"With many-core, CPUs [could] become CPUs again," he said. "If we get enough of them, maybe we can start to hand them out" to individual programs
This Wincore os dev sounds like he's been missing a few of the gems coming from R&D South. Right now, if an app is NOT multicore aware, this is how OS X tasks out apps. And I can empathize slightly if it's painful to make Windows apps multicore aware with current windows kernels, but all his examples are purely Windows issues. Apple has Grand Central Dispatch that is rumored to be pretty great for devs that want multicore aware apps.
I think this is just a good example of how information sometimes doesn't make it to the informed. Either that or it's intentionally and incorrectly laying the issues inherent to Windows to other OS's because they are unaware that the other OS's actually had better solutions for authoring and facilitating multicore aware applications than Windows does.
I don't understand his hypervisor analogy. Why doesn't he just use a hypervisor? Maybe the article is thin on details, but this guy's complaints are as fallicious as complaing that all OS's suck because of viruses, or saying we need to rethink all OS design because Internet Explorer still crashes sometimes. Microsoft want everyone to believe all OS's are fundamentally the same and the shortcomings of MIcrosoft OS's are true of all OS's, but this is simply false.
Alex: No. No! NO! Stop it! Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin! This is sin! This is sin! It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin!
Dr. Brodsky: Sin? What's all this about sin?
Alex: That! Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music!
Dr. Branom: Are you referring to the background score?
Alex: Yes.
Dr. Branom: You've heard Beethoven before?
Alex: Yes!
Dr. Brodsky: So, you're keen on music?
Alex: YES!
Dr. Brodsky: Can't be helped. Here's the punishment element perhaps.
The emails, containing no obvious malicious links, are fooling even the savviest of users into opening up holes in their company's network defenses.
I think by definition, you are not the savviest of users if you fall victim to a phishing attack.
Totally.
ROFLMFAO
stupid admins!
We have a few Fail Administrators down in Fail Engineering, too. It's a Fail shop, so most things are Fail, and they hold their own as far as providing job security for the rest of us that just can't seem to get our heads around Fail. Well, I don't wAnna toot my own horn here but last week I wrote a Fail script... but it half worked.
Like I said... you give up too easily.
You had no need to obliterate it. With the processor supporting virtualization, you had no need to install linux on the bare iron. Ah... except of course to separate yourself from having to learn something new. btw, it's estimated that it takes a really average person just a few hours to become accustomed to it, and about week or so before they decide they needed it all along.
Here's a car analogy for ya:
You don't need your car. You have legs, you have public transportation, you have friends with cars. So you might as well tear it apart and build something else out of it.
To rehash... an OS is an OS is an OS is an OS. They all do just about the same thing. Why take sides? It is what it is.
far far easier to just use a package manager on the OEM installed OS rather than installing a whole new OS just for package management. Esp. since you could have virtualized your linux install, with no detriment to performance. Don't get me wrong... I like linux too... but what you did was obliterate a perfectly good installation for no good reason just because you weren't accustomed to it.
What everyone seems to gloss over is that this universal speed limit is only that nothing can travel (in a vacuum) as fast as light in a vacuum (everyone always says "faster than light," but that's not what Einstein's work said... it's "as fast as" not "faster than"--- i.e. Einstein's theories do not forbid hypothetical particles that are always traveling faster than light... even if tachyon's haven't been discovered... even if they don't exist, his theories don't forbid them). But light itself will travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium (idk what that is... read about it years ago). So... it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium that I don't know (sorry, not a physicist... but if you know, plz post... if you disagree... get bent).
But I think you're right about the causality violation... pretty sure that won't break.
um... what functionalities of flash are you referring to? 99.99% of what flash is now used for is video. Any other method of displaying video would be better. If you are referring to that.001% of flash utilization that is used for something other than video, I don't think the GP was referring to that. I know... let's just use flash for whatever it's good for... and not use it for what it sucks at... then we'll all be happy.
No it isn't. The common cold is not a single virus, but many.
I just read an update on the US victims... 16,000 Americans killed from H1N1, 80 million infected. The estimates of victims are between 60K and 90K dead when it runs it's course.
Whoa whoa whoa, interpreting what the founders "would have" put in the Constitution if they meant some certain thing is a ridiculous leap of logic.
No, not so much. I'm not sure who you are quoting "would have" from. I'm not talking about what they "would have" anything. My argument stems from what is written. Further, The Constitution is not some document that sits isolated from understanding the intent of its authors. We have plenty of evidence, from the minutes of the Continental Congress, from the early drafts of the document, and from other writings from the framers themselves. We can draw on all these things in our attempt to more perfectly interpret their intentions. Every single word of that document is deliberate.
Effectively, you have no way of knowing what the framers "would have" said, and that argument smacks of the same assumptions as Born Again Christians (tm) who suggest there is no reference in the Constitution because the framers took their christian faith "as a given" since they were all such moral, strict Christians.
now... there's a leap of logic. My argument "smacks of"... ?
I'm not saying anything, in any way shape or form, of what they would have said. You're trying to put words into my argument and then attack it. Your argument doesn't weaken my argument in the least because your argument is fallacious (of the straw man variety).
I don't know how this can be related to US citizens
You don't say it explicitly, but I get the feeling that you believe the Bill of Rights and the other rights enumerated in the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. If so, I urge you and others that believe this to take a closer look at the document. The Founders were extrememly careful and deliberate. If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the citizens...." It does not.
crap... hate replying to myself but I forgot to mention that most of the cost of producing a newspaper is in distribution. Distributing via the internet is saving the publisher 80% or more compared to distributing hard copy. Which means the online ad revenue should go that much further.
Yes, I realized that when I posted. I invoked Google (ambiguously) not as a news provider (they are, even if they are an aggregator), but as evidence that the ad model works (much to my chagrin). CBS, NBC and ABC also have reporters, journalists, editors and photographers as well as producers, directors, cameramen, makeup artists, etc., but I don't have to pay to watch their news. Ads pay for everything.
I don't get it... I never believed that Google's ad model worked, but their stock price says differently. So the ad model works for Google and all other news providers online... but not for the nyt or wsj? What is the obsession in charging the end user? Just pass the cost to the advertisers.
While I believe there was some sensationalism by media, I don't think the WHO's warnings should have been any less than they were. As I read the early comments here, overwhelmingly of the opinion that the whole H1N1 pandemic was simply FUD, I am perplexed as there's usually at least one sensible comment among the hoard. Yet, I haven't found any yet. Look, you idiots... it's a pandemic. It's STILL a pandemic... that is, whether or not you think the warnings were FUD, it's a pandemic... and right now, it's still a pandemic. Maybe it's not the Black Plague and clearing out whole towns, but it still killed an estimated 10K Americans so far, and sickened 50 million... and that's just the US. It's a PANDEMIC no matter how much whomever exaggerated its veracity.
And while I don't see in this case exactly how Big Pharm was involved with ? harm done by exaggerating this pandemic, I see them as suspect and having too much power in general over their customers. Did you guys here that diabetes was cured? Yeah, they figured it out a couple years ago in some Toronto lab. But I don't see Big Pharm rushing trials and manufacturing the cure. I see them doing business as usual selling insulin. I think we need to put some watchdogs in Big Pharms yard, to watch them... make sure they aren't tempted to stop a cure so they can keep selling their treatments.
However, some scholars argue that a spike in selfishness among young people is, like the story of Narcissus, a myth.
No doubt this conclusion by some scholars is only natural after a common theme in social unconscious imagery emerged from thousands of years of retelling of the ancient and universal tale of the teenager taking the car without asking.
Off topic, but, I really miss having a word to describe what "myth" described prior to it being selfishly and ambiguously redefined by a generation of sarcastic linguists.
No... I'm done. You're certainly more knowledgeable about the subject... but you're also trolling, attempting to debate someone that is not engaging you, taking words out of context, and bordering on ad homenum attacks. If you really believe Copernicus conceived the idea all by himself, fine... I disagree, and I believe there's more than circumstantial evidence to support this. If you really believe it was just a coincidence that he died proximate to his theories' publication, well... I believe that is naive. Your view of Copernicus is exactly what I believed in the 8th grade... and only after graduate seminars did I realize that his scientific contributions were mildly suspect. You are welcome to disagree... but to attempt to deconstruct my off hand comments like this was some sort of academic debate... you're like that guy from Good Will Hunting in the bar babbling about esoteric crap no one cares about just so you can show off or compensate for whatever you think you're lacking. I made a simple point... the Church didn't go apeshit over Copernicus because he was respectful, and more importantly, dead. Galileo was alive, and belligerent, thus, a target.
Me too. Look... it was the freakin Renaissance. There was a resurgence in Classical studies. My guess is these anonymous heliocentrists, and Copernicus, at some point in their academic careers, came across the work of one or more of the ancient greeks heliocentrists. They were aware of the problems with the Ptolemaic model, and they immediately recognized that the ancients probably had it right, or more right.
I didn't really study Copernicus' work. It sounds like you know more about him than me... Didn't Copernicus study the Classics? Is it so hard to believe that he may have stolen, or more correctly or more completely sculpted, what had just been laying around somewhere for a thousand years? Is it so hard to fathom that the ideas were so novel that the people who worked with him realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden?
I didn't say they were. I said "besides some... ancient greeks, there were anonymous contemporaries" or something like that.
Okay, but can you name any of them
Can I name the anonymous contemporaries? No. They were anonymous. They were in fear of their lives, or perhaps their careers. Again, Copernicus didn't work in a vacuum. It wasn't as if one day heliocentrism didn't exist... then, BAM, he was the sole guy on the planet that had the idea, and suddenly it existed. He took credit, very near to his death, to spare these anonymous contemporaries. Now... I'm not saying there was some secret committee of heliocentrists that Copernicus represented... I'm saying that he DIDN'T WORK IN A VACUUM. I told you it's likely that the people of whom I speak were the very people that Copernicus shared his work with. Yes... I'm saying they had heliocentrism to consider PRIOR to having access to Copernicus' manuscripts. I'm saying that Copernicus likely was one of many... er... of at least a handful of heliocentrists prior to any published work. Copernicus wasn't like Isaac Newton, who almost did work in a vacuum when he made the calculus —but Spinoza also made the calculus — and they never corroborated. Copernicus was lucky to have friends in his field, and its incredibly likely that the idea didn't come to him all by himself. Others, anonymous others, that we can't name because Copernicus kept them anonymous, were there right along with him. Copernicus gets the credit, he did do the work, he published first... but it wasn't a race... it was more a deception. He knew he was dying, his heliocentric friends knew he was dying... and someone had the idea for Copernicus to publish close to death so that science could advance without the risk of the Church destroying them.
Spectrum licensing. Mobile carriers pay big bucks to license their spectrum.
Does anyone know just what our government did with the billions of dollars that were made off the spectrum auction that was all over slashdot for months and months last year? There was all this news leading up to the auction, who wanted what, then there was little news after... just reported who got what for how much. But just where did this money go? iirc it was like over a hundred billion dollars collected, wasn't it? Where is it? Whose accounting for it?
Slashdot Mirror
ftfa:
"With many-core, CPUs [could] become CPUs again," he said. "If we get enough of them, maybe we can start to hand them out" to individual programs
This Wincore os dev sounds like he's been missing a few of the gems coming from R&D South. Right now, if an app is NOT multicore aware, this is how OS X tasks out apps. And I can empathize slightly if it's painful to make Windows apps multicore aware with current windows kernels, but all his examples are purely Windows issues. Apple has Grand Central Dispatch that is rumored to be pretty great for devs that want multicore aware apps.
I think this is just a good example of how information sometimes doesn't make it to the informed. Either that or it's intentionally and incorrectly laying the issues inherent to Windows to other OS's because they are unaware that the other OS's actually had better solutions for authoring and facilitating multicore aware applications than Windows does.
I don't understand his hypervisor analogy. Why doesn't he just use a hypervisor? Maybe the article is thin on details, but this guy's complaints are as fallicious as complaing that all OS's suck because of viruses, or saying we need to rethink all OS design because Internet Explorer still crashes sometimes. Microsoft want everyone to believe all OS's are fundamentally the same and the shortcomings of MIcrosoft OS's are true of all OS's, but this is simply false.
One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.
Absurd. The origins of the Windows we use today began as a project at DEC in the Summer of '88.
Alex: No. No! NO! Stop it! Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin! This is sin! This is sin! It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin! Dr. Brodsky: Sin? What's all this about sin? Alex: That! Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music! Dr. Branom: Are you referring to the background score? Alex: Yes. Dr. Branom: You've heard Beethoven before? Alex: Yes! Dr. Brodsky: So, you're keen on music? Alex: YES! Dr. Brodsky: Can't be helped. Here's the punishment element perhaps.
I think by definition, you are not the savviest of users if you fall victim to a phishing attack.
Totally. ROFLMFAO stupid admins! We have a few Fail Administrators down in Fail Engineering, too. It's a Fail shop, so most things are Fail, and they hold their own as far as providing job security for the rest of us that just can't seem to get our heads around Fail. Well, I don't wAnna toot my own horn here but last week I wrote a Fail script... but it half worked.
Like I said... you give up too easily. You had no need to obliterate it. With the processor supporting virtualization, you had no need to install linux on the bare iron. Ah... except of course to separate yourself from having to learn something new. btw, it's estimated that it takes a really average person just a few hours to become accustomed to it, and about week or so before they decide they needed it all along.
Here's a car analogy for ya: You don't need your car. You have legs, you have public transportation, you have friends with cars. So you might as well tear it apart and build something else out of it.
To rehash... an OS is an OS is an OS is an OS. They all do just about the same thing. Why take sides? It is what it is.
nice post, thx for clarifying.
You give up far too easily.
Check out this
and this
far far easier to just use a package manager on the OEM installed OS rather than installing a whole new OS just for package management. Esp. since you could have virtualized your linux install, with no detriment to performance. Don't get me wrong... I like linux too... but what you did was obliterate a perfectly good installation for no good reason just because you weren't accustomed to it.
But I think you're right about the causality violation... pretty sure that won't break.
Like David Letterman. Tell him about this, I'm sure he'd be interested in helping... more than any other entertainer, he respects the Great Ones.
mod parent up!!!
um... what functionalities of flash are you referring to? 99.99% of what flash is now used for is video. Any other method of displaying video would be better. If you are referring to that .001% of flash utilization that is used for something other than video, I don't think the GP was referring to that. I know... let's just use flash for whatever it's good for... and not use it for what it sucks at... then we'll all be happy.
Common cold is also a pandemic.
No it isn't. The common cold is not a single virus, but many.
I just read an update on the US victims... 16,000 Americans killed from H1N1, 80 million infected. The estimates of victims are between 60K and 90K dead when it runs it's course.
Instead, it says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...", which you aren't a part of if you are not a citizen.
Stop right there, coward. Says who? Did you just make that up off the top of your head? Ignorance, indeed.
Whoa whoa whoa, interpreting what the founders "would have" put in the Constitution if they meant some certain thing is a ridiculous leap of logic.
No, not so much. I'm not sure who you are quoting "would have" from. I'm not talking about what they "would have" anything. My argument stems from what is written. Further, The Constitution is not some document that sits isolated from understanding the intent of its authors. We have plenty of evidence, from the minutes of the Continental Congress, from the early drafts of the document, and from other writings from the framers themselves. We can draw on all these things in our attempt to more perfectly interpret their intentions. Every single word of that document is deliberate.
Effectively, you have no way of knowing what the framers "would have" said, and that argument smacks of the same assumptions as Born Again Christians (tm) who suggest there is no reference in the Constitution because the framers took their christian faith "as a given" since they were all such moral, strict Christians.
now... there's a leap of logic. My argument "smacks of"... ? I'm not saying anything, in any way shape or form, of what they would have said. You're trying to put words into my argument and then attack it. Your argument doesn't weaken my argument in the least because your argument is fallacious (of the straw man variety).
I don't know how this can be related to US citizens
You don't say it explicitly, but I get the feeling that you believe the Bill of Rights and the other rights enumerated in the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. If so, I urge you and others that believe this to take a closer look at the document. The Founders were extrememly careful and deliberate. If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the citizens...." It does not.
I don't think nytimes.com can demand nearly as much advertising revenue as the actual newspaper.
They could...if the content was identical. But a web site is not a newsaper. or is it?
And, again, I was invoking Google to show the ad model works, not to show they were the same.
Would any of those websites be viable without the ad revenue from the actual TV stations?
idk. Are there any websites out there that don't get subsidized by TV?
crap... hate replying to myself but I forgot to mention that most of the cost of producing a newspaper is in distribution. Distributing via the internet is saving the publisher 80% or more compared to distributing hard copy. Which means the online ad revenue should go that much further.
Yes, I realized that when I posted. I invoked Google (ambiguously) not as a news provider (they are, even if they are an aggregator), but as evidence that the ad model works (much to my chagrin). CBS, NBC and ABC also have reporters, journalists, editors and photographers as well as producers, directors, cameramen, makeup artists, etc., but I don't have to pay to watch their news. Ads pay for everything.
I don't get it... I never believed that Google's ad model worked, but their stock price says differently. So the ad model works for Google and all other news providers online... but not for the nyt or wsj? What is the obsession in charging the end user? Just pass the cost to the advertisers.
While I believe there was some sensationalism by media, I don't think the WHO's warnings should have been any less than they were. As I read the early comments here, overwhelmingly of the opinion that the whole H1N1 pandemic was simply FUD, I am perplexed as there's usually at least one sensible comment among the hoard. Yet, I haven't found any yet. Look, you idiots... it's a pandemic. It's STILL a pandemic... that is, whether or not you think the warnings were FUD, it's a pandemic... and right now, it's still a pandemic. Maybe it's not the Black Plague and clearing out whole towns, but it still killed an estimated 10K Americans so far, and sickened 50 million... and that's just the US. It's a PANDEMIC no matter how much whomever exaggerated its veracity.
And while I don't see in this case exactly how Big Pharm was involved with ? harm done by exaggerating this pandemic, I see them as suspect and having too much power in general over their customers. Did you guys here that diabetes was cured? Yeah, they figured it out a couple years ago in some Toronto lab. But I don't see Big Pharm rushing trials and manufacturing the cure. I see them doing business as usual selling insulin. I think we need to put some watchdogs in Big Pharms yard, to watch them... make sure they aren't tempted to stop a cure so they can keep selling their treatments.
However, some scholars argue that a spike in selfishness among young people is, like the story of Narcissus, a myth.
No doubt this conclusion by some scholars is only natural after a common theme in social unconscious imagery emerged from thousands of years of retelling of the ancient and universal tale of the teenager taking the car without asking.
Off topic, but, I really miss having a word to describe what "myth" described prior to it being selfishly and ambiguously redefined by a generation of sarcastic linguists.
No... I'm done. You're certainly more knowledgeable about the subject... but you're also trolling, attempting to debate someone that is not engaging you, taking words out of context, and bordering on ad homenum attacks. If you really believe Copernicus conceived the idea all by himself, fine... I disagree, and I believe there's more than circumstantial evidence to support this. If you really believe it was just a coincidence that he died proximate to his theories' publication, well... I believe that is naive. Your view of Copernicus is exactly what I believed in the 8th grade... and only after graduate seminars did I realize that his scientific contributions were mildly suspect. You are welcome to disagree... but to attempt to deconstruct my off hand comments like this was some sort of academic debate... you're like that guy from Good Will Hunting in the bar babbling about esoteric crap no one cares about just so you can show off or compensate for whatever you think you're lacking. I made a simple point ... the Church didn't go apeshit over Copernicus because he was respectful, and more importantly, dead. Galileo was alive, and belligerent, thus, a target.
Me too. Look... it was the freakin Renaissance. There was a resurgence in Classical studies. My guess is these anonymous heliocentrists, and Copernicus, at some point in their academic careers, came across the work of one or more of the ancient greeks heliocentrists. They were aware of the problems with the Ptolemaic model, and they immediately recognized that the ancients probably had it right, or more right.
I didn't really study Copernicus' work. It sounds like you know more about him than me... Didn't Copernicus study the Classics? Is it so hard to believe that he may have stolen, or more correctly or more completely sculpted, what had just been laying around somewhere for a thousand years? Is it so hard to fathom that the ideas were so novel that the people who worked with him realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden?
They weren't Copernicus's contemporaries.
I didn't say they were. I said "besides some ... ancient greeks, there were anonymous contemporaries" or something like that.
Okay, but can you name any of them
Can I name the anonymous contemporaries? No. They were anonymous. They were in fear of their lives, or perhaps their careers. Again, Copernicus didn't work in a vacuum. It wasn't as if one day heliocentrism didn't exist... then, BAM, he was the sole guy on the planet that had the idea, and suddenly it existed. He took credit, very near to his death, to spare these anonymous contemporaries. Now... I'm not saying there was some secret committee of heliocentrists that Copernicus represented... I'm saying that he DIDN'T WORK IN A VACUUM. I told you it's likely that the people of whom I speak were the very people that Copernicus shared his work with. Yes... I'm saying they had heliocentrism to consider PRIOR to having access to Copernicus' manuscripts. I'm saying that Copernicus likely was one of many... er... of at least a handful of heliocentrists prior to any published work. Copernicus wasn't like Isaac Newton, who almost did work in a vacuum when he made the calculus —but Spinoza also made the calculus — and they never corroborated. Copernicus was lucky to have friends in his field, and its incredibly likely that the idea didn't come to him all by himself. Others, anonymous others, that we can't name because Copernicus kept them anonymous, were there right along with him. Copernicus gets the credit, he did do the work, he published first... but it wasn't a race... it was more a deception. He knew he was dying, his heliocentric friends knew he was dying... and someone had the idea for Copernicus to publish close to death so that science could advance without the risk of the Church destroying them.
Spectrum licensing. Mobile carriers pay big bucks to license their spectrum.
Does anyone know just what our government did with the billions of dollars that were made off the spectrum auction that was all over slashdot for months and months last year? There was all this news leading up to the auction, who wanted what, then there was little news after... just reported who got what for how much. But just where did this money go? iirc it was like over a hundred billion dollars collected, wasn't it? Where is it? Whose accounting for it?