Amazon is more restrictive in what you can read, it's either only the front and back of the book plus table of content, if you want to remain anonymous. For searching and displaying results from inside the books you need to be logged in from an account for which at least one purchase was made in the past.
With google you have a page limit (per day perhaps).
Have you tried google print? They allow you to search through the *content* of the book and display a few pages of context.
Now it is trivially hackable (just search for a common word that will be on most pages), and so you can read the whole book for free, or at least you could last time I tried.
That's why the plaintiff are not happy. On the other hand if Google does not offer this service they are just another Amazone.
Come on, the scanning effort is not even comparable. First of all the content of public web sites is generally freely available to all. This is the point of the web. Google only provides a free indexing service to all that content.
Further, web sites are usually happy to be searchable through Google, because their goal is to be visible and read, however if you put a web site up, you can opt out of Google searching your site with a simple robot.txt file.
Now if you have a book published, it is usually NOT freely available, the author/publisher is usually NOT willing to divulge the content without compensation, and there is no obvious way to opt out of Google's scanning program.
People who wish Microsoft would be "going away" usually don't believe it will simply vanish, but simply that eventually it will stop behaving like it owns the entire IT industry.
That is all. Speaking for myself, MS can stay alive and productive and profitable for as long as they want, all power to them, I just want them to behave sensibly. It is high time they start doing so for their own good.
The flurry of relatively recent news about Microsoft somewhat losing its ways, essentially since the monopolist conviction makes me believe that over a period of time Microsoft will come down to Earth.
You mean like employees should be allowed to disclose, like, ehm, trade secrets? Or pseudo-divulge fake information from within the company? That would do wonders, right?
There are already laws in place to protect employees who divulge real, verifiable information about a company who is conducting illegal business (think Enron). Those should probably be reinforced a bit to keep companies honest and on their toes, but there is no way corporate America will accept some general protection for employees who blabber about anything and everything.
In this case however, mini-Microsoft is interesting to read, if only to dispell the myth that Microsoft is such a great employee (free food & drinks!) and fun place to work. In effect it sounds like any large organisation who doesn't really know what to do next. Even then, I'm sure he doesn't have a complete view of the organisation.
My own personal opinion on this is that as soon as the tech to make humans really obsolete becomes available, we'll have a world revolution, war, and a return to the middle ages. Maybe because I'm an optimist;-)
Anyway it's SF at this point. There hasn't been much breakthrough in AI for ages (incremental and constant improvements, to be sure, but along the same lines, none of which give much of a handle on "intelligence")
Movie theaters are cheap places to go out to when you are a teenager with little disposable income, and you don't want to spend your evening at your parent's place, even if they are not there.
Home theatres don't change these points very much.
From what you write I'd say the teacher was probably pretty strange.
You'd only reasonably get 0 on that question if a large majority in the class got all the way to the atan answer. BTW IAAUP (university prof, applied maths).
Sorry to hear you got turned away from calc because of that teacher.
So you don't have to remember the form of the integral but you do have to remember how to do a variable substitution in an integral, though, as well as some classical tricks.
Except that Apple did *not* sue for Windows 1.0, because this version had non-overlapping windows, precisely as the Apple-Microsoft GUI agreement said.
Apple sued for Windows 2.0, which did have overlapping windows, and had broadly similar look-and-feel as the Macintosh GUI.
BTW Apple threw away lots of creds for this stupid move and haven't quite recovered. It should be a lesson for all, no matter what your behaviour later on, one really stupid & evil move does stick, and for a long time, as this thread proves.
> c) it never fucking ends. You can be president of > the school and a nobel prize winner and so > important that they've decided to make you the > first human cloned, and your grant STILL only has > a 10-18% chance of being funded.
this is good! Grants should be awarded on merit and not on who they are for.
Personnally I don't mind your compiling of your own software on your own machine, but what you say makes little sense.
> a lot of Linux distro don't offer 64-bit binaries > (as of yet), but in a source based distro this is > a non issue. Zealot my ass.
The parent was specifically mentionning choosing a distribution that does support x86_64.
Of course it is a huge issue even for Gentoo to make sure all the packages on offer are 64-bit clean at the source level. There are plenty of ways for a C/C++ application to not behave properly in a 64-bit environment (assumings ints are the same size as pointers for example).
In other words, yes 64-bit is an issue even for source-based distros.
You like to compile and run the greatest, latest and untested in exchange for a 10% boost in performance, good for you, you are doing the community a service.
Personally I like to change my O/S and its components as little as possible (at least not until I can see a marked gain in functionality), and when I do I like everything to still work like before. I also have a fundamental objection to redoing the compiling work (which does cost electricity, genereates heat, wear and tear, etc) over and over again for very little reason. OK for some packages I really need, never for Gnome/KDE or even the kernel if I can help it.
A bit less stress is good for your health too, you know.
Why is it that after we've invented all these wonderful robots and computers and whatnot to supposedly make one's life easier we have to work and work and work harder and harder.
> Microkernels are an inevitable future. They have > so many advantages for developers and users, and > their only real downside is speed.
I've seen this line of reasoning outlined for the last 15 years or so.
The fact is speed still matters and will likely continue to matter, and microkernels still aren't the majority. Purists even dispute that OS/X runs a microkernel...
Re:Waiting for apps isn't annoying, focus stealing
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hello?
> To that I can add Windows, which hasn't done that > since XP was released.
Then you are not using the same Windows XP as I. To Hell it does!
Under XP you can even be in a nice fullscreen 3D game trying to CTF, save the princess or sink that boat and at the worst possible moment you will be yanked out to the desktop because Norton Antivirus desperately wants to let you know your subscription is expiring in 2 weeks! Usually after that my game crashes and I'm not happy.
> Mathematicians and physicists are con-artists > with a brain. Those with scruples and a > conscious become engineers instead.
Really?
I thought engineers, especially EE engineers, found complex variable function theory, information theory, integral transforms and variational calculus quite useful, among others.
Noticed how often discrete mathematics are used by computer scientists?
Maybe you've heard that number theory is really quite useful to cryptographists and thereby to security engineers? Perhaps designing a secure hash is not so trivial, after all.
As for physicists I've heard, but maybe I'm wrong, that electron microscopy was useful. All this computer stuff reportedly comes out of applied research in quantum mechanics (you know, the transistor). Let's not forget this laser thing you keep hearing about in scifi movies, but perhaps also at your nearest supermarket checkout counter.
Recently a new MRI machine arrived at the nearby hospital. Surely this was the result of some BS research in physics, otherwise how can you explain that they cost so much?
This is all 20th/21st century research BTW.
When number theory was still somewhat new, in the mid 20th century, the great mathematician Hardy in "a mathematician's apology" made the remark that he was so very happy that his own research could never be used for anything practical. He would be the quintessential BS artist according to your definition.
He was to be proved wrong only a few years later during WWII when number and information theorists like Alan Turing broke the Enigma code.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge what you do not understand yet. What is at the forefront of maths and physics research today will be taught in high school in a 100 years from now.
Try opening lots of quiet applications. I have Mail, Finder, Firefox, Terminal, Emacs, Activity monitor, Preview and Nvu.
None of these apps are doing anything special. Flash, animated GIFs and PNGs and Java are disabled in Firefox, yet my average activity level is 15-20% with peaks at around 50%. Firefox is indeed the most active application because I'm typing in one of its tabs, but that's all.
Comparable activity under Linux with a comparable CPU is damn near absolutely zero. This is on an iBook. I tested this with Ubuntu.
This iBook heats up and the fan starts when I browse "too much". To get the same effect under Linux I have to be recompiling the kernel or something to the same effect.
Another effect is that in the situation described above (many apps open) no app can get anywhere near 100% CPU when they need it. 80% is the max, or thereabouts. Of course if you close all the idle apps then of course you can but this is not a good thing.
Conclusion: the OS/X scheduler could work better. I'd like it as well if I had some way to turn down the eye candy. I don't care about transparent windows! Let me use my CPU as I see fit!
Thanks for your good reply, however let me continue,
1- I'm not aware of the alternatives to CreateProcess -- Now I know they exist I can try and find out, nonetheless the cost of creating new processes under NT/2k/XP is well documented.
2- The email you refer to says explicitely that the MS stacks behave differently, but that he hasn't seen the code. The contention is that MS took the BSD stack and made some modifications. When they needed a good fast stack for win95 there is a widespread consensus that they took the BSD one that was readily and freely available. That they redid the work for 2k/XP would not be surprising.
At any rate they have a TCP/IP stack that is nothing special, and certainly they didn't invent either the concept or (early on) the implementation.
3- That a platform is widely available is a guarantee of quality only to a point. I know Stalin said that quantity was a quality by itself but I only agree up to a point.
The discussion however was about the kernel. Your own reply is evidence that the NT kernel is nothing special. It got where it is now because MS was dominant on the PC market way before the NT effort started.
In the early 90s MS hired a very capable bunch of engineers who reimplemented most of the features found in modern kernel at the time with very little innovation.
The codebase was OK and new, but it's a classic case of NIH syndrome.
The Windows platform is defensible, some people who have been around even like it, I'm not arguing that.
The parent was saying that the NT kernel was somehow superior because it was based on some concepts not available to the Unix world. This is patently false.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is more restrictive in what you can read, it's either only the front and back of the book plus table of content, if you want to remain anonymous. For searching and displaying results from inside the books you need to be logged in from an account for which at least one purchase was made in the past.
With google you have a page limit (per day perhaps).
Have you tried google print? They allow you to search through the *content* of the book and display a few pages of context.
Now it is trivially hackable (just search for a common word that will be on most pages), and so you can read the whole book for free, or at least you could last time I tried.
That's why the plaintiff are not happy. On the other hand if Google does not offer this service they are just another Amazone.
Come on, the scanning effort is not even comparable. First of all the content of public web sites is generally freely available to all. This is the point of the web. Google only provides a free indexing service to all that content.
Further, web sites are usually happy to be searchable through Google, because their goal is to be visible and read, however if you put a web site up, you can opt out of Google searching your site with a simple robot.txt file.
Now if you have a book published, it is usually NOT freely available, the author/publisher is usually NOT willing to divulge the content without compensation, and there is no obvious way to opt out of Google's scanning program.
This is a misunderstanding,
People who wish Microsoft would be "going away" usually don't believe it will simply vanish, but simply that eventually it will stop behaving like it owns the entire IT industry.
That is all. Speaking for myself, MS can stay alive and productive and profitable for as long as they want, all power to them, I just want them to behave sensibly. It is high time they start doing so for their own good.
The flurry of relatively recent news about Microsoft somewhat losing its ways, essentially since the monopolist conviction makes me believe that over a period of time Microsoft will come down to Earth.
You mean like employees should be allowed to disclose, like, ehm, trade secrets? Or pseudo-divulge fake information from within the company? That would do wonders, right?
There are already laws in place to protect employees who divulge real, verifiable information about a company who is conducting illegal business (think Enron). Those should probably be reinforced a bit to keep companies honest and on their toes, but there is no way corporate America will accept some general protection for employees who blabber about anything and everything.
In this case however, mini-Microsoft is interesting to read, if only to dispell the myth that Microsoft is such a great employee (free food & drinks!) and fun place to work. In effect it sounds like any large organisation who doesn't really know what to do next. Even then, I'm sure he doesn't have a complete view of the organisation.
My own personal opinion on this is that as soon as the tech to make humans really obsolete becomes available, we'll have a world revolution, war, and a return to the middle ages. Maybe because I'm an optimist ;-)
Anyway it's SF at this point. There hasn't been much breakthrough in AI for ages (incremental and constant improvements, to be sure, but along the same lines, none of which give much of a handle on "intelligence")
Look at the official Emacs FAQ.
Short answer, yes it does.
Movie theaters are cheap places to go out to when you are a teenager with little disposable income, and you don't want to spend your evening at your parent's place, even if they are not there.
Home theatres don't change these points very much.
EPM, the Easy Package Manager, is Free Software. The support (following best FSF practice) is for pay, $99 per year.
I've been using my own forked version of EPM (to allow users to install anywhere, when non-root) for years.
The reason it hasn't been updated in a long time is that it works very well.
From what you write I'd say the teacher was probably pretty strange.
You'd only reasonably get 0 on that question if a large majority in the class got all the way to the atan answer. BTW IAAUP (university prof, applied maths).
Sorry to hear you got turned away from calc because of that teacher.
Cheers.
Hi,
If you have some experience in solving integrals of that sort, the substution x = t is pretty standard.
In this case letting x = tan t is very productive. Working through the algebra one finds that (TeX notation)
Just remembering $\tan = \sin/\cos$ and $\cos^2 t + sin^2 t = 1$, on can work out the following:
We have $1/(1+x^2 = 1/(1+\tan^2 t = \cos^2 t$
Also $dx = 1/cos^2 t dt$, therefore
\[
\int_0^a \frac{1}{1+x^2} = \int_0^{\tan^{-1} a} 1 dt = \tan^{-1} a
\]
So you don't have to remember the form of the integral but you do have to remember how to do a variable substitution in an integral, though, as well as some classical tricks.
Except that Apple did *not* sue for Windows 1.0, because this version had non-overlapping windows, precisely as the Apple-Microsoft GUI agreement said.
Apple sued for Windows 2.0, which did have overlapping windows, and had broadly similar look-and-feel as the Macintosh GUI.
BTW Apple threw away lots of creds for this stupid move and haven't quite recovered. It should be a lesson for all, no matter what your behaviour later on, one really stupid & evil move does stick, and for a long time, as this thread proves.
Hi,
In fact, this:
> c) it never fucking ends. You can be president of
> the school and a nobel prize winner and so
> important that they've decided to make you the
> first human cloned, and your grant STILL only has
> a 10-18% chance of being funded.
this is good! Grants should be awarded on merit and not on who they are for.
Personnally I don't mind your compiling of your own software on your own machine, but what you say makes little sense.
> a lot of Linux distro don't offer 64-bit binaries
> (as of yet), but in a source based distro this is
> a non issue. Zealot my ass.
The parent was specifically mentionning choosing a distribution that does support x86_64.
Of course it is a huge issue even for Gentoo to make sure all the packages on offer are 64-bit clean at the source level. There are plenty of ways for a C/C++ application to not behave properly in a 64-bit environment (assumings ints are the same size as pointers for example).
In other words, yes 64-bit is an issue even for source-based distros.
You like to compile and run the greatest, latest and untested in exchange for a 10% boost in performance, good for you, you are doing the community a service.
Personally I like to change my O/S and its components as little as possible (at least not until I can see a marked gain in functionality), and when I do I like everything to still work like before. I also have a fundamental objection to redoing the compiling work (which does cost electricity, genereates heat, wear and tear, etc) over and over again for very little reason. OK for some packages I really need, never for Gnome/KDE or even the kernel if I can help it.
Each to their own.
A bit less stress is good for your health too, you know.
Why is it that after we've invented all these wonderful robots and computers and whatnot to supposedly make one's life easier we have to work and work and work harder and harder.
Where does it end? What for?
Thanks, this is very interesting information.
Best.
Hi,
> Microkernels are an inevitable future. They have
> so many advantages for developers and users, and
> their only real downside is speed.
I've seen this line of reasoning outlined for the last 15 years or so.
The fact is speed still matters and will likely continue to matter, and microkernels still aren't the majority. Purists even dispute that OS/X runs a microkernel...
Perfect!
This means non-HDCP monitors will be on sale soon (always look on the bright siiiide of life).
1day = 86400s * 0.001 = 86.4s i.e 1mn 24s.
'5 nines' would be 0.9s a day or roughly 5 minutes a year. You'll find that '5 nines' systems are in fact quite expensive.
Please check your math before attempting to lecture everybody.
Have you considered a job with Deutche Gramophon?
Hello?
> To that I can add Windows, which hasn't done that
> since XP was released.
Then you are not using the same Windows XP as I. To Hell it does!
Under XP you can even be in a nice fullscreen 3D game trying to CTF, save the princess or sink that boat and at the worst possible moment you will be yanked out to the desktop because Norton Antivirus desperately wants to let you know your subscription is expiring in 2 weeks! Usually after that my game crashes and I'm not happy.
This is unbelievably rude behaviour from the O/S!
Hiring your competitor's best employees is a time-honored Microsoft tactic. Look at Borland during the compiler wars.
You write:
> Mathematicians and physicists are con-artists
> with a brain. Those with scruples and a
> conscious become engineers instead.
Really?
I thought engineers, especially EE engineers, found complex variable function theory, information theory, integral transforms and variational calculus quite useful, among others.
Noticed how often discrete mathematics are used by computer scientists?
Maybe you've heard that number theory is really quite useful to cryptographists and thereby to security engineers? Perhaps designing a secure hash is not so trivial, after all.
As for physicists I've heard, but maybe I'm wrong, that electron microscopy was useful. All this computer stuff reportedly comes out of applied research in quantum mechanics (you know, the transistor). Let's not forget this laser thing you keep hearing about in scifi movies, but perhaps also at your nearest supermarket checkout counter.
Recently a new MRI machine arrived at the nearby hospital. Surely this was the result of some BS research in physics, otherwise how can you explain that they cost so much?
This is all 20th/21st century research BTW.
When number theory was still somewhat new, in the mid 20th century, the great mathematician Hardy in "a mathematician's apology" made the remark that he was so very happy that his own research could never be used for anything practical. He would be the quintessential BS artist according to your definition.
He was to be proved wrong only a few years later during WWII when number and information theorists like Alan Turing broke the Enigma code.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge what you do not understand yet. What is at the forefront of maths and physics research today will be taught in high school in a 100 years from now.
Try opening lots of quiet applications. I have Mail, Finder, Firefox, Terminal, Emacs, Activity monitor, Preview and Nvu.
None of these apps are doing anything special. Flash, animated GIFs and PNGs and Java are disabled in Firefox, yet my average activity level is 15-20% with peaks at around 50%. Firefox is indeed the most active application because I'm typing in one of its tabs, but that's all.
Comparable activity under Linux with a comparable CPU is damn near absolutely zero. This is on an iBook. I tested this with Ubuntu.
This iBook heats up and the fan starts when I browse "too much". To get the same effect under Linux I have to be recompiling the kernel or something to the same effect.
Another effect is that in the situation described above (many apps open) no app can get anywhere near 100% CPU when they need it. 80% is the max, or thereabouts. Of course if you close all the idle apps then of course you can but this is not a good thing.
Conclusion: the OS/X scheduler could work better. I'd like it as well if I had some way to turn down the eye candy. I don't care about transparent windows! Let me use my CPU as I see fit!
Thanks for your good reply, however let me continue,
1- I'm not aware of the alternatives to CreateProcess -- Now I know they exist I can try and find out, nonetheless the cost of creating new processes under NT/2k/XP is well documented.
2- The email you refer to says explicitely that the MS stacks behave differently, but that he hasn't seen the code. The contention is that MS took the BSD stack and made some modifications. When they needed a good fast stack for win95 there is a widespread consensus that they took the BSD one that was readily and freely available. That they redid the work for 2k/XP would not be surprising.
At any rate they have a TCP/IP stack that is nothing special, and certainly they didn't invent either the concept or (early on) the implementation.
3- That a platform is widely available is a guarantee of quality only to a point. I know Stalin said that quantity was a quality by itself but I only agree up to a point.
The discussion however was about the kernel. Your own reply is evidence that the NT kernel is nothing special. It got where it is now because MS was dominant on the PC market way before the NT effort started.
In the early 90s MS hired a very capable bunch of engineers who reimplemented most of the features found in modern kernel at the time with very little innovation.
The codebase was OK and new, but it's a classic case of NIH syndrome.
The Windows platform is defensible, some people who have been around even like it, I'm not arguing that.
The parent was saying that the NT kernel was somehow superior because it was based on some concepts not available to the Unix world. This is patently false.