Yeah, but unlike M$, there's usually a command-line invocation waiting for those of us who view the keyboard as a valid interface. I've seen quite a number of programs written for M$ Windows which won't run from a command-line . . . period - even when the Windows desktop is up and running (not necessarily M$'s fault - mostly, it's junk from lazy third-party programmers).
Yes, there are *NIX programs which require an X-terminal - GIMP, for example. GIMP is actually an acronym for what the program does, so should the desktop icon for it be named "Graphic Image Manipulation Program" (or whatever GIMP stands for)? I think I'll stick with "GIMP".
were my primary thoughts, but you're right - the big performance boost comes in when an application can more efficiently manage memory (see: prefetch).
I'm putting that pretty poorly, but I know that running a 32-bit OS means that both the OS and applications running under it limits me to 32-bit (and some pseudo 64-bit) style operations. Even if an app is compiled for x_64, it will suffer under a 32-bit wide OS.
Ahhh . . . to hell with it. I'm firing up my old PC-XT. As some IBM exec once said, 640K should be enough for anybody.
I don't think the x_64 architecture was created overnight by Intelligent Design - rather, AMD and INTEL have been working for years on an intelligent design for x_64 hardware.;^D That said, my complaint is with Dell for trundling a 32-bit OS with a 64-bit piece of hardware.
But to answer your comment re: complaint. It's been a long time coming - the time when x_86 would have 64-bit wide implementation, to match SPARC, POWER and PA-RISC (to name a few).
Why is Microsoft the last to catch up? AND . . . if the hardware is now running with a 64-bit bus and architecture, wouldn't it behoove hardware manufacturers to trundle up a software package appropriate to the hardware? Or does M$ have such a stranglehold on <insert hardware manufacturer name here> that they have no choice but to trundle up an inappropriate OS/Software mix? This is sort of like giving away a free tank of gasoline with the purchase of an all electric car, because the auto dealer has an agreement with the petroleum company to push their brand of gasoline.
It'd make my eyes really twinkle if I didn't have to pony up an extra c-note just to remove the preinstalled OS.
If I want Windows (which I might), I'll purchase a Genuine Windows CD; uh, that is, when they get the x_64 version working. It's in Microsoft Beta - that is, what the rest of us would call Alpha. SuSE 10.0 did a better job of recognizing my hardware right "out of the box", while the XP x_64 not only missed two cards, but refused to install the vendor-supplied (32-bit) drivers for the cards.
So, just for my sins, I now have an AMD x_64 machine running a 64-bit aware OS with application code compiled to take advantage of x_64 architecture. This begs the question - why does <insert hardware vendor name> trundle a 32-bit OS with 64-bit hardware?
they'll be able to come in the middle of the night and take you away (since your computer is able to be connected to foreign computers via the internet and it's possible you might have the DeCSS code on your machine and you might have dated a person with left-leaning tendencies when you were in high school). Of course, they'll have to rigorously check all the MP3's, JPEG's and MPEG's on your computer, since you might have employed steganography to hide messages. If they don't find the evidence on your computer, well, that just means you've hidden it pretty well, eh? Besides, it's just as well that the government looked there, 'cuz the [RI|MP]AA desserves to know what you have on your computer as well.
I see dozens of identical posts - some modded up, some left alone, a few even modded down once.
I have never seen this post modded down this hard - and in this particular case, it was neither flamebait nor offtopic, nor even a troll. Somebody's got it in for me, or what?
Slashdot's moderation system would seem to be in need of overhaul. I'm beginning to get paranoid . . .
Let's face it - Mozilla Thunderbird, various spam-unfriendly configs for sendmail, procmail, etc., and a generally more informed populace have indeed slowed the growth of the spam industry.
SLOWED THE GROWTH. Not stopped. Not shrunk. Not tamed. Slowed the growth. On top of which, given the lack of serious enforcement of the CANN-SPAM act, one wonders if it actually contributed anything to this, or if the credit actually goes to the above mentioned technologies. OR, (as I think most likely), growth has slowed simply because the market has reached saturation.
"The operation was a complete success, as the autopsy will clearly demonstrate."
I've noticed that the majority of my posts which get modded up are very shortly modded down as "troll" or "flamebait". This is new in my experience (and I've been/.'ing for a while). Is somebody systematically watching my post, or am I just so close to the center that being modded both up and down is inevitable? Or did the President of Iran do the modding?
No, in fact it's not abuse. If the parents in your hypothetical situation truly believe prayer to be more effective or more acceptable, it would be abuse for them to not put that belief in practice. I agree that (IMHO) they will have increased the danger to their young, rather than the opposite, but they will have acted in good faith to do the best they can.
Would you ask them to voluntarily choose a course of action which is not in the best interest of their child? Remember, they must base their judgement on their value set, not yours.
The point I was trying to make is that our children, when exposed to our beliefs, were made aware that these were our beliefs, not facts subject to confirmation nor absolute truths to be accepted blindly.
And, no we didn't expose them to Hindu, Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Yes, this biased the likelihood of their ending up with a predictable belief set. Yes, this bias resulted from our own beliefs. I still assert that it would have been abuse to actively hide our beliefs from our children. We didn't knowingly teach them anything wrong, and we tried to be as objective as possible when dealing with matters of beief and faith.
My wife is Catholic; I'm a non-practicing agnostic Jew, if that's possible.
We both permit and support the education our children receive in our area's public school system. IMHO, they're doing a pretty fair job.
We both teach our children what we believe. Our children know that we're speaking about our beliefs, even when we speak of them as facts.
We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs. They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).
If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?
Having worked for a company involved in the monitoring and control of power networks, I can tell you that (except for the final run from substation to residential consumer) most of the power networks in the USA are sufficiently robust to reroute around any given single point of failure.
Not as robust as the internet, which can handle many hundreds (thousands?) of individual failures before collapse, but sufficient to handle the SPOF's which the power companies tend to encounter.
Basically an outgrowth of those same "use your house's wiring to control appliances/install an intercom/etc." articles we used to see in "Popular Electronics."
TCP/IP is a fault-tolerant communications protocol, designed by DARPA to provide robust, highly reliable communications between disparate computing platforms. One of the requirements of the protocol was always that the network should be resilient enough to automatically route around failed nodes (think: server down). When a node goes down, packets are rerouted via whatever alternate path is online.
Just seeing packets with a high hop-count would be a clue that something was wrong with the network - and that's just the absolute simplest example I can think of. A power network monitored by snmp? Sounds pretty robust to me.
Just an example; when Iraq was invaded, an attempt was made to disable all command and communication structures. This effort was not completely successful, as it proved impossible to disable all TCP/IP network connectivity - the network kept re-routing around damaged nodes, continuing to provide communication between those nodes which were still up. Our own military, partially foiled by technology they themselves helped to create! Would that qualify as 'ironic'?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are *NIX programs which require an X-terminal - GIMP, for example. GIMP is actually an acronym for what the program does, so should the desktop icon for it be named "Graphic Image Manipulation Program" (or whatever GIMP stands for)? I think I'll stick with "GIMP".
ls, rm, df, du, etc . . . did any of the engineers at Bell Labs type 10-fingered?
I'm putting that pretty poorly, but I know that running a 32-bit OS means that both the OS and applications running under it limits me to 32-bit (and some pseudo 64-bit) style operations. Even if an app is compiled for x_64, it will suffer under a 32-bit wide OS.
Ahhh . . . to hell with it. I'm firing up my old PC-XT. As some IBM exec once said, 640K should be enough for anybody.
But to answer your comment re: complaint. It's been a long time coming - the time when x_86 would have 64-bit wide implementation, to match SPARC, POWER and PA-RISC (to name a few).
Why is Microsoft the last to catch up? AND . . . if the hardware is now running with a 64-bit bus and architecture, wouldn't it behoove hardware manufacturers to trundle up a software package appropriate to the hardware? Or does M$ have such a stranglehold on <insert hardware manufacturer name here> that they have no choice but to trundle up an inappropriate OS/Software mix? This is sort of like giving away a free tank of gasoline with the purchase of an all electric car, because the auto dealer has an agreement with the petroleum company to push their brand of gasoline.
If I want Windows (which I might), I'll purchase a Genuine Windows CD; uh, that is, when they get the x_64 version working. It's in Microsoft Beta - that is, what the rest of us would call Alpha. SuSE 10.0 did a better job of recognizing my hardware right "out of the box", while the XP x_64 not only missed two cards, but refused to install the vendor-supplied (32-bit) drivers for the cards.
So, just for my sins, I now have an AMD x_64 machine running a 64-bit aware OS with application code compiled to take advantage of x_64 architecture. This begs the question - why does <insert hardware vendor name> trundle a 32-bit OS with 64-bit hardware?
Send it in.
For right now, it's not dead.
Senator McCarthy would be proud!
I have never seen this post modded down this hard - and in this particular case, it was neither flamebait nor offtopic, nor even a troll. Somebody's got it in for me, or what?
Slashdot's moderation system would seem to be in need of overhaul. I'm beginning to get paranoid . . .
I for one welcome our new internet-regulating overlords!
SLOWED THE GROWTH. Not stopped. Not shrunk. Not tamed. Slowed the growth. On top of which, given the lack of serious enforcement of the CANN-SPAM act, one wonders if it actually contributed anything to this, or if the credit actually goes to the above mentioned technologies. OR, (as I think most likely), growth has slowed simply because the market has reached saturation.
"The operation was a complete success, as the autopsy will clearly demonstrate."
Good Catholic: Any form of birth control is a sin (sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin).
I've noticed that the majority of my posts which get modded up are very shortly modded down as "troll" or "flamebait". This is new in my experience (and I've been /.'ing for a while). Is somebody systematically watching my post, or am I just so close to the center that being modded both up and down is inevitable? Or did the President of Iran do the modding?
Would you ask them to voluntarily choose a course of action which is not in the best interest of their child? Remember, they must base their judgement on their value set, not yours.
Define 'stable'.
You've never done it with a Catholic, have you?
Please don't make me use the <sarcasm> tags.
Mostly the same thing as athiests, except we look over our shoulders a lot more!
And, no we didn't expose them to Hindu, Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Yes, this biased the likelihood of their ending up with a predictable belief set. Yes, this bias resulted from our own beliefs. I still assert that it would have been abuse to actively hide our beliefs from our children. We didn't knowingly teach them anything wrong, and we tried to be as objective as possible when dealing with matters of beief and faith.
Of course, we all saw how he spent the last eleven years of his life.
We both permit and support the education our children receive in our area's public school system. IMHO, they're doing a pretty fair job.
We both teach our children what we believe. Our children know that we're speaking about our beliefs, even when we speak of them as facts.
We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs. They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).
If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?
Not as robust as the internet, which can handle many hundreds (thousands?) of individual failures before collapse, but sufficient to handle the SPOF's which the power companies tend to encounter.
As long as 50% of it is altar boys!
Basically an outgrowth of those same "use your house's wiring to control appliances/install an intercom/etc." articles we used to see in "Popular Electronics."
Just seeing packets with a high hop-count would be a clue that something was wrong with the network - and that's just the absolute simplest example I can think of. A power network monitored by snmp? Sounds pretty robust to me.
Just an example; when Iraq was invaded, an attempt was made to disable all command and communication structures. This effort was not completely successful, as it proved impossible to disable all TCP/IP network connectivity - the network kept re-routing around damaged nodes, continuing to provide communication between those nodes which were still up. Our own military, partially foiled by technology they themselves helped to create! Would that qualify as 'ironic'?