |.... Often, B has to be a funky Perl script because A produces text output and you need to transform it so that C accepts data in the correct format. So your B is all about assumptions: "hey, so xyz will be 27th column, abc is part of this other token, now let me pray there is no tab delimiter in here,..."
With Monad, you will be able to pipe entire objects, which are much easier to deal with, since they are programmatically explorable.
And to depart from non-mainstream scripting like WSH and WMI, Microsoft has designed the scripting syntax for Monad to be very close to C#, thereby allowing the scripter to actually be on a learning curve towards C# (in Monad, you have the whole CLI accessible), which also strengthens their position when it comes to the widespread usage of the.NET platform and C#.
The good example that Jeffrey Snover used was this: I have x servers, and one is behaving weirdly. Let me grab a list of processes, get them by name and do a diff on their processor time.
Now in Unix/Linux, you would probably have a hard time doing this, especially due to the fact that all you'll be doing in your script is trying to get the damn textual output from the 'ps' process to show/format/group right and then doing a textual diff. And if you wanted to present results in a different format, now you have to transform the output of that diff... what a mess...
The biggest problem of this "claymation" technology is latency. Sure, we'll have Internet2 to support the amount of information that will need to be transferred, but when two people stand next to each other and communicate, there is no lag.
Part of the problem why phone and video conferences don't work well is the delay with which information is propagated to the other side. This problem exists regardless of whether you're transferring voice, video or some wireframe data...
In a complex system like this, I'm sure this will still be a big issue to overcome to make this technology practical.
It makes me wonder that there actually *are* morons who modded the parent post as informative...
If you don't have an envelope the very *right now* containing the documents that you own those shares, the time travel trip affecting your life in this way hasn't happened yet, has it....
If there were to be a time travelling trip that you describe, you would have ALREADY had an envelope in your posession, since those shares were already bought...
I would be more convinced to believe a quantum model that explains the grandfather paradox by stating that time travel is really a traceback in the state transition sequence and once you find yourself in what you would call the "past", you're at a starting line of a "new" future.
Time travel backward is therefore nothing more but sort of a "transaction rollback" which returns you into the combination of the state machine that corresponds to that moment in the past. From then on, the future of yourself and of the environment you observe can be anything. Soft of like a tree from the bottom of which you can travel back, but once you're there, you walk down the tree with potentially walking down a different subtree.
Basically the model that I am describing argues that there are multiple orders of the world and what we people observe as time is nothing more but just a specific sequence of state transitions that we go through.
Google Should Buy GM or Ford. Both have Market caps at about $18B. If Google were to make a strategic investment of $5-9B in either or both, they could run the internal IT as well as insert Google things in cars.
OMFG... look up some numbers first. Google's balance sheet shows total current assets (assets that are easiest among all their assets to actually liquidate/use) of $2.7B as of Dec 2004.
Conclusion: They do NOT have enough cash to buy multi-billion-dollar businesses liek GM or Ford, or even enough cash to make "strategic" investments.
I agree with this: unearned power, priveledge, and position are quite clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise. This is one reason why I am staunchly against the Republican repeal of the inheritance tax. Stupid, stupid idea.
What you essentially said is that if wealth is transfered to someone else for free, the recipient should be taxed heavily because they did not "earn" it. This type of reasoning is nothing more but a great example of cry-baby economic jealousy ("waaah, waah, it's not fair that he became rich and I didn't....").
One more thing.
Exactly how is transfer of ownership of property from person A to person B "clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise"?
In a free-market economy, I can sell all my possessions valued by some at $100B for exactly 1 dollar to my children. The government will get its sales tax of 7 cents (or whatever it is), end of transaction. The government has no business in dictating that that 1 dollar should have been $100B because the government has no business dictating prices; if the government dictated prices, the market economy wouldn't really be free any more, would it?
If you are truly concerned about privacy, and how your library handles it, ask the librarians. They'll probably be happy to help you. They may even refer you to the director, invite you to a library board meeting, or put you in contact with a sysadmin that might be happy to chat.
WTF, you're talking like the sysadmin is the king of everything. Don't overestimate the importance of your role. Sysadmin is an equivalent of a handiman, just like the programmer is an equivalent of a bricklayer.
He could conceivably have unexercised options, though, right?
Often, the vesting plan of options will be such that you will exercise your options and cash the proceeds on the market. Not knowing what Brin's case is, I would tend to guess (based on the history of option exercisings and subsequent immediate sales of those shares) that he does not necessarily intend on keeping any shares.
If Google wants to stay in business, this is exactly the kind of a thing a shareholder would expect from their management. Not entering a market that comprises one quarter of the world would be fatal.
Hopefully, now you see how aggressive a company must become once it goes public.
By the way, did you know that Sergey Brin no longer owns any shares in Google?
Too bad for you that many of the people "freed up" in such a fashion are not similarly "freed up" from their debt loads, current bills, and all the costs coming down the pipe from an increased price of energy.
You fucking moron. Who asked them to get into debt in the first place instead of saving? Who asked them to get on a "all you can talk" cell phone plan and a "premium" cable TV package? And who asked them to buy an SUV instead of a hybrid? Just think with your head, you dumbfuck, for example demanding a hybrid as opposed to an SUV would have created a consumer market to which car manufacturers would HAVE to appropriately respond if they want to stay in business (why do you think S&P lowered Ford and GM's credit rating?).
You should stop whining like a little bitch and realize that fiscal responsibility is not just a made-up term applying only to the government.
It is YOU who needs to get real and realize that responsibility for one's welfare lies in the individual's hands. It is in your best interest to improve productivity so that you or anyone else doesn't have to spend their time constantly overcoming the same obstacles over and over and over like a slave, just to keep themselves alive (example: baking bread, WTF would you want to keep doing it if you have mastered it once and built tools to make it happen automatically).
Robotics and automation leads to cheaper goods and frees up the workforce to do other things, things in which human contribution is still needed to make them better.
If you want to keep doing a job that a machine already can do for you, you end up staying a piece of dumb wood and if you don't have means to stay alive, then you deserve to rot. You didn't bring anything useful to the table anyway, so no one will miss you.
I was working at RIM back in 2002 before they had their layoffs (purely cosmetic, they pretty much hired the same amount of people back 12 months later, but at that point in time it was "necessary")
"Purely cosmetic"? Don't kid yourself. Realize the fact that when things start shaking just a tiny bit, you were the one in the first wave of layoffs. Having your name spring to the mind of your boss as the first thing when layoffs are looming is a pretty pathetic thing to even admit to.
this activity will most certainly occur outside of the US and beyond any jurisdiction of American ethics organizations.
Ethical organizations do NOT have any jurisdiction in the U.S. Ethical organizations are interest groups usually affiliated with a religious or a political group. They are in no part part of law enforcement, so shut your mouth with this 'jurisdiction' crap already.
When are you finally going to get it? The First Amendment prevents your government (namely via congress) from abridging the freedom of speech.
If you continue to claim that First Amendment rights of the guy were violated, it certainly wasn't by WalMart. It would mean you are claiming DMCA is unconstitutional, which is a totally different matter.
So don't drag WalMart into the First Amendment issues with this. WalMart is just using the law to their advantage, which they legally have every right to do. Blame your government for passing idiotic laws and act: vote or revolt.
There is an art to GUI programming which I think is denigrated in the technical community. Designing a good interface is a tricky thing to do, [...]
I think you are confusing design with programming. As a programmer, you don't get to decide how the GUI will look and interact. You only get to code it. It's called 'requirements', you know...
Slashdot Mirror
[...] seen in most of the SINKEX videos [...]
Um... did anyone else read that as "KINK SEX videos"...?
The "ghost ship" stories like the Marie Celeste are drunken sailor's tales. There is no record of such a ship even being built.
So how come they found it?
Maybe you should refrain yourself from practicing a brain-dead approach to searching, such as "I will search only Google". Maybe if you typed your query on dmoz.org, you would have gotten www.learn-spanish-online.de as the second hit. Maybe if you tried something else than Google, you would see the world in a whole new light...
You talk too much.
The bluish tint on every one of those round things combined with the fact that every one of them is colored in the shades of what one would be expecting on the ground below it (only slightly blurred) should tell you that this is most likely condensed on the lens, most likely water.
That would be hard, MSH leverages .NET quite extensively. You might see a Mono Shell, or a Python Shell using the same concepts though.
.NET reflection.
Not really. To implement object pipelining instead of textual output pipelining, they will be utilizing
Reflection is nothing new, obviously. It's the fact that they leverage a fully object-oriented language and the reflection part of its API to implement object-piping scripting language, that's the real innovation in here.
Simply put, it's how you put the wheels together, not the wheels themselves.
The vast majority of software running on a Windows platform was not written with command line operability or scripting in mind.
.... Often, B has to be a funky Perl script because A produces text output and you need to transform it so that C accepts data in the correct format. So your B is all about assumptions: "hey, so xyz will be 27th column, abc is part of this other token, now let me pray there is no tab delimiter in here, ..."
.NET platform and C#.
The vast majority of software running on Windows requires interactivity with the user. Running such software in the command-line-style pipelining mode is therefore irrelevant.
If you want to automate some of those software packages, the object models are out there. E.g. the entire MS Office suite is built upon a set of objects that you can script.
If you cared enough to get out of the box when thinking about the command line and actually listened to what Jeffery Snover says in the "Monad Revised" interview, you would realize one important innovation that they are bringing with Monad.
In Unix/Linux command line automation, you end up calling commands A | B | C |
With Monad, you will be able to pipe entire objects, which are much easier to deal with, since they are programmatically explorable.
And to depart from non-mainstream scripting like WSH and WMI, Microsoft has designed the scripting syntax for Monad to be very close to C#, thereby allowing the scripter to actually be on a learning curve towards C# (in Monad, you have the whole CLI accessible), which also strengthens their position when it comes to the widespread usage of the
The good example that Jeffrey Snover used was this: I have x servers, and one is behaving weirdly. Let me grab a list of processes, get them by name and do a diff on their processor time.
Now in Unix/Linux, you would probably have a hard time doing this, especially due to the fact that all you'll be doing in your script is trying to get the damn textual output from the 'ps' process to show/format/group right and then doing a textual diff. And if you wanted to present results in a different format, now you have to transform the output of that diff... what a mess...
The biggest problem of this "claymation" technology is latency. Sure, we'll have Internet2 to support the amount of information that will need to be transferred, but when two people stand next to each other and communicate, there is no lag.
Part of the problem why phone and video conferences don't work well is the delay with which information is propagated to the other side. This problem exists regardless of whether you're transferring voice, video or some wireframe data...
In a complex system like this, I'm sure this will still be a big issue to overcome to make this technology practical.
It makes me wonder that there actually *are* morons who modded the parent post as informative...
If you don't have an envelope the very *right now* containing the documents that you own those shares, the time travel trip affecting your life in this way hasn't happened yet, has it....
If there were to be a time travelling trip that you describe, you would have ALREADY had an envelope in your posession, since those shares were already bought...
I would be more convinced to believe a quantum model that explains the grandfather paradox by stating that time travel is really a traceback in the state transition sequence and once you find yourself in what you would call the "past", you're at a starting line of a "new" future.
Time travel backward is therefore nothing more but sort of a "transaction rollback" which returns you into the combination of the state machine that corresponds to that moment in the past. From then on, the future of yourself and of the environment you observe can be anything. Soft of like a tree from the bottom of which you can travel back, but once you're there, you walk down the tree with potentially walking down a different subtree.
Basically the model that I am describing argues that there are multiple orders of the world and what we people observe as time is nothing more but just a specific sequence of state transitions that we go through.
The MP3 player skips a lot but and isn't really usable but it's very very cool.
So why is it cool if it doesn't even work?
Stanford, Stanford, hm.... Google...
Google Should Buy GM or Ford. Both have Market caps at about $18B. If Google were to make a strategic investment of $5-9B in either or both, they could run the internal IT as well as insert Google things in cars.
OMFG... look up some numbers first. Google's balance sheet shows total current assets (assets that are easiest among all their assets to actually liquidate/use) of $2.7B as of Dec 2004.
Conclusion: They do NOT have enough cash to buy multi-billion-dollar businesses liek GM or Ford, or even enough cash to make "strategic" investments.
I agree with this: unearned power, priveledge, and position are quite clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise. This is one reason why I am staunchly against the Republican repeal of the inheritance tax. Stupid, stupid idea.
What you essentially said is that if wealth is transfered to someone else for free, the recipient should be taxed heavily because they did not "earn" it. This type of reasoning is nothing more but a great example of cry-baby economic jealousy ("waaah, waah, it's not fair that he became rich and I didn't....").
One more thing.
Exactly how is transfer of ownership of property from person A to person B "clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise"?
In a free-market economy, I can sell all my possessions valued by some at $100B for exactly 1 dollar to my children. The government will get its sales tax of 7 cents (or whatever it is), end of transaction. The government has no business in dictating that that 1 dollar should have been $100B because the government has no business dictating prices; if the government dictated prices, the market economy wouldn't really be free any more, would it?
If you are truly concerned about privacy, and how your library handles it, ask the librarians. They'll probably be happy to help you. They may even refer you to the director, invite you to a library board meeting, or put you in contact with a sysadmin that might be happy to chat.
WTF, you're talking like the sysadmin is the king of everything. Don't overestimate the importance of your role. Sysadmin is an equivalent of a handiman, just like the programmer is an equivalent of a bricklayer.
The big burst of interest is because Firefox, Opera, and Safari now support XmlHttpRequest, so you can deploy a public web application which uses it.
Don't kid yourself.
He could conceivably have unexercised options, though, right?
Often, the vesting plan of options will be such that you will exercise your options and cash the proceeds on the market. Not knowing what Brin's case is, I would tend to guess (based on the history of option exercisings and subsequent immediate sales of those shares) that he does not necessarily intend on keeping any shares.
All this is however purse speculation of course.
If Google wants to stay in business, this is exactly the kind of a thing a shareholder would expect from their management. Not entering a market that comprises one quarter of the world would be fatal.
Hopefully, now you see how aggressive a company must become once it goes public.
By the way, did you know that Sergey Brin no longer owns any shares in Google?
Too bad for you that many of the people "freed up" in such a fashion are not similarly "freed up" from their debt loads, current bills, and all the costs coming down the pipe from an increased price of energy.
You fucking moron. Who asked them to get into debt in the first place instead of saving? Who asked them to get on a "all you can talk" cell phone plan and a "premium" cable TV package? And who asked them to buy an SUV instead of a hybrid? Just think with your head, you dumbfuck, for example demanding a hybrid as opposed to an SUV would have created a consumer market to which car manufacturers would HAVE to appropriately respond if they want to stay in business (why do you think S&P lowered Ford and GM's credit rating?).
You should stop whining like a little bitch and realize that fiscal responsibility is not just a made-up term applying only to the government.
It is YOU who needs to get real and realize that responsibility for one's welfare lies in the individual's hands. It is in your best interest to improve productivity so that you or anyone else doesn't have to spend their time constantly overcoming the same obstacles over and over and over like a slave, just to keep themselves alive (example: baking bread, WTF would you want to keep doing it if you have mastered it once and built tools to make it happen automatically).
Robotics and automation leads to cheaper goods and frees up the workforce to do other things, things in which human contribution is still needed to make them better.
If you want to keep doing a job that a machine already can do for you, you end up staying a piece of dumb wood and if you don't have means to stay alive, then you deserve to rot. You didn't bring anything useful to the table anyway, so no one will miss you.
I was working at RIM back in 2002 before they had their layoffs (purely cosmetic, they pretty much hired the same amount of people back 12 months later, but at that point in time it was "necessary")
"Purely cosmetic"? Don't kid yourself. Realize the fact that when things start shaking just a tiny bit, you were the one in the first wave of layoffs. Having your name spring to the mind of your boss as the first thing when layoffs are looming is a pretty pathetic thing to even admit to.
this activity will most certainly occur outside of the US and beyond any jurisdiction of American ethics organizations.
Ethical organizations do NOT have any jurisdiction in the U.S. Ethical organizations are interest groups usually affiliated with a religious or a political group. They are in no part part of law enforcement, so shut your mouth with this 'jurisdiction' crap already.
His First Amendment rights are being violated.
When are you finally going to get it? The First Amendment prevents your government (namely via congress) from abridging the freedom of speech.
If you continue to claim that First Amendment rights of the guy were violated, it certainly wasn't by WalMart. It would mean you are claiming DMCA is unconstitutional, which is a totally different matter.
So don't drag WalMart into the First Amendment issues with this. WalMart is just using the law to their advantage, which they legally have every right to do. Blame your government for passing idiotic laws and act: vote or revolt.
There is an art to GUI programming which I think is denigrated in the technical community. Designing a good interface is a tricky thing to do, [...]
I think you are confusing design with programming. As a programmer, you don't get to decide how the GUI will look and interact. You only get to code it. It's called 'requirements', you know...
Still waiting for an unseptacircular hexagasm
Hexagasm, orgasm, same thing.
Ahaa... sorry, while "68000" is immediately recognizable as a Motorola processor, "4" in the number makes it look very confusing at first. Thanks.