The thing I don't get is why, given Saddam's previous behavior, everyone seemed willing to give Iraq a pass. The international community has no mechanism with which to deal with people like him. Does anyone really think they would not have tried to make a bomb as soon as he could? Even if they couldn't achieve fission, they had the technology to refine it enough to make a bunch of dirty bombs, load them on scuds and contaminate large swaths of territory.
I guess the central question is this: At what point does war become the right course of action? How bad does it have to get? Bush invaded because he claimed the threat was bad enough to warrant action. Regardless of whether or not he was correct, where do you draw the line?
It has to get bad enough that there is international consensus. Multilateral action has and does work, honest; see Kosovo, or heck, Afghanistan.
Secondly, regardless of whether things were bad enough in Iraq to justify an invasion, Bush did not argue for one based on Saddam's treatment of his people, or Iraq's history; the case to the public was not made on those grounds. Bush tried to convince us we should go to war based on WMDs; therefore, since there were none, Bush was wrong, whether or not Iraq was a country that should have been invaded.
For instance, a server which serves up a web service for HR might be called hr-web-1, and if a second one is needed, it gets hr-web-2. The record department file server would get records-files, and so on and so forth. The name of a system users need to access should relate to the role or work association of said server so the user knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that they're accessing the correct data.
Those may be the names the users use, but they should not be the machines' actual hostnames. What if a machine gets repurposed? What if you start using two machines for something you thought would only ever need one? What about when one machine dies and you end up with hr-web-1, hr-web-3 and hr-web-4?
Cartoon characters, or anything else that gives you a lot of names which you can easily tell are computer names, are fine, and indeed good. Use CNAMEs to map role-based names onto them; you can then do things like DNS round-robin (so hr-web will always give you one of the HR webservers, and will avoid ones which are currently down, etc.).
Yes, but there's an upper bound on how much speed is actually useful here - there's no point transcoding videos faster than I can actually watch them. And current CPUs are pretty close to hitting that.
Have you ever tried to uncompress something bigger than a few megabytes?
Yes, but not in the age of terabyte hard disks. Why would you need to?
Have you ever tried to restore missing archive/RAID pieces from parity?
Yes, twice in my entire life, I think. Those are things that happen once in a blue moon.
Have you ever tried to index the full-text contents of your documents?
That's I/O bound, you can put in as fast a CPU as you like and it won't go any faster.
That's only one particular implementation of Python; it happens to be the most common one, but it's not the only one. You can use IronPython and have multithreading work fine.
Furthermore, the code to remove the GIL has been written, but doing so slows down python on uniprocessors by a factor of 2, which is why it hasn't been merged yet. So once (if) the average system has 2 cores, removing it will be viable, and may well be done.
No, the AC will of course be rectified before passing to the LED. But that still means it's getting a |sin(x)| curve of voltage rather than a flat line.
Crystal, particularly Quartz, wouldn't buckle; it's far too brittle for that. It'd either stay solid or shatter, and given the strength of the stuff, I'd imagine the former. It might actually be worth making, though how the hell GP is proposing to get a quartz crystal large enough to carve a guitar out of I don't know (and if the top isn't carved from a single contignous piece of the original material, it's practically guaranteed to sound awful).
Our culture has become terribly wasteful, because today's economics (and poor customer service when it comes to getting things repaired) practically force anyone sensible to buy a new replacement for things. That's just crazy.
I hate to sound like some crazy rightist, but I really think the market will sort this one out - as raw materials get rarer and more expensive, the cost of new products will rise to the point where it becomes economic to repair the old ones again.
Given that the Flash plugin is like that, and has been known to be like that, for many years, the browser should be able to deal with it. The ns4 plugin standard really doesn't seem to be up to the modern web.
For example I can compile Firefox -O3 (or get a Swiftweasel binary) and it will run at a fast speed on lower-end hardware, Opera being binary-only doesn't allow this.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Go on, make my day. Do it, and do some benchmarks, or heck, just try actually using them both. I guarantee you Opera will blow your firefox out of the water, speed optimizations or none. There's only so much a compiler can do.
Number 2, it used to be adware and how can I really trust a browser that used to be adware, something that my browser is the first line of defense in combating it?
It wasn't adware in the way it's commonly used nowadays; it had one banner ad at the top of the browser, all revealed very obviously up front, and that was it. As for why you can trust its anti-adware capabilities, again, look at the results. And look at Opera's security record, and compare it to firefox or anything you like.
Also, even though it isn't adware, there could still be bits of the adware code in the source slowing it down,
There could be. But it runs a lot faster than firefox anyway, so until someone releases a slightly faster version, why does that matter?
I found that I had to *not* swap the keys around, so that other people could actually use my computer. It's amazing how many people think they can touch-type, but you give them a keyboard soft-remapped to qwerty and find they really can't.
And, if nothing else, a place to stop and "catch our breath". If you're planning to climb a mountain, it makes it easier if you have a place to stop a third of the way up to refuel, do repairs, etc. The moon provides that.
No it doesn't. You need more delta-V to go to the moon than to mars (you need fewer supplies because the journey is shorter, but if the rocket's going on to Mars afterwards that's no help), so you can't use a lighter rocket or anything. The one and only sensible place to put a "stepping stone" is in Earth orbit.
I just don't understand why we have to keep going over this again and again and again any time the idea of going back to the moon is raised. This is basic logistics, people. A base near the top of the gravity well makes it easier to reach anywhere beyond that gravity well. It's just that simple.
I don't understand why this comes up every time. Learn some orbital mechanics. You're wrong.
Certainly Java isn't perfect, but perhaps it may be preferable to use over MS C# if it is open.
(Assuming that MS is never open)
Yes, but you're forgetting we already have a perfectly good open C# - Mono. I really don't think it makes sense to start a new project in Java at this stage, because C# had the benefit of several years of experience with Java in designing it, and so fixes so many of Java's annoying flaws.
Damn straight it doesn't. It's bloated and horrible, has an utterly inpenetrable codebase which means it's never going to gain the real advantages of open source, and distracts attention and funding from far better projects like koffice.
Ah, but it's more than that. The real point is that, if the editor can't figure out what code belongs where, that means *I'm* far more likely to mess it up. After all, missing a single tab can completely change the semantics of a block of code.
No; you have to miss the tabs for the whole block. Which is better than being able to misplace a brace and completely change the semantics of a block of code.
Or you could let the editor indent the code properly and get the *exact* same benefits without fear that you accidentally mess up the semantics of your code because you misread something.
Well no, because you have more chance of messing it up when writing it. Suppose you accidentally included a semicolon after a for(...); you'd then get a nicely indented block which was only executed once. That's what the python way stops from happening.
Heck, even if Python had both significant whitespace *and* a block terminator, I'd at least be satisfied. Why they omitted this, I have no idea, but it really strikes me as a glaring, pointless defect that just increases the odds that you can screw things up.
There's a standard way to do block delimiters in comments and things can fix the indentation based on that, if you really want to (python ships with a script called something like mkindent.py). But if you use the language like that you'll hate it. Try using python the way you're meant to for a bit; just one small or medium project. You might find you adjust and like it.
It's not fashion, it's practical experience. Perhaps you're a windows user? (They seem to get a much more performance-tuned Java, which is fair enough on sun's part really given the marketshare, but could account for the difference in opinion).
And more important is that C# (C-hash as I call it) is created by Microsoft because they weren't allowed by Sun to create a diverged version of Java.
Be more of a hacker and less of a politician. Regardless of its origins, C# is a much better language than Java; yes, it "steals" a lot from Java, but that's the way to make a better language - take the good parts of Java, and change the bad ones.
But some of us may still remember that there were applets around written for Microsoft's JVM and that they did only work in IE - while at the same time other applets didn't work in M$:s JVM.
That's true of all the free Javas there have been thus far. In fact, I'd say it's probably true of any two implementations of a common standard.
It WAS slow. Every version of Java has had significant GUI improvements. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history)
Every version of Java has been less slow than the previous one. However, even today, Java GUI remains slow compared to any major C or C++ gui toolkit, even if said toolkit is being called from a much higher level language. Yes, there is SWT, which brings Java up to parity with other languages, but using that rather negates the whole "write once, run anywhere" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the central question is this: At what point does war become the right course of action? How bad does it have to get? Bush invaded because he claimed the threat was bad enough to warrant action. Regardless of whether or not he was correct, where do you draw the line?
It has to get bad enough that there is international consensus. Multilateral action has and does work, honest; see Kosovo, or heck, Afghanistan.
Secondly, regardless of whether things were bad enough in Iraq to justify an invasion, Bush did not argue for one based on Saddam's treatment of his people, or Iraq's history; the case to the public was not made on those grounds. Bush tried to convince us we should go to war based on WMDs; therefore, since there were none, Bush was wrong, whether or not Iraq was a country that should have been invaded.
Theme by location is fine, and something I'd recommend; the important part is to give them CNAMEs for their function.
For instance, a server which serves up a web service for HR might be called hr-web-1, and if a second one is needed, it gets hr-web-2. The record department file server would get records-files, and so on and so forth. The name of a system users need to access should relate to the role or work association of said server so the user knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that they're accessing the correct data.
Those may be the names the users use, but they should not be the machines' actual hostnames. What if a machine gets repurposed? What if you start using two machines for something you thought would only ever need one? What about when one machine dies and you end up with hr-web-1, hr-web-3 and hr-web-4?
Cartoon characters, or anything else that gives you a lot of names which you can easily tell are computer names, are fine, and indeed good. Use CNAMEs to map role-based names onto them; you can then do things like DNS round-robin (so hr-web will always give you one of the HR webservers, and will avoid ones which are currently down, etc.).
If I'm reading correctly, the whole point of this discussion is that it's not just the density, the hardness also affects the high frequency response.
Yes, but there's an upper bound on how much speed is actually useful here - there's no point transcoding videos faster than I can actually watch them. And current CPUs are pretty close to hitting that.
Have you ever tried to uncompress something bigger than a few megabytes?
Yes, but not in the age of terabyte hard disks. Why would you need to?
Have you ever tried to restore missing archive/RAID pieces from parity?
Yes, twice in my entire life, I think. Those are things that happen once in a blue moon.
Have you ever tried to index the full-text contents of your documents?
That's I/O bound, you can put in as fast a CPU as you like and it won't go any faster.
Furthermore, the code to remove the GIL has been written, but doing so slows down python on uniprocessors by a factor of 2, which is why it hasn't been merged yet. So once (if) the average system has 2 cores, removing it will be viable, and may well be done.
No, the AC will of course be rectified before passing to the LED. But that still means it's getting a |sin(x)| curve of voltage rather than a flat line.
Uh, you find a double-blind test that shows that, then.
Crystal, particularly Quartz, wouldn't buckle; it's far too brittle for that. It'd either stay solid or shatter, and given the strength of the stuff, I'd imagine the former. It might actually be worth making, though how the hell GP is proposing to get a quartz crystal large enough to carve a guitar out of I don't know (and if the top isn't carved from a single contignous piece of the original material, it's practically guaranteed to sound awful).
Our culture has become terribly wasteful, because today's economics (and poor customer service when it comes to getting things repaired) practically force anyone sensible to buy a new replacement for things. That's just crazy.
I hate to sound like some crazy rightist, but I really think the market will sort this one out - as raw materials get rarer and more expensive, the cost of new products will rise to the point where it becomes economic to repair the old ones again.
Bear in mind that we in the EU *do* have to pay to receive texts if they come from another country, and our countries are much smaller than the US.
Given that the Flash plugin is like that, and has been known to be like that, for many years, the browser should be able to deal with it. The ns4 plugin standard really doesn't seem to be up to the modern web.
For example I can compile Firefox -O3 (or get a Swiftweasel binary) and it will run at a fast speed on lower-end hardware, Opera being binary-only doesn't allow this.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Go on, make my day. Do it, and do some benchmarks, or heck, just try actually using them both. I guarantee you Opera will blow your firefox out of the water, speed optimizations or none. There's only so much a compiler can do.
Number 2, it used to be adware and how can I really trust a browser that used to be adware, something that my browser is the first line of defense in combating it?
It wasn't adware in the way it's commonly used nowadays; it had one banner ad at the top of the browser, all revealed very obviously up front, and that was it. As for why you can trust its anti-adware capabilities, again, look at the results. And look at Opera's security record, and compare it to firefox or anything you like.
Also, even though it isn't adware, there could still be bits of the adware code in the source slowing it down,
There could be. But it runs a lot faster than firefox anyway, so until someone releases a slightly faster version, why does that matter?
I found that I had to *not* swap the keys around, so that other people could actually use my computer. It's amazing how many people think they can touch-type, but you give them a keyboard soft-remapped to qwerty and find they really can't.
No it doesn't. You need more delta-V to go to the moon than to mars (you need fewer supplies because the journey is shorter, but if the rocket's going on to Mars afterwards that's no help), so you can't use a lighter rocket or anything. The one and only sensible place to put a "stepping stone" is in Earth orbit.
I just don't understand why we have to keep going over this again and again and again any time the idea of going back to the moon is raised. This is basic logistics, people. A base near the top of the gravity well makes it easier to reach anywhere beyond that gravity well. It's just that simple.
I don't understand why this comes up every time. Learn some orbital mechanics. You're wrong.
Certainly Java isn't perfect, but perhaps it may be preferable to use over MS C# if it is open.
(Assuming that MS is never open)
Yes, but you're forgetting we already have a perfectly good open C# - Mono. I really don't think it makes sense to start a new project in Java at this stage, because C# had the benefit of several years of experience with Java in designing it, and so fixes so many of Java's annoying flaws.
Damn straight it doesn't. It's bloated and horrible, has an utterly inpenetrable codebase which means it's never going to gain the real advantages of open source, and distracts attention and funding from far better projects like koffice.
Please. That's not a real distinction. I can write perfectly good, full-fledged programs in JavaScript. And more easily than I can in Java.
No; you have to miss the tabs for the whole block. Which is better than being able to misplace a brace and completely change the semantics of a block of code.
Or you could let the editor indent the code properly and get the *exact* same benefits without fear that you accidentally mess up the semantics of your code because you misread something.
Well no, because you have more chance of messing it up when writing it. Suppose you accidentally included a semicolon after a for(...); you'd then get a nicely indented block which was only executed once. That's what the python way stops from happening.
Heck, even if Python had both significant whitespace *and* a block terminator, I'd at least be satisfied. Why they omitted this, I have no idea, but it really strikes me as a glaring, pointless defect that just increases the odds that you can screw things up.
There's a standard way to do block delimiters in comments and things can fix the indentation based on that, if you really want to (python ships with a script called something like mkindent.py). But if you use the language like that you'll hate it. Try using python the way you're meant to for a bit; just one small or medium project. You might find you adjust and like it.
My word, what planet are you from? Never has there been a more hideous and uncomfortable language to write than Java.
It's not fashion, it's practical experience. Perhaps you're a windows user? (They seem to get a much more performance-tuned Java, which is fair enough on sun's part really given the marketshare, but could account for the difference in opinion).
Be more of a hacker and less of a politician. Regardless of its origins, C# is a much better language than Java; yes, it "steals" a lot from Java, but that's the way to make a better language - take the good parts of Java, and change the bad ones.
But some of us may still remember that there were applets around written for Microsoft's JVM and that they did only work in IE - while at the same time other applets didn't work in M$:s JVM.
That's true of all the free Javas there have been thus far. In fact, I'd say it's probably true of any two implementations of a common standard.
Every version of Java has been less slow than the previous one. However, even today, Java GUI remains slow compared to any major C or C++ gui toolkit, even if said toolkit is being called from a much higher level language. Yes, there is SWT, which brings Java up to parity with other languages, but using that rather negates the whole "write once, run anywhere" thing.
Konqueror is not a firefox derivative, but an independent project. You can tell by the way it doesn't leak hundreds of megabytes of memory.
Sadly, in this day and age, it's not surprising at all.