Head of Atom Chip Corporation is Shimon Gendlin (although one might notice the complete absence of any names, addresses etc. on their web page).
5 years ago, this fellow got a gold medal at the 14th World Genius Convention (http://www.compu-technics.com/pages/18/index.htm) , which, as a side remark, is organized in Tokyo by a company, founded by no one else than Yoshiro Nakamats! The inventor of the floppy disk!! (No, I am not making this up...)
(garbage in, garbage out)
have you noticed that the original is not in "correct" English?
Very good point. I tried it out with Personal Translator (disclaimer: product from the german company Linguatec, which pays my salary...) into German:
Ich weiß, dass es ziemlich genau ist, weil ich meine spanischsprechenden Freunde hereingelegt habe, einmal in einem IM Gespräch. Ich sagte ihnen, dass ich Spanisch über Hypnose lernte und grundsätzlich gerade alles spanisch in IM kopierte und einklebte. Das Gespräch ging vollständig etwa 15 Minuten auf Spanisch weiter, bevor ich ihnen sagte, dass ich die Website verwendete. Sie pissten in ihrer Unterhose.
As a native German speaker I can assure you: just by this text I could hardly tell, it wasn't written by a German. It's not really 100% perfect, but nearly.
JBoss at all is not a microkernel, its architecture is based on the Microkernel pattern.
But that is what the story/article did _not_ do.
Well it didn't use explicitely the term "pattern", but in writing
as part of the JMX based microkernel architecture and design,
it is clear that it is addressing the pattern, not the OS microkernel.
That's because someone didn't write this:
"Besides the usual advantages of open source and GPL licensing, what sets JBoss apart is its JMX-based blackboard"
But assume, there is a software using the Blackboard pattern, which happens to have a participant called blackboard, which means a sentence like the above is quite possible. You would seriously rant about the usage of the word blackboard, just because there is definetely nothing like an actual, physical blackboard in it? Come on!
They don't manage anything other than loading shared, executable code. Something which, if I may point out, is precisely what a Microkernel *doesn't* do. That's what the servers are for!
Well actually, servers are part of the Microkernel pattern. To make things worse, there is also a participant called "microkernel" in the Microkernel pattern... If it was not clear up to now: JBoss at all is not a microkernel, its architecture is based on the Microkernel pattern. JBoss also contains e.g. the servers which do the loading (in Eclipse you have them as well - nobody calls Eclipse a microkernel, it's just that its archtitecture is quite good described by the Microkernel pattern).
A Microkernel is a very specific concept, with very little abstract about it. Redefining it to be an abstraction is a problem.
Same holds for blackboards. Yet, up to now nobody complained that there is a pattern called "blackboard", although there is no chalk, or anything you can write on at all. It's not even black.
I'm merely annoyed at the desire of marketeers to reuse terms like this.
Why marketeers? The pattern has been described and named by a software engineer, not some marketing guy.
"J2EE Framework", "JMX Framework", and "Plugable Server Framework" are all perfectly acceptable, and far more informative than "Microkernel."
Let's have a closer look:
"J2EE Framework" - doesn't tell you anything about the inner design of JBoss, not suitable for this purpose at all.
"JMX Framework", ok, somewhat closer, but still - just using JMX does not necessarly describe what the architecture of JBoss is all about. You could use JMX in software which is more or less monolithic, just to add some management of resources used by the software.
"Pluggable Server Framework" - well this comes a bit closer now, but still without further explanation it is not very clear. On the other hand, by pointing to the Microkernel pattern, it is much preciser, what is meant. It's more than just some plugin facility. Nobody would use the word Microkernel together with Microsoft Word, although it supports plugins.
And as a remark to the above mentioned "marketeers" - from a marketing point of view something with "plugin" in it would sound much cooler. Everybody knows about the ease and convenience of Plug'n'Play. Whereas much less percentage of the potential users of JBoss know about the specialities of an OS microkernel.
Using the term in places other than OS design is obviously an attempt to liken the new design to a kernel's design.
Absolutely right, the pattern has been derived from the OS design.
Yet that doesn't make sense, since the two concepts are very different.
It's an abstraction, it looks at what is the essence behind the principle of the OS microkernel and transfers it to other areas. That's what patterns are about. And to make it clear: using this term in that general way is in no way an invention by the poster nor by the JBoss group. Naming of this pattern dates back about 10 years and is for instance also often used when talking about the architecture of Eclipse.
Especially when the term "Framework" fits perfectly well, and is intended for this precise situation.
No, definetely not. "Framework" is far too general and unspecific. Every J2EE implementation is a framework, but does not necessarly follow the JBoss approach.
'With proprietary software, innovation comes from the people in marketing. But with open source, innovation comes from the guy who is really in the market. It comes from someone who knows the city.'
Well, but they only know it from Google Maps. The guys from marketing at least can tell the dear visitor the coolest, newest and hippest clubs in town.
The poster implies that JMX is a JBoss technology, or at least that JBoss has a current monopoly on JMX.
I can not find any hint in this direction in the poster's text.
"Microkernel" refers to the architectural pattern around which JBoss was designed.
Irrelevant. My point was that the use of the term "Microkernel" is confusing,
It is relevant. The term Microkernel is in no way reduced the the usage in an OS kernel. That you have only heard it in this context is just your problem. Words have only a meaning in context. And regarding this it is quite clear, that the general pattern is meant, not its special application to OS kernels.
So is "gesundheit", but people still use it as slang for "bless you".
Well, not me. But anyway, I think, "slang" is the wrong word for it, as not every foreign word is automatically slang. Besides that, I am afraid you didn't realize, that my comment was just a joke.
Changes come and changes go, and while you might not like all of them, you need not castigate others for using them.
"You" seems to be wrong, as you probably don't address me with these words but another poster.
As these points are named after the french Joseph Louis Lagrange and not some city in Georgia or Indiana, USA, they are called Lagrange points, not LaGrange Points.
Why not Scotland Yard? It's IDEAL to be played in the centre of London!
London would be perfect indeed. Besides that, here in Germany it has been played in "real life" some years ago in a city, using public transportation means etc.
Okay, your next task is to configure an Apple that costs $400, and see how that compares to the Dell.
This is not the point. The question was, whether that what Apple offers has a reasonable price, and that you have to compare systems which have at least similar specifications.
Let's take a more close view and compare it with the $1299 iMac
OS: you should not compare XP Home with OS X, so to be fair, go for Professional: +$99
Memory: iMac has 512MB, so we give it also to the Dell: +$60
Harddrive: iMac comes with 160GB, for the Dell: +90
Drive: iMac comes with a Combo-Drive, Dell: +$89
Monitor: iMac comes with a 17'' LCD, Dell: +$229
Add this up, and the Dell comes now for $965. I didn't see any WLAN and FireWire options for Dell. It is worth ssomething around $50. With OS X comes a lot of software included, which you would have to get somewhere else, if you bought a Dell.
All in all: to state, you could buy 3 Dells for one Mac is just ridiculous. Even if the Dell still would have some better performance, if you want to have similar features, the prices are not too different.
If they can get and OSX version on WINE running where all you have to do is double click on an installer and *BOOM* all the software you already bought for Windows all of a sudden works, that might entice some more people to get Macs.
Which version of WINE are you talking about? Definitely not an existing one, as WINE is far away from the point, where just any Windows software would run smoothly.
Why can't a dictionary be made of nouns, of verbs?
You seriously think, this hasn't been done? An MT dictionary is quite a complex beast, where translations are connected to the grammar and contain a lot of semantics. Translations depend on whether the verb is used transitive or intransitive, whether it is used with a human object or a thing, and so on and so on.
Why can't we have it statistically analyze the grammar for ambiguous words?
Well, actually my company is about to release a product which does exactly this... Generally our system is based on rules and grammars (and a big and complex dictionary), but enhanced by some statistical information.
What will be done about idioms?
Good systems have coded a lot of idioms.
How many of the world's existing languages have enough text for this to even be feasible?
The afford to write rules and dictionaries for a translation is quite high. This is one of the big advantages of statistical methods: as this is a quite automatic task, you can do this for a lot of languages, even exotic ones, where the market wouldn't be big enough to build a full blown system. Quality might not be overwhelming, but at least you can get an idea of what the text is about.
While they may have the "smart people" you speak of, none of them have applied those people appropriately.
Oh come on! Google may be a great company, but to say it is the first in the history of mankind which is able to motivate its employees or make them being productive is a very strange remark. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say: everything what Google achieved up to now is trivial compared to the problem of translation of human language. If one looks at their ranking, their indexing, G-Mail and so on: the complexity of those tasks is order of magnitudes below the problem of handling human language.
Google is becoming my competitor! I am a translator
It's unlikely that anybody of us will see an MT-System which can translate a book with a reasonable result. But MT could help the translator speeding up his task as it might translate the easy sentences and the human translator corrects it and translates the rest.
If you'll read the article, you'll find that the translator properly translated a fairly complicated phrase from Arabic to English.
For each existing MT system you can find fairly complicated sentences which translate ok.
I'd guess that this service is, from a technical standpoint, at least 95% done -it's just the packaging and touching-up that needs to be done.
"Technial standpoint" you mean, the system is able to translate arbritrary text? Maybe. Or do you mean the system is able to translate arbritrary text into semantically correct text in the target language? Highly unlikely. People are trying this vor decades now. And other companies and institutes have smart people too.
More people are connected than were even a couple of years ago, so it's an apples/oranges affair.
Come on, in just two years the things didn't change so much. And for comparison: this years "Kingdom of Heaven" got a meagre 12,000 votes up to now, "Aviator" just a little bit more.
Additionally, there was a lot more hype, and a lot of people feel they have to see it because it will fill in the gaps, get closure, whatever.
This doesn't explain the good (although not top) rating in the Imdb. Episode 1 got even more hype, as people were very excited about it - seeing a new Star Wars Movie after 20 Years on the big screen. But not only the critics, also the public gave it a very low rating.
As I said before, this is one movie people are not going to be watching over and over again.
This might be true. 8.0 makes it a good rated movie in the Imdb, but each part of "Lord of the rings" for instance has a rating of 8.8 and better. But anyway: that this film shows out as a complete failure at the box office is highly unlikely. And this is, what we were talking about. It seems not only lying Roger Ebert and the rest of his retarded colleagues like this film somewhat, even the dumb movie goers of the world.
Well, lets see what the street says over the next few weeks. My bet is that its going to be a repeat of "The Hulk"
There is no close correlation between critics rating, quality of a film and success at the box office.
Anyway: after 10 days in the theatres it is on top of the charts - worldwide. It already made more money than Hulk. In the Internet Movie Database already about 40,000 people voted for this film, giving it a 8.0 (compared to below 70,000 at all for Episode 2, with a ranking of 7.0 and about 20,000 for Hulk (6.1)). So, you might not put too much money on your bet.
According to this line of reasoning, you can justify a 10 for any movie on the face of the earth, by comparing it only to crap.
No, obviously one compares the movie under consideration with others of the same kind, which are regarded as good (4 stars).
Any reasonable rating is relative - and subjective. There can be no "absolute" rating, it simply doesn't make sense, as there are no absolute criteria broad enough to base a rating on. To the contrary I would not take a critic too serious who would claim, his rating to be on some absolute scale.
A review that gives a movie 8-1/2 out of 10 better be either superlative entertainment or incredibly informative.
This is your definition of a rating, Ebert has a different one:
The star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman (1978) is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then Leland clocks in at about two.
Ebert either intentionally fudged his rating, or was taken in by the whole "wow - special effects" bs. Or, he's just plain incompetent.
Or he just has a different taste than you.
Methinks he has spent too much time believing his own publicity,
Methinks you value your own point of view a little bit too high.
Did a quick google, and couldn't find any critics that panned the movie.
You simply didn't look carefully enough. "Washington Post":
And even though "Revenge" is a better experience than "Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones," it doesn't add anything that satisfying or compelling to the big picture. If anything, it takes things away.
"London Times": In fact, the Force may be strong in this one [Anakin], but unfortunately his light sabre seems to be burning at a particularly low wattage., 2 out of 5 stars. The "Independent" was already mentioned by somebody else.
So here is my review
This is not a review, just ranting.
Tell people the movie is crap, you don't get any more "previews", so you're out of a job. Big deal - you're not doing your job if you lie
So, if somebody has a different opinion than you about something, it means he is lying...
One of the critics in favour of this film, the well known internet critic James Berardinelli, gives it 3.5 of 4 stars. He is not doing his reviews for a living and he never had problems giving a popular movie a bad rating. Still he is quite fond of the movie, although he sees clearly the weaknesses of this film, he just weighs them differently from you or others giving it a thumbs down. So it might be that your "theory" needs some refinement.
They go through phases of having too many and too much. When there are too many, the people who can't find jobs look to other fields. When there are too few, the opposite happens.
In German there is a word for this kind of behaviour: "Schweinezyklus" (pig cycle): Pigs are going well on the market, so more farmers invest in pigs. After some time, there is a surplus in pigs, so prices drop, farmers withdraw from piggery. In consequence the supply drops until the prices go up to a new high and the cycle starts anew.
Slashdot Mirror
Amongst the awards this company got, is an Oscar: http://www.compu-technics.com/pages/22/index.htm (scroll down).
Head of Atom Chip Corporation is Shimon Gendlin (although one might notice the complete absence of any names, addresses etc. on their web page).
5 years ago, this fellow got a gold medal at the 14th World Genius Convention (http://www.compu-technics.com/pages/18/index.htm) , which, as a side remark, is organized in Tokyo by a company, founded by no one else than Yoshiro Nakamats! The inventor of the floppy disk!! (No, I am not making this up...)
Very good point. I tried it out with Personal Translator (disclaimer: product from the german company Linguatec, which pays my salary...) into German:
As a native German speaker I can assure you: just by this text I could hardly tell, it wasn't written by a German. It's not really 100% perfect, but nearly.
Well it didn't use explicitely the term "pattern", but in writing
it is clear that it is addressing the pattern, not the OS microkernel.But assume, there is a software using the Blackboard pattern, which happens to have a participant called blackboard, which means a sentence like the above is quite possible. You would seriously rant about the usage of the word blackboard, just because there is definetely nothing like an actual, physical blackboard in it? Come on!
Well actually, servers are part of the Microkernel pattern. To make things worse, there is also a participant called "microkernel" in the Microkernel pattern... If it was not clear up to now: JBoss at all is not a microkernel, its architecture is based on the Microkernel pattern. JBoss also contains e.g. the servers which do the loading (in Eclipse you have them as well - nobody calls Eclipse a microkernel, it's just that its archtitecture is quite good described by the Microkernel pattern).
Same holds for blackboards. Yet, up to now nobody complained that there is a pattern called "blackboard", although there is no chalk, or anything you can write on at all. It's not even black.
Why marketeers? The pattern has been described and named by a software engineer, not some marketing guy.
Let's have a closer look:
And as a remark to the above mentioned "marketeers" - from a marketing point of view something with "plugin" in it would sound much cooler. Everybody knows about the ease and convenience of Plug'n'Play. Whereas much less percentage of the potential users of JBoss know about the specialities of an OS microkernel.
Absolutely right, the pattern has been derived from the OS design.
It's an abstraction, it looks at what is the essence behind the principle of the OS microkernel and transfers it to other areas. That's what patterns are about. And to make it clear: using this term in that general way is in no way an invention by the poster nor by the JBoss group. Naming of this pattern dates back about 10 years and is for instance also often used when talking about the architecture of Eclipse.
No, definetely not. "Framework" is far too general and unspecific. Every J2EE implementation is a framework, but does not necessarly follow the JBoss approach.
Well, but they only know it from Google Maps. The guys from marketing at least can tell the dear visitor the coolest, newest and hippest clubs in town.
I can not find any hint in this direction in the poster's text.
It is relevant. The term Microkernel is in no way reduced the the usage in an OS kernel. That you have only heard it in this context is just your problem. Words have only a meaning in context. And regarding this it is quite clear, that the general pattern is meant, not its special application to OS kernels.
Well, not me. But anyway, I think, "slang" is the wrong word for it, as not every foreign word is automatically slang. Besides that, I am afraid you didn't realize, that my comment was just a joke.
"You" seems to be wrong, as you probably don't address me with these words but another poster.
It's German. Some kind of zeitgeist uber-grammar.
As these points are named after the french Joseph Louis Lagrange and not some city in Georgia or Indiana, USA, they are called Lagrange points, not LaGrange Points.
London would be perfect indeed. Besides that, here in Germany it has been played in "real life" some years ago in a city, using public transportation means etc.
This is not the point. The question was, whether that what Apple offers has a reasonable price, and that you have to compare systems which have at least similar specifications.
Let's take a more close view and compare it with the $1299 iMac
OS: you should not compare XP Home with OS X, so to be fair, go for Professional: +$99
Memory: iMac has 512MB, so we give it also to the Dell: +$60
Harddrive: iMac comes with 160GB, for the Dell: +90
Drive: iMac comes with a Combo-Drive, Dell: +$89
Monitor: iMac comes with a 17'' LCD, Dell: +$229
Add this up, and the Dell comes now for $965. I didn't see any WLAN and FireWire options for Dell. It is worth ssomething around $50. With OS X comes a lot of software included, which you would have to get somewhere else, if you bought a Dell.
All in all: to state, you could buy 3 Dells for one Mac is just ridiculous. Even if the Dell still would have some better performance, if you want to have similar features, the prices are not too different.
Which version of WINE are you talking about? Definitely not an existing one, as WINE is far away from the point, where just any Windows software would run smoothly.
You seriously think, this hasn't been done? An MT dictionary is quite a complex beast, where translations are connected to the grammar and contain a lot of semantics. Translations depend on whether the verb is used transitive or intransitive, whether it is used with a human object or a thing, and so on and so on.
Well, actually my company is about to release a product which does exactly this... Generally our system is based on rules and grammars (and a big and complex dictionary), but enhanced by some statistical information.
Good systems have coded a lot of idioms.
The afford to write rules and dictionaries for a translation is quite high. This is one of the big advantages of statistical methods: as this is a quite automatic task, you can do this for a lot of languages, even exotic ones, where the market wouldn't be big enough to build a full blown system. Quality might not be overwhelming, but at least you can get an idea of what the text is about.
Oh come on! Google may be a great company, but to say it is the first in the history of mankind which is able to motivate its employees or make them being productive is a very strange remark. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say: everything what Google achieved up to now is trivial compared to the problem of translation of human language. If one looks at their ranking, their indexing, G-Mail and so on: the complexity of those tasks is order of magnitudes below the problem of handling human language.
It's unlikely that anybody of us will see an MT-System which can translate a book with a reasonable result. But MT could help the translator speeding up his task as it might translate the easy sentences and the human translator corrects it and translates the rest.
For each existing MT system you can find fairly complicated sentences which translate ok.
"Technial standpoint" you mean, the system is able to translate arbritrary text? Maybe. Or do you mean the system is able to translate arbritrary text into semantically correct text in the target language? Highly unlikely. People are trying this vor decades now. And other companies and institutes have smart people too.
They already did it. Several years ago. You can get it with Websphere and offsprings are sold under different labels.
Chess is trivial compared to the task of translation. You can not compare these two problems.
Come on, in just two years the things didn't change so much. And for comparison: this years "Kingdom of Heaven" got a meagre 12,000 votes up to now, "Aviator" just a little bit more.
This doesn't explain the good (although not top) rating in the Imdb. Episode 1 got even more hype, as people were very excited about it - seeing a new Star Wars Movie after 20 Years on the big screen. But not only the critics, also the public gave it a very low rating.
This might be true. 8.0 makes it a good rated movie in the Imdb, but each part of "Lord of the rings" for instance has a rating of 8.8 and better. But anyway: that this film shows out as a complete failure at the box office is highly unlikely. And this is, what we were talking about. It seems not only lying Roger Ebert and the rest of his retarded colleagues like this film somewhat, even the dumb movie goers of the world.
There is no close correlation between critics rating, quality of a film and success at the box office.
Anyway: after 10 days in the theatres it is on top of the charts - worldwide. It already made more money than Hulk. In the Internet Movie Database already about 40,000 people voted for this film, giving it a 8.0 (compared to below 70,000 at all for Episode 2, with a ranking of 7.0 and about 20,000 for Hulk (6.1)). So, you might not put too much money on your bet.
No, obviously one compares the movie under consideration with others of the same kind, which are regarded as good (4 stars).
Any reasonable rating is relative - and subjective. There can be no "absolute" rating, it simply doesn't make sense, as there are no absolute criteria broad enough to base a rating on. To the contrary I would not take a critic too serious who would claim, his rating to be on some absolute scale.
This is your definition of a rating, Ebert has a different one:
Or he just has a different taste than you.
Methinks you value your own point of view a little bit too high.
You simply didn't look carefully enough. "Washington Post": And even though "Revenge" is a better experience than "Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones," it doesn't add anything that satisfying or compelling to the big picture. If anything, it takes things away.
"London Times": In fact, the Force may be strong in this one [Anakin], but unfortunately his light sabre seems to be burning at a particularly low wattage., 2 out of 5 stars. The "Independent" was already mentioned by somebody else.
This is not a review, just ranting.
So, if somebody has a different opinion than you about something, it means he is lying...
One of the critics in favour of this film, the well known internet critic James Berardinelli, gives it 3.5 of 4 stars. He is not doing his reviews for a living and he never had problems giving a popular movie a bad rating. Still he is quite fond of the movie, although he sees clearly the weaknesses of this film, he just weighs them differently from you or others giving it a thumbs down. So it might be that your "theory" needs some refinement.
In German there is a word for this kind of behaviour: "Schweinezyklus" (pig cycle): Pigs are going well on the market, so more farmers invest in pigs. After some time, there is a surplus in pigs, so prices drop, farmers withdraw from piggery. In consequence the supply drops until the prices go up to a new high and the cycle starts anew.