Frakly, I always thought Connery blew. I never liked him. He was always too serious pretending that James Bond was a real move instead of another campy spy film. Roger Moore was by far the funniest. He seems to have balanced action and comedy perfectly. Pierce Brosnan seems too much like a Hollywood stunt spectacular. Moore is the only Bond worth watching.... IMHO
i've thought about creating a preprocessor that would let a user program in polish and then it would process into standard english java and then compile it. while the keywords are easy i don't think the whole api would be a problem once you got a little help from the community.
most classes are combinations from a small set of words. I bet Java's core vocabulary is ~50 and with almost all classes being able to be captured with less than a hundred words? For exmaple how many classes can be made with just the words "Array" "List" "Stream" "Factory" "String" "File" "Input" "Output" "Buffer" "Reader" alone?
It was only because he was unfamiliar with 1960's programming styles that he thought that one goto every fifty lines was a frequent use of goto.)
Which made me physically shudder. What could these ancient horrors look like? Could anyone post a link to some of this ancient and offensive code? I mean I've written code for school if a group member has used *a* goto. This is something I need to see.
actually one of the biggest concerns is that they don't want to pirate all their software again. They already have a cracked OfficeXP but do any of their friends have a copyof Office for OSX? Nope. They might have to buy it. Now if they need some Windows only apps they now need VirtualPC (they don't need XP of course thanks to DevilsOwnz or various other crackers).
Once Intel in marginalized, Microsoft must be soon to follow?
No, AMD becomes the next Intel, geeks move onto Transmeta as AMD's prices rise. Eventually, Transmeta (or some other corp.) triumphs when AMD dies. Windows stays.
Really, if Windows is to die then either it is going be the slow nibbling we may be seeing now from Linux JDS et al or when a new architecture comes out that is faster *and* cheaper than x86 and we switch to it's OS. The death of one particular x86 vendor matters not to Microsoft.
I still wouldn't rule Intel out. Or matter accurately: I'd rule them out except they still have one line left and it actually fairly succesful: Pentium M. Watch Intel sell the rest of the farm and any grandmother it can find to pump money into this project's R&D to make it a real killer.
I know I'm probably too late to creat any intelligent debate from this post but I feel the neede to post this!
I agree that there is a need for unionizing software engineers
I also acknowledge that companies will move before allowing unions to form and replace their employees with cheap slaves^H^H^H^H^H workers in other countries.
Well the question becomes how do we create a union without moving the companies? Well what about removing the economic incentives for the companies to move overseas.
If a country subsidises an industry then when that thing is imported to another country there are tarriffs placed on that product to even ujp the playing field.
Now -here is the crucial link: by allowing lax labour laws the governments of third world countries are subsidising the companies by removing the cost of providing benefits for their employees.
Next we need to determine what an employee morally deserves to earn and what is mandated by law. So, for example, lets say an employee has the right to get paid overtime for over 50 hours/week, make a living wage, have 2 weeks paid vacation, get basic health benefits, and work in decent working conditions (air conditioning/heating to healthy working temperatures).
Take this list of requirements and see how much it would cost to implement in offshore-country X. Now all that cost is being saved by the company by the country allowing them to exploit the workers: a subsidy!
Now, whenever the ABC company tries to sell a product in this country the government slaps a "offshore worker exploitation surcharge" raked in by the government and it can go to help workers displaced by offshoring and for the costs of peace-keeping in these often third-world countries.
Now, since the cost of the product is going to be roughly the same as if the company gave those benefits they might as well give employees this benefits. This improves working conditions for foreign works while raising their cost with theircounterparts. Now, workers can compete on a fairer playing field and we still get economic progress (ie. improved effeciency, innovation, etc.)based on the traditional laws of economics!
We must be prepared to pay more for our goods, but we must except this as we are no longer living in opulence off the backs of the poor.
If we can get most of the industrialised nations on board (USA, Canada, and the EU) then companies will be forced to give in to improving their workers conditions since the market is way too large to ignore.
I'll be really interested in hearing feedback about this idea. It all hinges on the concept of treating exploitation is a subsidy.This would seem to work for the whole sweatshop scenario and allow countriesd to increase worker benefits without suffering from less generous countries.
adminstration and maintenance similar perhaps... but what about power?a few watts per core adds to a lot more heat PLUS the cost of cooling. i think it would be interesting if they printed a FLOP/$ per annum for each of the top 500. the cost of acquisition being spread evenly over the lifetime of the cluster.
With feature based release you get the pressure to get things done because everyone is waiting for you. I'm worried that with time-based releases a lot of features will languish with tweaking or becoming more and more ambitious and they'll never get finished to be merge since there is no pressure. I'd rather see feature-based for at least one majour feature in a release. In other words keep it feature-based but bite off only a little (and not more than chew) and aim for that bite to be doable in 9-13 months (to leave for debugging, testing, etc.).
why don't the Window's user just chip in together and by someone -for example the project leader- a Qt license. That way he could build it for Windows, give it for free to the people who donated, and then sell the binaries for anyone who wanted to run it on Windows? Any profit could go towards either being another license if it needs to be renewed or to pay back some of the donators or to hire a full time programmer? Really, because this doesn't sound so difficult and since no one has done it it must meant that it actually is or that I'm missing something.
People have criticised Theo for being agressive and less than baby-ass smooth --hell he got booted from NetBSD for it-- but he's gotten results first with the quality of OpenBSD and now with this. I think he has earned the right be hostile if he wants to- it works.
I wonder if Linus could do something similar to get ATI and NVidia to open up...
Never having really gone beyond the surface with any *BSD so forgive me if I sound trollish while being only naive...
but: if it's that simple why not just write a script for it? I mean I agree that should be somehow built-in but it doesn't seem that troublesome. Looks like it could be scripted nicely with Perl which OpenBSD comes with by default IIRC.
I laughed really hard at that one! (Though I assume that when I actually visit the UK I won't be). Seiriously, that post definitely reminded me of Douglas Adams.
Technical Update
Although overseas visitors to www.georgewbush.com are blocked https://georgewbush.com or http://65.172.163.222 still work. http://65.172.163.222 resolves as GeorgeWBush.com which illustrates how cak-handed the blocking is.
From "The Register" website.
are not designed for the same type of work as clusters. If a probably is not effeciently parallizable and requires shared memory then a Cray is the only feasible option A Cray is not a cluster. It's like comparing mph for a sports car and truck: the car is faster but they are meant for different types of loads.
A lot of the example hear seem to "cheating" on the question so lets tighten the specifications:
-must be available in bulk, no discounted end-of-stock
-must be able to play DVDs (for educational use) at decent rate as well as other common video (eg..avi.mpg.mov)
-basic sound output (128 kbps MP3)
-run OO.o
-handle digital images
and thing less than this is useless (DVD was included so that it can count on replacing the TV they may have and many resources as available primarily on DVDs such as encyclopedia).
Really the only way I see this happening is with some thin-client solution.
just thinking but wouldn't it really help to get the ball rolling if someone developed an ActiveX plug-in to support XUL in IE? That way even IE only shops can write XUL where there might have written it in AcitveX instead. This could prevent the construction of another barrier to switch over to Mozilla/Firefox at a latter date. This would be a great way for OSS to get a foot in the door at some major organisation.
Oh, I'm not claiming my english skills are any better. I was merely intrigued by this grammatical point, looked it up, and shared my results. Frankly, I couldn't care less how people talk on the internet or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm taking a writing class as it is required by my science program so I'll disagree with:
As a rule, we expect a capital letter to follow a colon.
It look's like you only need a capital after a colon when it is joing two independent clauses; however, if used with a appositive a colon is not used. My source is Hacker's "The Bedford Handbook". Irregardless, the grandparent's usage of the colon was incorrect.
I happen to thing that there is something wrong with Christianity/Islam. (I'm not naive enough to try and argue that topic on Slashdot, though).
oh i'd agree with that but not in away which you could develop from those two examples. hell i have a problem with people claiming the existence of good and evil...
I believe part of being a UNIX is having a large company to be held accountable for the software: no room for M$-style EULAs. Basically AFAIK if you get a UNIX you know you can sue the pants off of the company if it fux up. How the hell would any free or even low-cost *nix be able to meet that requirement? Frankly, the reason that people like Linx\BSD is because they are good and cheap... they are cheap because they have few costs... ergo free Unix is self-contradictory.
Slashdot Mirror
Frakly, I always thought Connery blew. I never liked him. He was always too serious pretending that James Bond was a real move instead of another campy spy film. Roger Moore was by far the funniest. He seems to have balanced action and comedy perfectly. Pierce Brosnan seems too much like a Hollywood stunt spectacular. Moore is the only Bond worth watching.... IMHO
most classes are combinations from a small set of words. I bet Java's core vocabulary is ~50 and with almost all classes being able to be captured with less than a hundred words? For exmaple how many classes can be made with just the words "Array" "List" "Stream" "Factory" "String" "File" "Input" "Output" "Buffer" "Reader" alone?
In this talk appears the quotation:
Which made me physically shudder. What could these ancient horrors look like? Could anyone post a link to some of this ancient and offensive code? I mean I've written code for school if a group member has used *a* goto. This is something I need to see.
...they better make their chip open source like the Leon2 SPARC is. That is a successful opensource chip project.
actually one of the biggest concerns is that they don't want to pirate all their software again. They already have a cracked OfficeXP but do any of their friends have a copyof Office for OSX? Nope. They might have to buy it. Now if they need some Windows only apps they now need VirtualPC (they don't need XP of course thanks to DevilsOwnz or various other crackers).
No, AMD becomes the next Intel, geeks move onto Transmeta as AMD's prices rise. Eventually, Transmeta (or some other corp.) triumphs when AMD dies. Windows stays.
Really, if Windows is to die then either it is going be the slow nibbling we may be seeing now from Linux JDS et al or when a new architecture comes out that is faster *and* cheaper than x86 and we switch to it's OS. The death of one particular x86 vendor matters not to Microsoft. I still wouldn't rule Intel out. Or matter accurately: I'd rule them out except they still have one line left and it actually fairly succesful: Pentium M. Watch Intel sell the rest of the farm and any grandmother it can find to pump money into this project's R&D to make it a real killer.Well the question becomes how do we create a union without moving the companies? Well what about removing the economic incentives for the companies to move overseas.
If a country subsidises an industry then when that thing is imported to another country there are tarriffs placed on that product to even ujp the playing field.
Now -here is the crucial link: by allowing lax labour laws the governments of third world countries are subsidising the companies by removing the cost of providing benefits for their employees.
Next we need to determine what an employee morally deserves to earn and what is mandated by law. So, for example, lets say an employee has the right to get paid overtime for over 50 hours/week, make a living wage, have 2 weeks paid vacation, get basic health benefits, and work in decent working conditions (air conditioning/heating to healthy working temperatures).
Take this list of requirements and see how much it would cost to implement in offshore-country X. Now all that cost is being saved by the company by the country allowing them to exploit the workers: a subsidy!
Now, whenever the ABC company tries to sell a product in this country the government slaps a "offshore worker exploitation surcharge" raked in by the government and it can go to help workers displaced by offshoring and for the costs of peace-keeping in these often third-world countries.
Now, since the cost of the product is going to be roughly the same as if the company gave those benefits they might as well give employees this benefits. This improves working conditions for foreign works while raising their cost with theircounterparts. Now, workers can compete on a fairer playing field and we still get economic progress (ie. improved effeciency, innovation, etc.)based on the traditional laws of economics!
We must be prepared to pay more for our goods, but we must except this as we are no longer living in opulence off the backs of the poor.
If we can get most of the industrialised nations on board (USA, Canada, and the EU) then companies will be forced to give in to improving their workers conditions since the market is way too large to ignore.
I'll be really interested in hearing feedback about this idea. It all hinges on the concept of treating exploitation is a subsidy.This would seem to work for the whole sweatshop scenario and allow countriesd to increase worker benefits without suffering from less generous countries.
adminstration and maintenance similar perhaps... but what about power?a few watts per core adds to a lot more heat PLUS the cost of cooling. i think it would be interesting if they printed a FLOP/$ per annum for each of the top 500. the cost of acquisition being spread evenly over the lifetime of the cluster.
what does mean? anyone? does this mean that 5.4 will be released shortly after 5.3 or that a patch will appear or that...?
With feature based release you get the pressure to get things done because everyone is waiting for you. I'm worried that with time-based releases a lot of features will languish with tweaking or becoming more and more ambitious and they'll never get finished to be merge since there is no pressure. I'd rather see feature-based for at least one majour feature in a release. In other words keep it feature-based but bite off only a little (and not more than chew) and aim for that bite to be doable in 9-13 months (to leave for debugging, testing, etc.).
Qt is GPL and thus free enough for RMS and that is free enough for anyone (excepting *BSD people).
Exactly what I was thinking... and since the source code is freely (i.e. GPL) anyway there isn't any point in trying to hide it either!
why don't the Window's user just chip in together and by someone -for example the project leader- a Qt license. That way he could build it for Windows, give it for free to the people who donated, and then sell the binaries for anyone who wanted to run it on Windows? Any profit could go towards either being another license if it needs to be renewed or to pay back some of the donators or to hire a full time programmer? Really, because this doesn't sound so difficult and since no one has done it it must meant that it actually is or that I'm missing something.
I wonder if Linus could do something similar to get ATI and NVidia to open up...
Never having really gone beyond the surface with any *BSD so forgive me if I sound trollish while being only naive... but: if it's that simple why not just write a script for it? I mean I agree that should be somehow built-in but it doesn't seem that troublesome. Looks like it could be scripted nicely with Perl which OpenBSD comes with by default IIRC.
I laughed really hard at that one! (Though I assume that when I actually visit the UK I won't be). Seiriously, that post definitely reminded me of Douglas Adams.
out of curiousity. also it would be interesting to see if anywhere those copyrights have expired.
Technical Update Although overseas visitors to www.georgewbush.com are blocked https://georgewbush.com or http://65.172.163.222 still work. http://65.172.163.222 resolves as GeorgeWBush.com which illustrates how cak-handed the blocking is. From "The Register" website.
are not designed for the same type of work as clusters. If a probably is not effeciently parallizable and requires shared memory then a Cray is the only feasible option A Cray is not a cluster. It's like comparing mph for a sports car and truck: the car is faster but they are meant for different types of loads.
-must be available in bulk, no discounted end-of-stock -must be able to play DVDs (for educational use) at decent rate as well as other common video (eg.
and thing less than this is useless (DVD was included so that it can count on replacing the TV they may have and many resources as available primarily on DVDs such as encyclopedia).
Really the only way I see this happening is with some thin-client solution.
just thinking but wouldn't it really help to get the ball rolling if someone developed an ActiveX plug-in to support XUL in IE? That way even IE only shops can write XUL where there might have written it in AcitveX instead. This could prevent the construction of another barrier to switch over to Mozilla/Firefox at a latter date. This would be a great way for OSS to get a foot in the door at some major organisation.
Oh, and apparently irregardless is a word not a well-respected or popular but one none the less.
As a rule, we expect a capital letter to follow a colon.
It look's like you only need a capital after a colon when it is joing two independent clauses; however, if used with a appositive a colon is not used. My source is Hacker's "The Bedford Handbook". Irregardless, the grandparent's usage of the colon was incorrect.
oh i'd agree with that but not in away which you could develop from those two examples. hell i have a problem with people claiming the existence of good and evil...
I believe part of being a UNIX is having a large company to be held accountable for the software: no room for M$-style EULAs. Basically AFAIK if you get a UNIX you know you can sue the pants off of the company if it fux up. How the hell would any free or even low-cost *nix be able to meet that requirement? Frankly, the reason that people like Linx\BSD is because they are good and cheap... they are cheap because they have few costs... ergo free Unix is self-contradictory.