Well, that may be true. The problem is that what you or I would call stupid makes up the vast majority of the population. The smart people generally won't use the word other than when talking to the stupid, or when comparing it to the supernatural. So, pretty much the "you know what" definition is for the stupid, and they are the ones that get confused by it's use.
The problem is that the general acceptance of the word "natural" in it's "you know what I mean" use has lead to a very large portion of the population NOT knowing what it they mean. I had a conversation with a woman recently that told me that food shouldn't be grown with "technology". It should be natural. That "natural" was better. So, I asked... "You mean we shouldn't use plows in farming?".
Apparently, she had gotten the idea that hydroponics was performed by having a bunch of mad scientists down in an hollowed out volcano, performing bizarre experiments on the food supply in beakers full of multicolored bubbling chemicals. Ok, maybe not quite that bad, but close. When asked more questions, the poor woman could not actually say what she thought was "natural" other than she would know it when she saw it, and it was the stuff that said so on the packaging.
The funny part about this to me is that I used to work with a couple of old guys that had done prison design in the past. They had already looked into GPS. The conclusion they came to was that it was a very poor idea because the if the prisoners couldn't disable it, they would would just dig the damn thing out. This was when they were actually locked up. They would do it just because. They did find it useful to put GPS on a cat to see where it would go.
This doesn't even touch of the problem of 'what is a criminal'. Look at what happened with tasers. They were supposed to replace actually shooting someone, yet we end up with people getting tasered at traffic stops and political debates for being rude. Then we get lots of people defending those uses. How long before tagging people becomes as common as using a scanner that looks under their clothes?
I agree. It will be interesting to see if the new Bulldozer architecture combined with on chip graphics will be able to pull a bunch of AMD's customers back. I prefer to buy AMD just because I recognize the long term benefit of competition, but the last few purchases have pulled me over to Intel. I look forward to AMD getting me back as a customer.
I have found that what effects you have turned have as much effect as how many or how high they are set. You pretty much have to fiddle w, but Intel is not as bad as many would like to claimith the settings to find what looks good while still playing well. If you want to play Kings Bounty, you might want to look at GameTap. It is one of the games included in the service.
Please don't think that I am arguing that Intel is on par with AMD/nVidia. I am fully aware that they are not. I am only arguing that Intel isn't totally useless, and that there are plenty of games that look and play just fine on Intel graphics.
Lately me, my wife and my son have been playing Titan's Quest. We have seen some stuttering in parts of Hades, but for the most part it has been very smooth. This is a 2006/2007 game. My son has also been playing King's Bounty: The Legend. That game was released in 2009.
That and I think that the the claims of Intel graphics sucking are overblown. I upgraded 3 PCs this year with identical models containing on board Intel graphics. I added an nVidia to the first one, but when I started comparing what could be done on the other two in comparison, I didn't bother upgrading the graphics. The Intel graphics where good enough. No, we are not playing the absolute newest games, but we are playing games that are only a couple of years old just fine. I would guess that Intel is only a few years behind AMD and nVidia. A few years behind in graphics performance is fine for me, and likely the vast majority of PC users.
You think wrong. This isn't rural 1920's Kansas. There are people everywhere. Kids everywhere. Too many playdates is more the problem than not enough. No, my child doesn't go to school after school to play sports. School sports do not teach kids to be well adjusted. They teach tribalism, and are part of why we see thing like people that feel they must dedicate themselves to one political party and support it right or wrong.
There is plenty of physical activity and games to play with plenty of kids that enrolling them into a tribal game isn't necessary.
I have a counter question though... how many other children from outside your little community does your child meeting in a typical month? When I think public schooled, I think zero. I would wager that my child has played with more different children in the last 2 months than most public schooled kids do in several years.
Hi, how do you do, let me introduce myself. I am a homeschooling parent that is unconcerned with water fluoridation, knows the proper pronunciation of government, and I am an atheist, so there is no chance of me thinking that public education has anything to to with evil magic creatures. So, now that you have met me, (albeit online) anytime you ever make that claim again, you can know that you are a complete liar.
Personally, I think your isolated world has lead to to just make things up, particularly, give that your description pretty well describes the bulk of public school kids, except that the 'gubmint education was something satanic' would need to be changed to 'It's the gubmints job to feed and raise my child.'
This is one of the reasons that many colleges like home schooled kids, as well as why so many people call home schooled kids 'weird'. By the time they are 12 or 13, there is generally an effort by their parents to teach them to interact in an adult world. They are generally not told that 'this is an adult conversation' and to be quite. They are not told that they have no valid input or questions. Yes, in the general population a 14 year old that can communicate like an adult is 'weird'. It also means that they are well prepared for the independent initiative that is necessary to do well in college.
As for hand raising, I'm not sure that my 6 year old is completely convinced that public school kids have to raise their hand and ask permission to go to pee when they have to go. Even less believable is that they would be told no. He takes my word for it because he knows I wouldn't lie to him, but he clearly has this nagging question in the back of his head how something as preposterous as telling someone they are not allowed to go pee actually happens.
You are wrong. Sun produced processors that ran Java natively. You do NOT need a JVM at all to run Java byte code. You just need one of the processors that the compiled code was designed to run on. The fact that the processor can be emulated faster than the real hardware does not change whether Java is compiled or not.
Most of your post is simply inherent ranting. The final paragraph though, links to a page showing that Java IS native compiled code. You obviously are either well aware of it, or just linked to things you don't understand. Of course the native processors will not be dominating the market. The x86 can emulate them faster than they can run natively. Sun didn't expect that to be the case when they made Java. The fact that the processors failed in the market don't prove that Java is interpreted by nature, but their existence at all shows exactly the opposite.
JIT is a specific technique used in emulators. Java bytecode will work just fine in a non-JIT Java VM. In fact it wasn't until the video game console emulators started using JIT in their emulators that Sun started using it in Java. Before you can use your class, you must run your source through a compiler. That would be javac. the 'c' stands for 'compiler'.
Of course, the whole argument is ridiculous because all a compiler does is rearrange code to a format that can be better understood. What this means is that whether something is 'compiled' (better described as run native) or interpreted is not an attribute of the code itself, but of the environment that it is run in any specific instance. A processor could be made that ran GW-Basic code directly, and a compiler could be written that compiled 6502 Machine code into GW-Basic. That wouldn't change the nature of 6502 Machine code or GW-Basic.
Your "class" file is not compiled code, or you wouldn't need a JIT.
To be clear. your "class" file does NOT need a JIT enabled emulator. JIT was added to the Java emulator well after it's release.
Yes, current Java VMs are JIT emulators. Sun implemented that soon after the retro console scene showed how well it worked with console emulators. I don't know if you are trying to claim (or not) that Java isn't compiled because they used enterprise speak and called their machine code (you know the code that a machine understands that is frequently divided up into one byte segments, each defining an action for the hardware) byte code. Or, if you making the argument that because a JIT emulator has been created, that the code that still would run just fine in a non-JIT emulator somehow stops being compiled. If you are making that argument, you are wrong, and confused by enterprise speak.
"Their" processor is the SPARC, the Java bytecode CPU was just a toy.
Any processor they make is "Their" processor. Your 'toy' comment is reminiscent of comments made by the CEO of DEC concerning PCs not long before their fall. It is ridiculous.
I would look into the Slingbox. It is designed to send full TV channels to remote devices, so it should be able to handle a very good picture with good quality for long periods of time over the internet.
It's not only weird when it is one way. It is also weird when you are doing your new location girlfriend, and the wife and kids come home and are confronted with real time porn of dad who is 1000 miles away.
The fact that compiled code can be run in an interpreted emulator doesn't mean that it isn't compiled. The JVM is an emulator, just as Vice, Snes9x, and MAME are emulators. Throwing some enterprise speak at it doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
Yes, Sun hoped they could get everyone moved to their processor. Yes, they had a very good plan on how to pull it off. The plan? Get past the software library/user count chicken and egg problem by writing emulators for every platform. This way developers would write software for it given that every user is a potential customer. Then when they got critical mass, they could release their native processor and pull everyone over. The fatal flaws in that plan was that the emulators were terribly incompatible. There was no reference design to point to so that when they behaved differently from each other, one could point to the reference and say that if it didn't behave like that, it was wrong. And the biggest flaw was that the Java processor couldn't run native Java code as fast as an x86 emulator could emulate it. It would be much like trying to compare a C64 to Vice. The real hardware would be hopelessly out paced by a modern x86 machine emulating it.
The definition of 'scripting language' is pretty much pointless. It is like trying to define 'crappy music'. What the definition is, and what specific instances falls into it change from person to person. There are many instances that the vast majority of people agree on, but even then you will get some people coming out of the woodwork to argue it. You claiming that Java is a scripting language being a very good example.
Forget the running of fiber. Just run the conduit. Cities already have experience running pipes to every home. Ours runs sewer and water to the home, and storm drains to most neighborhoods. They work in concert with PG&E who runs pipes for gas. By running the conduit to the homes, they can rent out the space to all comers, they don't have to be worried about being sued for competing in the broadband industry, they can foster competition, they can stay out of a technology that they are inexperienced at, and they won't have to dig up the roads when the next big thing in data transmission comes along.
Unfortunatly, many cities are like mine and think that wifi is the future.
This is what Mac users trot out every time anyone points out flaws in MacOS. No, I don't think that the plus sign means add because I am a Windows User. I have been using computers all the way back to the KIM-2, long before the IBM PC was even thought of, much less Windows, so I am not 'confused' because I am a 'Windows User'. Deficiencies in MacOS are not somehow Windows fault.
Mac's UI is so unintuitive that even Mac Users don't know what the buttons do. Just this week on another thread, a Mac user was insisting that the green plus was 'size to document'. Your description is closer, but I only had to get to the second default installed application (Calculator) before I found that the green button did not toggle between user and default screen sizes. Of course, even if it did, a green plus means ADD. It doesn't mean ADD because of Windows. Windows doesn't have a green button. It means Add because when you have red, yellow and green, green means GO, and a plus always means ADD. The Macs behavior is simply wrong. Don't even get me started on the red X that sometimes closes the program, and sometimes doesn't.
As for the trash can. Having the icon change is a poor attempt to make a huge UI blunder look like it wasn't really a mistake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that putting the delete and the eject drop point at the exact same place is a monumentally dumb idea. It is simply asking for a mistake. Heck, even the attempt at hiding their mistake brings more inconsistency to MacOS. Sometimes that icon is the trash, but depending on what you click on, sometimes it will change to an eject button. Make sure you know whether that icon on your screen is a volume, a regular file, or a file that is mounted as a volume, because the difference is the difference between, 'this file is so important that you want to take it with you', and 'I never want to see this file again'.
It is rationalizing like yours that will keep MacOS from getting significantly better.
The green plus icon does NOT toggle between user state and standard state. It might in some cases, but it is totally inconsistent, even withing the default install directly from Apple. Even so, the plus symbol has been well established world wide as the symbol to ADD. There is no excuse at all for a green plus to shrink a window. The garbage can being the way to eject a disk could be taken as an honest mistake back in 1984. As it stands today, it is a shinning example of how Jobs is more concerned with claiming that he is infallible than he is in producing a product with a rational UI.
The Mac UI is full of poor design choices, inconsistencies, and design choices that made sense for the original Mac, but no longer make sense. None of these make it make it an unusable system. It works just fine, but it is definitely not a shining example of good UI, and it doesn't speak to Job's commitment to a quality product.
Sorry, anybody that would allow their software to be released with a green plus icon for a button that shrinks a window, and has the trash can share functionality between ejecting a disk and deleting files is definitly NOT showing pride in his work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that may be true. The problem is that what you or I would call stupid makes up the vast majority of the population. The smart people generally won't use the word other than when talking to the stupid, or when comparing it to the supernatural. So, pretty much the "you know what" definition is for the stupid, and they are the ones that get confused by it's use.
The problem is that the general acceptance of the word "natural" in it's "you know what I mean" use has lead to a very large portion of the population NOT knowing what it they mean. I had a conversation with a woman recently that told me that food shouldn't be grown with "technology". It should be natural. That "natural" was better. So, I asked... "You mean we shouldn't use plows in farming?".
Apparently, she had gotten the idea that hydroponics was performed by having a bunch of mad scientists down in an hollowed out volcano, performing bizarre experiments on the food supply in beakers full of multicolored bubbling chemicals. Ok, maybe not quite that bad, but close. When asked more questions, the poor woman could not actually say what she thought was "natural" other than she would know it when she saw it, and it was the stuff that said so on the packaging.
T-Mobile gives you a better rate if you bring your own phone.
While I see that mildly gamed by refridgerator manufacturers, it isn't any worse than any other system I've seen, and definitely better than others.
The funny part about this to me is that I used to work with a couple of old guys that had done prison design in the past. They had already looked into GPS. The conclusion they came to was that it was a very poor idea because the if the prisoners couldn't disable it, they would would just dig the damn thing out. This was when they were actually locked up. They would do it just because. They did find it useful to put GPS on a cat to see where it would go.
This doesn't even touch of the problem of 'what is a criminal'. Look at what happened with tasers. They were supposed to replace actually shooting someone, yet we end up with people getting tasered at traffic stops and political debates for being rude. Then we get lots of people defending those uses. How long before tagging people becomes as common as using a scanner that looks under their clothes?
Wait, you have to pay $60 a year for EACH member in your household?!?!?
I agree. It will be interesting to see if the new Bulldozer architecture combined with on chip graphics will be able to pull a bunch of AMD's customers back. I prefer to buy AMD just because I recognize the long term benefit of competition, but the last few purchases have pulled me over to Intel. I look forward to AMD getting me back as a customer.
I have found that what effects you have turned have as much effect as how many or how high they are set. You pretty much have to fiddle w, but Intel is not as bad as many would like to claimith the settings to find what looks good while still playing well. If you want to play Kings Bounty, you might want to look at GameTap. It is one of the games included in the service.
Please don't think that I am arguing that Intel is on par with AMD/nVidia. I am fully aware that they are not. I am only arguing that Intel isn't totally useless, and that there are plenty of games that look and play just fine on Intel graphics.
Lately me, my wife and my son have been playing Titan's Quest. We have seen some stuttering in parts of Hades, but for the most part it has been very smooth. This is a 2006/2007 game. My son has also been playing King's Bounty: The Legend. That game was released in 2009.
That and I think that the the claims of Intel graphics sucking are overblown. I upgraded 3 PCs this year with identical models containing on board Intel graphics. I added an nVidia to the first one, but when I started comparing what could be done on the other two in comparison, I didn't bother upgrading the graphics. The Intel graphics where good enough. No, we are not playing the absolute newest games, but we are playing games that are only a couple of years old just fine. I would guess that Intel is only a few years behind AMD and nVidia. A few years behind in graphics performance is fine for me, and likely the vast majority of PC users.
You think wrong. This isn't rural 1920's Kansas. There are people everywhere. Kids everywhere. Too many playdates is more the problem than not enough. No, my child doesn't go to school after school to play sports. School sports do not teach kids to be well adjusted. They teach tribalism, and are part of why we see thing like people that feel they must dedicate themselves to one political party and support it right or wrong.
There is plenty of physical activity and games to play with plenty of kids that enrolling them into a tribal game isn't necessary.
I have a counter question though... how many other children from outside your little community does your child meeting in a typical month? When I think public schooled, I think zero. I would wager that my child has played with more different children in the last 2 months than most public schooled kids do in several years.
Hi, how do you do, let me introduce myself. I am a homeschooling parent that is unconcerned with water fluoridation, knows the proper pronunciation of government, and I am an atheist, so there is no chance of me thinking that public education has anything to to with evil magic creatures. So, now that you have met me, (albeit online) anytime you ever make that claim again, you can know that you are a complete liar.
Personally, I think your isolated world has lead to to just make things up, particularly, give that your description pretty well describes the bulk of public school kids, except that the 'gubmint education was something satanic' would need to be changed to 'It's the gubmints job to feed and raise my child.'
This is one of the reasons that many colleges like home schooled kids, as well as why so many people call home schooled kids 'weird'. By the time they are 12 or 13, there is generally an effort by their parents to teach them to interact in an adult world. They are generally not told that 'this is an adult conversation' and to be quite. They are not told that they have no valid input or questions. Yes, in the general population a 14 year old that can communicate like an adult is 'weird'. It also means that they are well prepared for the independent initiative that is necessary to do well in college.
As for hand raising, I'm not sure that my 6 year old is completely convinced that public school kids have to raise their hand and ask permission to go to pee when they have to go. Even less believable is that they would be told no. He takes my word for it because he knows I wouldn't lie to him, but he clearly has this nagging question in the back of his head how something as preposterous as telling someone they are not allowed to go pee actually happens.
You are wrong. Sun produced processors that ran Java natively. You do NOT need a JVM at all to run Java byte code. You just need one of the processors that the compiled code was designed to run on. The fact that the processor can be emulated faster than the real hardware does not change whether Java is compiled or not.
Most of your post is simply inherent ranting. The final paragraph though, links to a page showing that Java IS native compiled code. You obviously are either well aware of it, or just linked to things you don't understand. Of course the native processors will not be dominating the market. The x86 can emulate them faster than they can run natively. Sun didn't expect that to be the case when they made Java. The fact that the processors failed in the market don't prove that Java is interpreted by nature, but their existence at all shows exactly the opposite.
Of course, the whole argument is ridiculous because all a compiler does is rearrange code to a format that can be better understood. What this means is that whether something is 'compiled' (better described as run native) or interpreted is not an attribute of the code itself, but of the environment that it is run in any specific instance. A processor could be made that ran GW-Basic code directly, and a compiler could be written that compiled 6502 Machine code into GW-Basic. That wouldn't change the nature of 6502 Machine code or GW-Basic.
Your "class" file is not compiled code, or you wouldn't need a JIT.
To be clear. your "class" file does NOT need a JIT enabled emulator. JIT was added to the Java emulator well after it's release.
"Their" processor is the SPARC, the Java bytecode CPU was just a toy.
Any processor they make is "Their" processor. Your 'toy' comment is reminiscent of comments made by the CEO of DEC concerning PCs not long before their fall. It is ridiculous.
I would look into the Slingbox. It is designed to send full TV channels to remote devices, so it should be able to handle a very good picture with good quality for long periods of time over the internet.
It's not only weird when it is one way. It is also weird when you are doing your new location girlfriend, and the wife and kids come home and are confronted with real time porn of dad who is 1000 miles away.
The fact that compiled code can be run in an interpreted emulator doesn't mean that it isn't compiled. The JVM is an emulator, just as Vice, Snes9x, and MAME are emulators. Throwing some enterprise speak at it doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
Yes, Sun hoped they could get everyone moved to their processor. Yes, they had a very good plan on how to pull it off. The plan? Get past the software library/user count chicken and egg problem by writing emulators for every platform. This way developers would write software for it given that every user is a potential customer. Then when they got critical mass, they could release their native processor and pull everyone over. The fatal flaws in that plan was that the emulators were terribly incompatible. There was no reference design to point to so that when they behaved differently from each other, one could point to the reference and say that if it didn't behave like that, it was wrong. And the biggest flaw was that the Java processor couldn't run native Java code as fast as an x86 emulator could emulate it. It would be much like trying to compare a C64 to Vice. The real hardware would be hopelessly out paced by a modern x86 machine emulating it.
The definition of 'scripting language' is pretty much pointless. It is like trying to define 'crappy music'. What the definition is, and what specific instances falls into it change from person to person. There are many instances that the vast majority of people agree on, but even then you will get some people coming out of the woodwork to argue it. You claiming that Java is a scripting language being a very good example.
Forget the running of fiber. Just run the conduit. Cities already have experience running pipes to every home. Ours runs sewer and water to the home, and storm drains to most neighborhoods. They work in concert with PG&E who runs pipes for gas. By running the conduit to the homes, they can rent out the space to all comers, they don't have to be worried about being sued for competing in the broadband industry, they can foster competition, they can stay out of a technology that they are inexperienced at, and they won't have to dig up the roads when the next big thing in data transmission comes along.
Unfortunatly, many cities are like mine and think that wifi is the future.
This is what confuses Windows users.
This is what Mac users trot out every time anyone points out flaws in MacOS. No, I don't think that the plus sign means add because I am a Windows User. I have been using computers all the way back to the KIM-2, long before the IBM PC was even thought of, much less Windows, so I am not 'confused' because I am a 'Windows User'. Deficiencies in MacOS are not somehow Windows fault.
Mac's UI is so unintuitive that even Mac Users don't know what the buttons do. Just this week on another thread, a Mac user was insisting that the green plus was 'size to document'. Your description is closer, but I only had to get to the second default installed application (Calculator) before I found that the green button did not toggle between user and default screen sizes. Of course, even if it did, a green plus means ADD. It doesn't mean ADD because of Windows. Windows doesn't have a green button. It means Add because when you have red, yellow and green, green means GO, and a plus always means ADD. The Macs behavior is simply wrong. Don't even get me started on the red X that sometimes closes the program, and sometimes doesn't.
As for the trash can. Having the icon change is a poor attempt to make a huge UI blunder look like it wasn't really a mistake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that putting the delete and the eject drop point at the exact same place is a monumentally dumb idea. It is simply asking for a mistake. Heck, even the attempt at hiding their mistake brings more inconsistency to MacOS. Sometimes that icon is the trash, but depending on what you click on, sometimes it will change to an eject button. Make sure you know whether that icon on your screen is a volume, a regular file, or a file that is mounted as a volume, because the difference is the difference between, 'this file is so important that you want to take it with you', and 'I never want to see this file again'.
It is rationalizing like yours that will keep MacOS from getting significantly better.
The green plus icon does NOT toggle between user state and standard state. It might in some cases, but it is totally inconsistent, even withing the default install directly from Apple. Even so, the plus symbol has been well established world wide as the symbol to ADD. There is no excuse at all for a green plus to shrink a window. The garbage can being the way to eject a disk could be taken as an honest mistake back in 1984. As it stands today, it is a shinning example of how Jobs is more concerned with claiming that he is infallible than he is in producing a product with a rational UI.
The Mac UI is full of poor design choices, inconsistencies, and design choices that made sense for the original Mac, but no longer make sense. None of these make it make it an unusable system. It works just fine, but it is definitely not a shining example of good UI, and it doesn't speak to Job's commitment to a quality product.
Sorry, anybody that would allow their software to be released with a green plus icon for a button that shrinks a window, and has the trash can share functionality between ejecting a disk and deleting files is definitly NOT showing pride in his work.
I don't know, Hamlet 2 had its good points.