Wow, it'll take the combined effort of all of Sun and HP to make Gnome as good as KDE! It must be vaporware now!
I think he meant that he believed it would take a complete redesign of the Gnome/gtk API to make it as easy to program for as KDE, and thus a partial rewrite of all of the current software.
In essence, the easy to use version of Gnome, in his opinion, is vaporware.
Why was this post moderated as Insightful? One can use the same kind of argumentation to justify every evil opportunistic thing done in the history of the human kind.
Only in the sense that both choices are opportunistic. Every choice is believed to be opportunistic by the chooser. Where does that get you?
The original poster is likely implying that the moon is ours for the taking, like croutons in a buffet. Sure, we have to pay to go get it, not unlike a buffet. Heck, maybe God owns the moon, and he charged us thousands or millions of years for it.
I used to have pet mice, and they were too smart as it was. They would always manage to find a way out of their cage, no matter how hard we tried to prevent it.
Let's see. This could be explained by mutant hyperintelligent mice, or...
Re:Chess has already been conquered. Humans lose!
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Given the complexity of chess, and the heat death of the universe, there will be no such point.
Except that you do not know the boundaries of what will be computable in the future. New discoveries in physics, or even mathematics, could change what is computable.
Take quantum computing.
Heck, we don't even understand how our own brains work.
Except that in your analogy, the automatic weaponsman knows that he has a gun in his hand.
The Outlook user thinks he's reading a book.
Re:Chess has already been conquered. Humans lose!
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Without looking at every possible move (intelligently, yes... for instance, if the move ends in checkmate, or infinite loops, stop), you can't prove that a given move is the best.
A computer will provably win if it looks at all possible moves (or at least provably do the best in the current situation).
Re:Chess has already been conquered. Humans lose!
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
Computers will be stronger simply because they calculate longer and accurate variations.
Even games between the strongest chess programs are full of terrible positional and strategic mistakes, this will probably always the case.
Computers will calculate longer variations until all possible winnable combinations have been computed. At that point, computers will have determined the game of chess.
X does not require inetd to function. When you run X, it listens on a port for clients to connect to it. inetd is for those programs that do not set up their own listener.
I could be wrong here, but I think X can be set up using UNIX sockets, which require no IP addresses.
The only way to use it will be to run on Apple hardware.
which is exactly why it will flop. 95% of the market will not buy new machines and move to MacOS X.
Where is the advantage of selling the software?
This would get them out of the rut that they are in. I won't buy a mac today for two reasons: (a) it doesn't run all of the software I need (b) classic MacOS sucks.
If apple released MacOS X for x86, many geeks would buy it. Companies would build fat binaries of MacOS X software... some geeks would eventually find out that they don't need x86 any more (years away...). Eventually, MacOS X would have all the software needed, and support the vast majority of the hardware out there. Those who care would pay 15% more for Apple hardware because it's better (I guarantee you it's more than 5% of the current market that Apple has now).
x86 is the most thriving architecture on the planet. This is not going to change over night. It is good enough, and there are billions of dollars invested in it.
However, it might change slowly if there was a cross platform operating system that could run all of the programs you had to run (linux is not it... not yet anyway). Think quicken/quickbooks, office, Adobe, etc. Heck, maybe include a win32 layer (that would be amazing... maybe possible with the settlement).
Apple physically could do this. They've done it before (68K -> PPC), maybe they can move a big chunk of the world (x86 -> PPC).
If you're reading this Apple, and you're trying to do this, good luck.
I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but a transistor using 6 atoms would certainly have features that are less than 6 atoms... unless they can make a transistor out of a random smattering of electrons aimed at roughly 6 atoms.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought disableing source routing was standard practice in ISPs and on the backbones. We certainly do it at the ISP I work for.
I think one of the major DoS problems is that some or many routers on the net do not filter their outbound traffic (traffic destined for the net at large). In my opinion, a responsible ISP should not allow outgoing packets with source IP addresses other than the set it is assigned/using. Exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.
Re:Why not just use the Crusoe as a G4?
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 1
That's right. CISC chips depend on a small number of big instructions running relitivly slowly. RISC chips depend on lots of little instructions running super fast. The Crusoe can't translate RISC instructions efficiently because there are so many of them all at once. So RISC gets pretty bad performence compared to CISC.
This doesn't just apply to the Crusoe. Any emulator has the same problem.
I think you're forgetting that the Crusoe is 75% software. The "RISC instructions" would be translated and optimized by said software into native code, and cached. The cache size is set at boot time, but can be changed afterwards by the operating system.
Be careful trying to characterize "all emulators."
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it matters, but python supports string multiplication also.
Loyal people like you, right?
Personally I don't care if they ripped off every one of Googles concepts, if their engine works better I'll use it.
Like another poster said, without patents, I.P. ventures aren't worth it.
Business will ALWAYS take advantage of uneducated workers, and that is why we have unions.
The point is that teachers shouldn't be uneducated workers.
Would qualified individuals want to be in a union? Not likely.
Would the teacher's union support the replacement of the current work force (from which they gain power) with qualified individuals? Not likely.
Could the government effectively fight the teacher's union? Not likely.
Dollars.
If I'm not mistaken, Debian does that at least to some degree... which means there is a whole distribution's worth of people doing that.
Wow, it'll take the combined effort of all of Sun and HP to make Gnome as good as KDE! It must be vaporware now!
I think he meant that he believed it would take a complete redesign of the Gnome/gtk API to make it as easy to program for as KDE, and thus a partial rewrite of all of the current software.
In essence, the easy to use version of Gnome, in his opinion, is vaporware.
I believe Earthlink was forced to install Carnivore.
Why was this post moderated as Insightful? One can use the same kind of argumentation to justify every evil opportunistic thing done in the history of the human kind.
Only in the sense that both choices are opportunistic. Every choice is believed to be opportunistic by the chooser. Where does that get you?
The original poster is likely implying that the moon is ours for the taking, like croutons in a buffet. Sure, we have to pay to go get it, not unlike a buffet. Heck, maybe God owns the moon, and he charged us thousands or millions of years for it.
I used to have pet mice, and they were too smart as it was. They would always manage to find a way out of their cage, no matter how hard we tried to prevent it.
Let's see. This could be explained by mutant hyperintelligent mice, or...
Well, you can already get BeOS for free, no?
The more speed put into travelling through space, the less there is left to travel through time. ie, dt/dT + dx/dT + dy/dT + dz/dT = c
You mean:
(dt/dT)^2 + (dx/dT)^2 + (dy/dT)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2
It's Pythagoras's theorem in 4d.
Given the complexity of chess, and the heat death of the universe, there will be no such point.
Except that you do not know the boundaries of what will be computable in the future. New discoveries in physics, or even mathematics, could change what is computable.
Take quantum computing.
Heck, we don't even understand how our own brains work.
He didn't mean that the individual magnets would alternate... if they did, then you'd have an infinite power source and no need for a flywheel.
He meant arranging magnets around the flywheel in a pattern.
Wow.
The man described a car 1000 times better than any other car currently in existance, and you shoot him down... at his prediction nonetheless.
A car that requires no maintenance to serve its purpose does not preclude tinkering or learning.
It would sure be nice to have a car that always worked in an emergency.
Except that the theory proposed claims that there are no infinities... as in no infinite gravitational fields... no event horizons.
Except that in your analogy, the automatic weaponsman knows that he has a gun in his hand.
The Outlook user thinks he's reading a book.
Without looking at every possible move (intelligently, yes... for instance, if the move ends in checkmate, or infinite loops, stop), you can't prove that a given move is the best.
A computer will provably win if it looks at all possible moves (or at least provably do the best in the current situation).
Computers will be stronger simply because they calculate longer and accurate variations.
Even games between the strongest chess programs are full of terrible positional and strategic mistakes, this will probably always the case.
Computers will calculate longer variations until all possible winnable combinations have been computed. At that point, computers will have determined the game of chess.
X does not require inetd to function. When you
run X, it listens on a port for clients to connect
to it. inetd is for those programs that do not
set up their own listener.
I could be wrong here, but I think X can be set
up using UNIX sockets, which require no IP
addresses.
The only way to use it will be to run on Apple hardware.
which is exactly why it will flop. 95% of the market will not buy new machines and move to MacOS X.
Where is the advantage of selling the software?
This would get them out of the rut that they are in. I won't buy a mac today for two reasons: (a) it doesn't run all of the software I need (b) classic MacOS sucks.
If apple released MacOS X for x86, many geeks would buy it. Companies would build fat binaries of MacOS X software... some geeks would eventually find out that they don't need x86 any more (years away...). Eventually, MacOS X would have all the software needed, and support the vast majority of the hardware out there. Those who care would pay 15% more for Apple hardware because it's better (I guarantee you it's more than 5% of the current market that Apple has now).
Intel didn't even HAVE a 32-bit cpu until the 80286 which happened MUCH later.
The 80386 was the first 32 bit chip from Intel.
Earth to AC:
x86 is the most thriving architecture on the planet. This is not going to change over night. It is good enough, and there are billions of dollars invested in it.
However, it might change slowly if there was a cross platform operating system that could run all of the programs you had to run (linux is not it... not yet anyway). Think quicken/quickbooks, office, Adobe, etc. Heck, maybe include a win32 layer (that would be amazing... maybe possible with the settlement).
Apple physically could do this. They've done it before (68K -> PPC), maybe they can move a big chunk of the world (x86 -> PPC).
If you're reading this Apple, and you're trying to do this, good luck.
I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but a transistor using 6 atoms would certainly have features that are less than 6 atoms... unless they can make a transistor out of a random smattering of electrons aimed at roughly 6 atoms.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought disableing source routing was standard practice in ISPs and on the backbones. We certainly do it at the ISP I work for.
I think one of the major DoS problems is that some or many routers on the net do not filter their outbound traffic (traffic destined for the net at large). In my opinion, a responsible ISP should not allow outgoing packets with source IP addresses other than the set it is assigned/using. Exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.
This doesn't just apply to the Crusoe. Any emulator has the same problem.
I think you're forgetting that the Crusoe is 75% software. The "RISC instructions" would be translated and optimized by said software into native code, and cached. The cache size is set at boot time, but can be changed afterwards by the operating system.
Be careful trying to characterize "all emulators."