The output can not be as acurated as the original, as square waves are not ideal, then, you'll have an approximation, but not exact (you can try to fine tunning the sound with low pass filters, etc., but as a mere and subjective and depending on your ear, approximation).
In the original GameBoy, and succesors, you're able to perform FM synthesis, as you can deal with a patterned sinusoidal functions (or whatever other pattern you preffer) modulated at desired frequency. The Yamaha chip installed on GameGears works this way, still it does the major part of the work internally, for the programming is just like to working in a higher abstraction field.
i) Both {Gameboy | Gameboy color} and Gameboy Advance have hardware analog FM synthesis capabilities.
ii) Gameboy Advance features also digital sound processing (PCM).
Sure you know that not al "chips" do digital operations, there are usually called "digital", "analog" and "hybrids". Every transistor produces an analog output, the point that make a circuit labelable as "digital" is the tollerance ranges that would convert/consider an analog value to "0" (aka false) or to "1" (aka true).
(the meaning of this post is informative, not flamebait or whatever, sorry if I sound too much pedantic)
To compare the natural language (Noam Chomsky tells that it is universal for every human language) with any programming language it is quite non-sense: programming languages tends to unambiguation, to be context free and deterministic. It's quite similar to compare an image versus a verbal description of it: the image it is finite and unambiguous, while the verbal description only can be arbitrary.
I understand that the point of this thread is to find a way to remove or to light some "translation" between the "human idea" and the "human computerized/programmed solution". For me, as the years go by, C/C++ is another language built-in myself. I can convert problems into solvable ones via computing, quite on the fly (still planning and designing the solution, but the implementation itself comes in a natural way, like the water that falls down a river).
Still I don't agree with software patents, I think that your conclusion isn't right: "closed field" means "secret", by the way, "patents" means "public but you have to pay in order to use it".
That can be quantified but not qualitified, i.e., you can know the audiences for both cases, that could be the quantification point. For the quality approach, you have to trust in psychological data related to both time periods, which it's hard to get it as an objective fact when relationated to passions.
May be the "fanatical" word may be an hyperbole, intended as the series bring happiness/joy to the observer, etc. There is, of course, other side, related to some near-religious interpretations, etc.
Still Star Trek have tons of scientific fiascos, related to some sounds in space, humanoid extraterrestrials reaching the >90% of the known creatures, buggy paradoxes, and a large etcetera, it's quite fun and fairly well done.
Anyway, I enjoied a lot more reading Isaac Asimov's, and other sci-fi writers, books from fifteen years ago.
Enjoy sci-fi, but keep at least one foot on Earth;-)
Still I have to admit that your arguments are a delice, which I subscribe with no doubt, may be you're not discusing the main thread. It's sad for me to rebate your arguments, as I'm against superstition as much I can, but in science we must try to be fair. Let me try to explain a short analysis:
i) Your arguments, individually, seems to be right
ii) Your conclusion, isn't enough strong, i.e., it is wrong
Explanation:
a) As example (absurd reduction to invalidate your conclusion), no one said that the "teletransportation" of atoms/^H^H^H^H^H^Hmolecules/objects has to be related to the same portion of mass (matter).
b) There is no "scientific evidence" that can invalidate a hypothetical physical fact, as scientific evidences are abstracts of known things/universe, you can always find a more acurate model for the universe. You can refute an hypothetical physical fact with your "current physic universe model", but you *can't* invalidate against other future model, in science you have to be modest (that argumentation hurts my heart, as opossing to your nice scientific argumentation, but it is a necesity to do a complete fair play to achieve some degree in the cartesian method;-).
Subjective observation: personally, I think that any country government has other most important scientific targets. I see as stupid investigations related to "telekinesis", "mental *put your stupidity here*", teletransportation, or whatever related thing trying to scientifice superstition. There must be a theoric basis to start to perform any investigation line, other way is wasting tons of money in burocrat/pseudoscientifics.
Nowdays I still have to deal with 256Kbit EPROMS (32Kbyte) when programming embedded systems. The funniest of these board is that the ROM, including RS-232, RTC process scheduling, plus the application code usually fits in just 8KBytes (a bit of V25 assembly and the big chunk in C), leaving 24KBytes unused.
By the way, in other areas, I dealed with 512KByte applications able to load and deal up to 2GB data in RAM. It is not very realistic to solve nowdays real world problems, still programming in a weird programming language, to have more than 128MBytes of code: as a matter of fact, and via chained probability, the bug probability could reach the untratable. The only code I ever saw that could reach 128MByte limit was an experiment of self mutating code, with dubtful results.
There are real problems requiring huge chunks of data, usually related to non linear modeling (meteorological/solid/liquid/gas/nuclear physic simultations, statistical data mining/contrast/analysis, etc).
Well, without the verbose/interactive flag, it's quite more dangerous the 'rm' approach, still the word 'format' itself it is, subjectively, less musical than 'remove'.
I live in Europe, and the war is affecting my personal economy: prices goes up, salary down, IT outsourcing as in the USA... then I can not be indifferent, as it will have a direct impact to my life. Where I live (Barcelona), industry is being disarmed, being translated to elsewhere, tech jobs are paid as low as in a factory or a farm. Yes, Europe is going down fast as a shark, we are both in the same boat: we are condemned to cooperate:-)
Here, most people like USA people, but not Bush, not just by the war, but by doing it without earing anyother than his burocrat bureau.
I prefer Kerry, intended as a hope for the mutual cooperation between the USA and Europe, to save our economies, an the rest of the world, from the economic global disaster. USA people is soberane and brave, I have many good friends there, my best desires goes to the american people. Good luck, whatever you choose.
For sure, in a near future, the RIAA-MPAA joint effort will be much harder as far as they began to really lose money. Nowdays they doesn't push more just because their incomes are still very profitable, this could change radically once they began to get serious loses. Right now, the main loses come from little retailers, the main industry had a income shift from CDs to DVDs, but it is still a highly profitable bussiness.
P2P users are, me too, with a Damocles sword behind our heads... the entertainment industry still *has* the big key: they can close the supply via radical new media, i.e., if you want media, buy a brand new -harder to pirate than current one- media and hardware -> both media makers and hardware willing for new incomes.
He/she probably knows how to count, but reached pychological counting saturation on the second point; the topic itself is quite saturating. Linux context it is not expensive, nor open source: the money hungry ones are usually consultant companies, those companies can change the bussines focus, but not the money focus, obviously.
It's up to the compiler and OS used. Back in 1998 I was developing software on an Alpha 21164 (using DEC UNIX and the built-in compiler), building huge tree data structures, and the 'sizeof' of a pointer was 4 bytes -32 bits- (sizeof(int) = 4, sizeof(long) = 8; as the 'long' data type usually represents the uP word length).
(could be nice that someother could report the 'sizeof' pointers for other 64 bit systems; as my example could be some kind of intermission/transition stage)
Absolutelly brilliant. Yours is the funniest commentary, still wrong, I've seen in weeks:-)
Anyway, my woman takes a 30% of my spare time, then I spend the 60% left to my Idle process.
As historic curiosity, Euler said that the idea was given directly by God. Previous posts were right: mobile phones couldn't work without it as far as filters and modulation is required. The Euler formula is used extensively on signal processing (neighbor to Fourier's frequency analysis).
Another quite cool formula could be: s = e^(jw)
(tribute to Laplace et al)
Simplicity, at GHz clock rates it is not enough. Let me explain it, on the KHz and MHz era was quite easy to have a "omnipresent" main clock signal, nowdays, at GHz clock rates that it is almost not possible to achieve: you have to do "sync on target" tricks, alas "hyper transport", "net burst", "usb", "1394", "serial ata", and other syncrhonization protocols. The GHz rate clocks are only feasible on small regions of a micro circuit die, as example, on your favourite GHz processor (say Intel's P4 or AMD's Opterons), there are a nightmare of clock arrangements.
In the other hand, not all "uP in a library" can be scaled up to 500Mhz, i.e., as example, you can not push to 500Mhz a 4Mhz designed Z80, may be just up to 32 or 50Mhz.
Simpler is good and nice, but the simplest isn't;-)
There are tons of C code on NASA apparatus, usually to critical ones -say ships, aircrafts or satellits-. C grammar is quite simple, C code can be extremely readable, and often, relliable, and most times 100% validable when not using dynamic memory. The C++ approach is deprecapted too often due to that C++ code is/was harder to validate because involves two entropy fonts: 1) application inherent critical bug ocurrence; 2) compiler hidden critical bug.
In the offline side, C++, Fortran, Ada and Smalltalk are used despite C, because of flexibility and speedy design, due to miscelaneous causes: i) not everybody is C++ expert, ii) mathematicians were heavily trained on Fortran, iii) other surrealistic reasons
For embedded systems, C, and from around 5 to 10 years ago, C++, with custom dynamic memory management to avoid memory fragmentation and deterministic resource allocation, there are no other common sense alternatives but assembly.
I'm a bit afraid about this, as soon as that mean that everybody bringing passport will be "traceable"... but, why?
The target of a proposed solution usually it is driven by a defined utility: to speed up a procedure or whatever. But in this case, do will really speed up or improve something? What about passport authentication? For sure can not be 100% automated, as soon as RF ID chips can be, at least, cloned (from the sophisticated data retrieval via millitary X-Ray uC inspection or via amateur hacking, or whatever).
Summary: a cop/inspector will be still needed to validate your passport, then, there will no be "bottleneck solving" or whatever other problem was intended to be solved.
This too much control may irritate my civil rights chip... soon here at Europe. Regards.
Yes, still you can save money, quality/professional gigabit ethernet dedicated firewalls solutions are between 2000$ (mass retail) and 15000$ (customizable, with support).
I use a dedicated PII machine running at 400MHz (3COM 905B NIC) for routing and firewalling, and hardly can maintain 50 to 90MBps throughput. I can imagine, then, that if you want to scale processing bandwidth by 10x factor (gigabit ethernet), you could, in fact, need to use around 75% performance from a "new wave" processor.
Firewalling aid at microprocessor/motherboard level can be intended for using on SOHO and at home, due to the cost saving of buying dedicated hardware.
Linux is ABSOLUTELY ready for the desktop, but like any new OS, you need someone who knows what they're doing to show it (and tailor it) to each individual newbie. Average folks weren't BORN with the Windows way of doing things already in their heads. The lack of Linux on the desktop is the result of several factors:
New OS? The 1991 to 2004 year count shows about 13 years of development, I can not see Linux development as a "new OS", but a mature one.
Linux OS is nowdays some kind of state of the art monolithic kernel, not just a newborn. Despite this, and discounting that Linux is on server market for a while, seems clear that the "new archievement" is related to the desktop frenzy... but wait, Linux it is not a desktop. From this point, may be it is possible to say that the Linux + other GNUish apps are ready to be on the top of HQ OS + desktop standards, being capable to have a hand to hand competition against other mainstream OSes.
Linux + GNUish software usually brings joy to me as a cooperative human joint effort.
From COBOL, years later with DBASE and Clipper on little bussiness (a gold mine for freelance), and now Java seems to be a new Holly Grial for the computer industry: take a two year trained cheap programmer(s) and you'll be saving tons of money, avoiding to deal with C/C++ 15 year trained computer science snobs. That kind of arguments often drive projects to be not unsuccessfull, but with poor/buggy results.
What about the good old known argument "the cheap it is expensive"? Are really unneeded deep computer science training? What about algorithmic complexity? What about knowing what occurs exactly below the harness? Well, may be I'm alone, but I'm glad to see too much often people believing in some kind of "computer science superstition" when a strange behaviour appears, unable to do a minimal analysys, just as an ignorance fact.
May be we are all condemned to enter, again, into a "obscure computer science world", just driven by "I'll do everything for you" software libraries? I'm skeptic about this, as right there is much more people knowing C and C++ than 15 years ago, when knowing C was some kind of "wow you are a guru" degree. Summary: there will be allways COBOL and Java code-monkeys, because are need (I'm used to program too as a code monkey, when required, I have to pay the bills!), but the basis, it is still relying on C/C++ for serious/critical developments.
I see as a crazy nightmare to watch Java developers being paid more than C/C++ UNIX +10 year skilled people, where I live, at Spain (think between 15 and 35k euro, about 18k and 42k US dollar, from junior programmer to mid-range IT project manager -nowdays salaries-).
I understand that you can be a bit afraid about stability and throughput of your DB2 system, but, as many other things, these characteristics can be enabled/disabled, still disabled as default, still compiled in the main branch.
About my, probably unfortunate, sensationalistic acusation for tergiversation: Linus was not saying about a "definitive no", as the "hard real time" capability has been discused by him long time ago, simply it was not developed nor designed, just as some kind of pray, waiting for HRT to fall from the skies. If MontaVista people got it, I understand that Linus don't get in a hurry, of course! Just because hurry it is never a good consultant/counselor (Napoleon one time said to Josephine: "dress me slowly, because I'm in a hurry", or similar).
"Hard real time" possibility it's a huge step ahead, making Linux a 4x4 in computer engineering, reaching almost not only every CPU and architecture, but also every reachable problem solvable using a Linux capable CPU. It's amazing, or may be not, what do you think?
Sorry, but I'm not able to find a big confrontation point beween your argument and the previous quote, seems to me that you're not rebating, just enumerating, as it's right that you can take as axiom anything (the "true" or "false" will come on propositional logic applied using these axioms, just like algebra, if you like Russell logic -as I like-).
Still mathematics are not based on observation, are often deducted/concluded from them (Poincaré).
By the way, I don't like to mix mathematics and logic (agreeing with your argument), as it's common to see logic as a "base tool" and mathematics as a "elaborated/derivated tool" (Russell, Fredge). Seems that you agree in this point ("It's based on what axioms you choose to start with and using deductive logic from there").
I love to see Bertrand Russell's quotes, I find him as the most visionary man on the 20th century. I still believe that the good life may be one inspired by love and guided by knowledge;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The output can not be as acurated as the original, as square waves are not ideal, then, you'll have an approximation, but not exact (you can try to fine tunning the sound with low pass filters, etc., but as a mere and subjective and depending on your ear, approximation).
In the original GameBoy, and succesors, you're able to perform FM synthesis, as you can deal with a patterned sinusoidal functions (or whatever other pattern you preffer) modulated at desired frequency. The Yamaha chip installed on GameGears works this way, still it does the major part of the work internally, for the programming is just like to working in a higher abstraction field.
You're, simply, not right:
i) Both {Gameboy | Gameboy color} and Gameboy Advance have hardware analog FM synthesis capabilities.
ii) Gameboy Advance features also digital sound processing (PCM).
Sure you know that not al "chips" do digital operations, there are usually called "digital", "analog" and "hybrids". Every transistor produces an analog output, the point that make a circuit labelable as "digital" is the tollerance ranges that would convert/consider an analog value to "0" (aka false) or to "1" (aka true).
(the meaning of this post is informative, not flamebait or whatever, sorry if I sound too much pedantic)
To compare the natural language (Noam Chomsky tells that it is universal for every human language) with any programming language it is quite non-sense: programming languages tends to unambiguation, to be context free and deterministic. It's quite similar to compare an image versus a verbal description of it: the image it is finite and unambiguous, while the verbal description only can be arbitrary.
I understand that the point of this thread is to find a way to remove or to light some "translation" between the "human idea" and the "human computerized/programmed solution". For me, as the years go by, C/C++ is another language built-in myself. I can convert problems into solvable ones via computing, quite on the fly (still planning and designing the solution, but the implementation itself comes in a natural way, like the water that falls down a river).
Still I don't agree with software patents, I think that your conclusion isn't right: "closed field" means "secret", by the way, "patents" means "public but you have to pay in order to use it".
I can't understand why you've got a "Funny" score, while could be more adequate "5, Interesting".
That can be quantified but not qualitified, i.e., you can know the audiences for both cases, that could be the quantification point. For the quality approach, you have to trust in psychological data related to both time periods, which it's hard to get it as an objective fact when relationated to passions.
;-)
May be the "fanatical" word may be an hyperbole, intended as the series bring happiness/joy to the observer, etc. There is, of course, other side, related to some near-religious interpretations, etc.
Still Star Trek have tons of scientific fiascos, related to some sounds in space, humanoid extraterrestrials reaching the >90% of the known creatures, buggy paradoxes, and a large etcetera, it's quite fun and fairly well done.
Anyway, I enjoied a lot more reading Isaac Asimov's, and other sci-fi writers, books from fifteen years ago.
Enjoy sci-fi, but keep at least one foot on Earth
Still I have to admit that your arguments are a delice, which I subscribe with no doubt, may be you're not discusing the main thread. It's sad for me to rebate your arguments, as I'm against superstition as much I can, but in science we must try to be fair. Let me try to explain a short analysis:
;-).
i) Your arguments, individually, seems to be right
ii) Your conclusion, isn't enough strong, i.e., it is wrong
Explanation:
a) As example (absurd reduction to invalidate your conclusion), no one said that the "teletransportation" of atoms/^H^H^H^H^H^Hmolecules/objects has to be related to the same portion of mass (matter).
b) There is no "scientific evidence" that can invalidate a hypothetical physical fact, as scientific evidences are abstracts of known things/universe, you can always find a more acurate model for the universe. You can refute an hypothetical physical fact with your "current physic universe model", but you *can't* invalidate against other future model, in science you have to be modest (that argumentation hurts my heart, as opossing to your nice scientific argumentation, but it is a necesity to do a complete fair play to achieve some degree in the cartesian method
Subjective observation: personally, I think that any country government has other most important scientific targets. I see as stupid investigations related to "telekinesis", "mental *put your stupidity here*", teletransportation, or whatever related thing trying to scientifice superstition. There must be a theoric basis to start to perform any investigation line, other way is wasting tons of money in burocrat/pseudoscientifics.
Nowdays I still have to deal with 256Kbit EPROMS (32Kbyte) when programming embedded systems. The funniest of these board is that the ROM, including RS-232, RTC process scheduling, plus the application code usually fits in just 8KBytes (a bit of V25 assembly and the big chunk in C), leaving 24KBytes unused.
By the way, in other areas, I dealed with 512KByte applications able to load and deal up to 2GB data in RAM. It is not very realistic to solve nowdays real world problems, still programming in a weird programming language, to have more than 128MBytes of code: as a matter of fact, and via chained probability, the bug probability could reach the untratable. The only code I ever saw that could reach 128MByte limit was an experiment of self mutating code, with dubtful results.
There are real problems requiring huge chunks of data, usually related to non linear modeling (meteorological/solid/liquid/gas/nuclear physic simultations, statistical data mining/contrast/analysis, etc).
Anyway, give me tons of RAM, just in case.
Well, without the verbose/interactive flag, it's quite more dangerous the 'rm' approach, still the word 'format' itself it is, subjectively, less musical than 'remove'.
May be you're right, or may be not. My bet is for a gray scale world, still that means a proctectionist one ;-)
I live in Europe, and the war is affecting my personal economy: prices goes up, salary down, IT outsourcing as in the USA... then I can not be indifferent, as it will have a direct impact to my life. Where I live (Barcelona), industry is being disarmed, being translated to elsewhere, tech jobs are paid as low as in a factory or a farm. Yes, Europe is going down fast as a shark, we are both in the same boat: we are condemned to cooperate :-)
Here, most people like USA people, but not Bush, not just by the war, but by doing it without earing anyother than his burocrat bureau.
I prefer Kerry, intended as a hope for the mutual cooperation between the USA and Europe, to save our economies, an the rest of the world, from the economic global disaster. USA people is soberane and brave, I have many good friends there, my best desires goes to the american people. Good luck, whatever you choose.
For sure, in a near future, the RIAA-MPAA joint effort will be much harder as far as they began to really lose money. Nowdays they doesn't push more just because their incomes are still very profitable, this could change radically once they began to get serious loses. Right now, the main loses come from little retailers, the main industry had a income shift from CDs to DVDs, but it is still a highly profitable bussiness.
P2P users are, me too, with a Damocles sword behind our heads... the entertainment industry still *has* the big key: they can close the supply via radical new media, i.e., if you want media, buy a brand new -harder to pirate than current one- media and hardware -> both media makers and hardware willing for new incomes.
He/she probably knows how to count, but reached pychological counting saturation on the second point; the topic itself is quite saturating. Linux context it is not expensive, nor open source: the money hungry ones are usually consultant companies, those companies can change the bussines focus, but not the money focus, obviously.
It's up to the compiler and OS used. Back in 1998 I was developing software on an Alpha 21164 (using DEC UNIX and the built-in compiler), building huge tree data structures, and the 'sizeof' of a pointer was 4 bytes -32 bits- (sizeof(int) = 4, sizeof(long) = 8; as the 'long' data type usually represents the uP word length).
(could be nice that someother could report the 'sizeof' pointers for other 64 bit systems; as my example could be some kind of intermission/transition stage)
Absolutelly brilliant. Yours is the funniest commentary, still wrong, I've seen in weeks :-)
Anyway, my woman takes a 30% of my spare time, then I spend the 60% left to my Idle process.
As historic curiosity, Euler said that the idea was given directly by God. Previous posts were right: mobile phones couldn't work without it as far as filters and modulation is required. The Euler formula is used extensively on signal processing (neighbor to Fourier's frequency analysis).
Another quite cool formula could be: s = e^(jw)
(tribute to Laplace et al)
Simplicity, at GHz clock rates it is not enough. Let me explain it, on the KHz and MHz era was quite easy to have a "omnipresent" main clock signal, nowdays, at GHz clock rates that it is almost not possible to achieve: you have to do "sync on target" tricks, alas "hyper transport", "net burst", "usb", "1394", "serial ata", and other syncrhonization protocols. The GHz rate clocks are only feasible on small regions of a micro circuit die, as example, on your favourite GHz processor (say Intel's P4 or AMD's Opterons), there are a nightmare of clock arrangements.
;-)
In the other hand, not all "uP in a library" can be scaled up to 500Mhz, i.e., as example, you can not push to 500Mhz a 4Mhz designed Z80, may be just up to 32 or 50Mhz.
Simpler is good and nice, but the simplest isn't
There are tons of C code on NASA apparatus, usually to critical ones -say ships, aircrafts or satellits-. C grammar is quite simple, C code can be extremely readable, and often, relliable, and most times 100% validable when not using dynamic memory. The C++ approach is deprecapted too often due to that C++ code is/was harder to validate because involves two entropy fonts: 1) application inherent critical bug ocurrence; 2) compiler hidden critical bug.
In the offline side, C++, Fortran, Ada and Smalltalk are used despite C, because of flexibility and speedy design, due to miscelaneous causes: i) not everybody is C++ expert, ii) mathematicians were heavily trained on Fortran, iii) other surrealistic reasons
For embedded systems, C, and from around 5 to 10 years ago, C++, with custom dynamic memory management to avoid memory fragmentation and deterministic resource allocation, there are no other common sense alternatives but assembly.
Regard, have a good flight.
I'm a bit afraid about this, as soon as that mean that everybody bringing passport will be "traceable"... but, why?
The target of a proposed solution usually it is driven by a defined utility: to speed up a procedure or whatever. But in this case, do will really speed up or improve something? What about passport authentication? For sure can not be 100% automated, as soon as RF ID chips can be, at least, cloned (from the sophisticated data retrieval via millitary X-Ray uC inspection or via amateur hacking, or whatever).
Summary: a cop/inspector will be still needed to validate your passport, then, there will no be "bottleneck solving" or whatever other problem was intended to be solved.
This too much control may irritate my civil rights chip... soon here at Europe. Regards.
Yes, still you can save money, quality/professional gigabit ethernet dedicated firewalls solutions are between 2000$ (mass retail) and 15000$ (customizable, with support).
I use a dedicated PII machine running at 400MHz (3COM 905B NIC) for routing and firewalling, and hardly can maintain 50 to 90MBps throughput. I can imagine, then, that if you want to scale processing bandwidth by 10x factor (gigabit ethernet), you could, in fact, need to use around 75% performance from a "new wave" processor.
Firewalling aid at microprocessor/motherboard level can be intended for using on SOHO and at home, due to the cost saving of buying dedicated hardware.
Linux is ABSOLUTELY ready for the desktop, but like any new OS, you need someone who knows what they're doing to show it (and tailor it) to each individual newbie. Average folks weren't BORN with the Windows way of doing things already in their heads. The lack of Linux on the desktop is the result of several factors:
New OS? The 1991 to 2004 year count shows about 13 years of development, I can not see Linux development as a "new OS", but a mature one.
Linux OS is nowdays some kind of state of the art monolithic kernel, not just a newborn. Despite this, and discounting that Linux is on server market for a while, seems clear that the "new archievement" is related to the desktop frenzy... but wait, Linux it is not a desktop. From this point, may be it is possible to say that the Linux + other GNUish apps are ready to be on the top of HQ OS + desktop standards, being capable to have a hand to hand competition against other mainstream OSes.
Linux + GNUish software usually brings joy to me as a cooperative human joint effort.
You did a great shot!
From COBOL, years later with DBASE and Clipper on little bussiness (a gold mine for freelance), and now Java seems to be a new Holly Grial for the computer industry: take a two year trained cheap programmer(s) and you'll be saving tons of money, avoiding to deal with C/C++ 15 year trained computer science snobs. That kind of arguments often drive projects to be not unsuccessfull, but with poor/buggy results.
What about the good old known argument "the cheap it is expensive"? Are really unneeded deep computer science training? What about algorithmic complexity? What about knowing what occurs exactly below the harness? Well, may be I'm alone, but I'm glad to see too much often people believing in some kind of "computer science superstition" when a strange behaviour appears, unable to do a minimal analysys, just as an ignorance fact.
May be we are all condemned to enter, again, into a "obscure computer science world", just driven by "I'll do everything for you" software libraries? I'm skeptic about this, as right there is much more people knowing C and C++ than 15 years ago, when knowing C was some kind of "wow you are a guru" degree. Summary: there will be allways COBOL and Java code-monkeys, because are need (I'm used to program too as a code monkey, when required, I have to pay the bills!), but the basis, it is still relying on C/C++ for serious/critical developments.
I see as a crazy nightmare to watch Java developers being paid more than C/C++ UNIX +10 year skilled people, where I live, at Spain (think between 15 and 35k euro, about 18k and 42k US dollar, from junior programmer to mid-range IT project manager -nowdays salaries-).
I understand that you can be a bit afraid about stability and throughput of your DB2 system, but, as many other things, these characteristics can be enabled/disabled, still disabled as default, still compiled in the main branch.
About my, probably unfortunate, sensationalistic acusation for tergiversation: Linus was not saying about a "definitive no", as the "hard real time" capability has been discused by him long time ago, simply it was not developed nor designed, just as some kind of pray, waiting for HRT to fall from the skies. If MontaVista people got it, I understand that Linus don't get in a hurry, of course! Just because hurry it is never a good consultant/counselor (Napoleon one time said to Josephine: "dress me slowly, because I'm in a hurry", or similar).
"Hard real time" possibility it's a huge step ahead, making Linux a 4x4 in computer engineering, reaching almost not only every CPU and architecture, but also every reachable problem solvable using a Linux capable CPU. It's amazing, or may be not, what do you think?
Sorry, but I'm not able to find a big confrontation point beween your argument and the previous quote, seems to me that you're not rebating, just enumerating, as it's right that you can take as axiom anything (the "true" or "false" will come on propositional logic applied using these axioms, just like algebra, if you like Russell logic -as I like-).
;-)
Still mathematics are not based on observation, are often deducted/concluded from them (Poincaré). By the way, I don't like to mix mathematics and logic (agreeing with your argument), as it's common to see logic as a "base tool" and mathematics as a "elaborated/derivated tool" (Russell, Fredge). Seems that you agree in this point ("It's based on what axioms you choose to start with and using deductive logic from there").
I love to see Bertrand Russell's quotes, I find him as the most visionary man on the 20th century. I still believe that the good life may be one inspired by love and guided by knowledge