It's not exactly a mystery. You tend to mimic the lifestyle of your parents, and they mimic the lifestyle of their parents and so on.
Or: you tend to inherit intelligence from your parents, and they inherited intelligence from their parents, and so on.
So if your parents placed a high priority on schooling, learning, education etc then you are likely to pass that lifestyle onto your kids.
Or: if your parents were intelligent, then you are likely to pass intelligence onto your kids.
And vice-versa. My parents were big on school so I was very limited in my TV/video game time. I had to read a novel each night for an hour and my homework was priority #1 after school. My sister struggled and they got her a tutor.
And some people will do just fine while spending significantly less time on schoolwork than others. I probably spent less than an hour a week doing homework/reading for high school.
Race or any other 'trait' has nothing at all to do with it other than historically. The "such and such race is inherently smarter than such and such other race" argument is nonsense, and horrendously hard to test because family and societal factors creep into your study if you are looking at a large enough study group (ie - student performance across a state or country).
It makes people feel better to believe this is nonsense, but there is evidence that certain races do have different abilities. It is a result of evolution.
If my friends and I beat up the top 10 female students in the country, does winning the fight mean we're a smarter group than them? Or does it mean we know more about winning a fight than they do?
Bad analogy.
If group A develops advanced machinery, weaponry, infrastructure, a system of writing, etc., and group B does not develop anything, does that make group A smarter?
Many of us used the internet back in 1995, even 1990, without complaint.
Surfed the internet of 1995 or of 1990 on contemporary systems.
My computer from 1995 was hardly suitable in 1999 to use the Internet of 1999 without avoiding Flash, JavaScript, images, etc. And since then, many web pages have become significantly more complex.
Sure, it takes longer to render a 2009-vintage slashdot page on a 486 than it took to render a 1999-vintage page, but if it's the difference between slow and nothing, slow is ok.
It means "significantly reduced Internet experience" or "nothing". Or "spend a little money to get something slow but otherwise usable".
Because the current versions of multithreading are in flux, and preset skills are great, but may be worthless in tomorrow's environment.
Grand Central Dispatch is an abstraction that makes threading easier for many tasks. It does not replace every possible use of POSIX or Win32 threads.
Issues of synchronization when sharing resources between threads do not go away, regardless of the implementation or abstraction. Note how synchronization and threading are concepts, not implementations of a concept.
Because 'modern' processors and their features come and go, but algorithms and proper methods don't. Because a programmer who knows why O(1) is better than O(log(n)) is better than O(n) is worth the effort to find.
And why would a programmer of a 386 be uniquely qualified to know about algorithms? Because they used a slower computer in the past? Why hire someone with knowledge of a 386 when you can hire someone who understands the concepts of efficient algorithms?
We're in an odd age where people are proud of the fact that they've never heard of Communications of the ACM. It's a shame.
The ACM and its magazine are not as relevant today.
You don't hire people for their short term worth, implying that you intend to discard them like wet tissues when they prove inadequate to adapt, do you?
If someone can't adapt to new things, they're in the wrong industry.
Tell you what, why don't you go to a car enthusiast forum and ask them why they waste their time trying to get ancient cars working instead of learning modern car mechanics?
To steal a phrase, we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard - because the struggle to climb this mountain teaches us more than the view from the summit does. And when we climb down this mountain we know things that enable us to go further and faster than anyone who hasn't been where we've been and done what we've done. We have learned how to do well with little, the value of a microsecond, the value of doing things the right way rather than the easy or convenient way.
Or you insist in the superiority of doing things in what you call the "right" ways, while the rest of the world does things the easy and convenient way...
But if you want to get the most out of that platform get your code from the guy who earned his stripes on a '386 and then school him up on multithreading.
Why hire someone with knowledge of a nearly obsolete ISA and no experience in multithreading, when you can just get someone with experience in threading and use an optimizing compiler? Or hire someone with relevant experience with modern CPUs?
Thanks, but as a longtime speaker of English I have heard this word before. Being aware of this word does not explain why some seem to enjoy using extremely old hardware despite the existence of widely and cheaply available systems that are capable of doing many more things. It seems that a more capable system would provide more opportunities for pleasure or relaxation.
The only modern-day task that a 486 machine can still perform acceptably is IP routing. Most people still have "slow" (by networking standards) DSL or cable connections. An old machine is perfectly capable of handling such speeds.
Maybe. But the cheap routers with a 200 MHz MIPS CPU can struggle with certain usage on residential broadband connections. And I'd expect there to be more overhead involved in just pushing frames around on a 486.
Because some people think its fun. And that they can learn things from it. Some people think learning is fun.
They could also mess around with (relatively) modern systems and learn new things. Is funness inversely proportional to clock speed or something?
In the past, I've used an old 386 laptop to run my own bootloader that would go in protected mode... that was 10 years ago though, and I didnt have a job or a family...
10 years ago I started using Linux. It was fun. And those skills are still relevant today.
This concept did not escape me. But messing around with old hardware means you're not messing around with modern stuff. It's not like there's a shortage of open source software available on the Internet, or a shortage of cheap and significantly faster hardware.
When I mess around with computer stuff, I prefer to mess around with things that didn't become obsolete 10 years ago. I like learn things that could be useful in the future.
Why would someone want to spend his free time making use of extremely old and obsolete hardware when much newer hardware is cheaply available and there are useful and relevant things that can be done with modern software on newer hardware?
That only applies if he is using time that he would have otherwise been using to make money. If he's taking time that would otherwise have been spent doing something frivolous (gaming, watching TV, napping), his time is worthless (in the monetary sense).
But frivolous activities and trying to make use of obsolete systems are not the only choices. Time could be spent messing with modern software on modern hardware instead - perhaps learning something that might be useful in the future.
I've used an Atom N270 netbook for the past six months, and it's hardly slow as molasses.
I've read that the NetWalker takes 37 seconds to load OpenOffice... I've never counted how long it takes to load an Office 2007 application on my Atom netbook, but it's certainly less than 10 seconds. It's able to decode 480p H.264 video streams using only the CPU, and I've been able to play some 720p H.264 streams as well.
And yes, we'll see those devices a long time before Intel comes even close.
I have yet to see any substantial comparison between an actual ARM-based netbook and an Atom-based one. Not even a prototype. I have yet to see any evidence showing that an ARM CPU can compete with an Atom N270 performance-wise.
With ARM breeching the 1GHz mark and fully capable 3d acceleration, they're at least on par with an Intel chipseted Atom
Or so ARM claims. Have you seen an ARM-based system that is comparable to the 945GSE + N270? Will Intel have anything better than the N270 by the time comparable ARM systems are mass produced, if ARM-based systems are as great as some claim?
Not true. Vista had lousy driver support (and lousy drivers) in the first year or two, because of the huge WDDM update; nVidia took a huge blasting for buggy GPU drivers for about a year and a half (especially since the GeForce 8 was a huge update...note that Geforce 1 through 7 has a mostly unified driver set, and 8-9-GT has a completely different driver).
To be fair, nVidia was the worst. I used Vista with Intel GPUs during that first year, and didn't have any too many graphics problems (other than those related to my docking station; no crashes, however)
Keep in mind that the SBS version of windows server comes with Sharepoint. We have about 300 clients with SBS servers and 2 of them use sharepoint.If MS is counting all those, it's GOT to be a MUCH smaller number than they claim.
Windows SharePoint Services is installed with SBS, but WSS is actually "free" (as in it costs nothing extra to use on a properly licensed Windows Server.) I doubt these numbers include SBS client access licenses.
You're still talking about additional server licensing and administration.
Big companies have big IT departments to do these things.
Which means that nobody is developing for it. Whenever you have a product that is only sold to enterprises rather than to the wider world it is very, very difficult for external developers to learn it and for software vendors to provide all the useful add-ons that really provide killer support for it and actually make it useful.
There's enough of a market for third-party addons that developers pay to promote their software via opt-in email marketing. I know this because I receive such emails.
A lot of SharePoint development might be internal.
Alas, there is nothing to support that. The wider world can't get access to Sharepoint so they're not coming into large organisations having already known about and learned Sharepoint.
There are lots of big companies actually using SharePoint. And there are lots of products that only really get used in large organizations. Think of SAP, IBM mainframes, Lotus Notes/Domino, etc. These products are less accessible than nearly all Microsoft or Oracle products.
As far as using SharePoint - trial versions are available to download from Microsoft for free, as are trial versions of Microsoft's server operating systems. There's also a freely downloadable pre-configured virtual machine. The core of SharePoint (WSS) is licensed as part of Windows Server. The full-featured version (MOSS) is available to TechNet and MSDN subscribers for evaluation/development use.
That's why companies like BEA found life pretty difficult, because there was a lot of people at college and university using PHP or something that just don't learn their stuff.
And yet PHP and MySQL haven't taken over the corporate world...
The last I looked at it you *have* to run it as a default site, so that means you need yet another server and it's part of the panopoly of ridiculous deployment shite coming from the MSDN lunatics at the company that you can use to blow your foot off with.
Large organizations that use SharePoint probably already have a large virtual machine farm, and would have used separate VMs in any case.
Because it only seems to be sold to 'enterprises' that means that the wider world isn't using it at all and many software developers won't be writing for it either.
People are definitely developing for SharePoint. Most development is oriented for enterprise use, however.
As a result it has no mindshare whatsoever. I was always suspicious that there was any kind of real momentum behind it.
SharePoint has mindshare within large organizations.
We all know (don't we?) that web metrics are inflated by mostly everybody (hits and unique visitors counting search engines as real users,.NET tags added to user agent just because you used windows update to update your computer, etc. etc.)
Irrelevant. SharePoint isn't an end-user application; it's a web-based application, and is mostly implemented on intranets. The number of SharePoint users can't be measured by web metrics. SharePoint is occasionally used on internet-facing sites, but it is licensed differently.
Microsoft is claiming they have sold some amount of SharePoint client licenses and therefore have that many SharePoint users; the argument is the number of actual users is significantly smaller than the number of sold licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible to have a single Windows executable with both x86-64 and i386 code?
Bullshit.
I'd criticize the Western lifestyle too if I didn't get to live it and if it resulted in problems in my society (such as alcohol or substance abuse).
I don't think that. But instead of guessing arbitrarily I do research.
Performances on IQ tests, the SAT/ACT, etc. are positively correlated with income.
Or: you tend to inherit intelligence from your parents, and they inherited intelligence from their parents, and so on.
Or: if your parents were intelligent, then you are likely to pass intelligence onto your kids.
And some people will do just fine while spending significantly less time on schoolwork than others. I probably spent less than an hour a week doing homework/reading for high school.
It makes people feel better to believe this is nonsense, but there is evidence that certain races do have different abilities. It is a result of evolution.
Bad analogy.
If group A develops advanced machinery, weaponry, infrastructure, a system of writing, etc., and group B does not develop anything, does that make group A smarter?
Surfed the internet of 1995 or of 1990 on contemporary systems.
My computer from 1995 was hardly suitable in 1999 to use the Internet of 1999 without avoiding Flash, JavaScript, images, etc. And since then, many web pages have become significantly more complex.
It means "significantly reduced Internet experience" or "nothing". Or "spend a little money to get something slow but otherwise usable".
Grand Central Dispatch is an abstraction that makes threading easier for many tasks. It does not replace every possible use of POSIX or Win32 threads.
Issues of synchronization when sharing resources between threads do not go away, regardless of the implementation or abstraction. Note how synchronization and threading are concepts, not implementations of a concept.
And why would a programmer of a 386 be uniquely qualified to know about algorithms? Because they used a slower computer in the past? Why hire someone with knowledge of a 386 when you can hire someone who understands the concepts of efficient algorithms?
The ACM and its magazine are not as relevant today.
If someone can't adapt to new things, they're in the wrong industry.
Cars are not like computers.
Or you insist in the superiority of doing things in what you call the "right" ways, while the rest of the world does things the easy and convenient way...
Why hire someone with knowledge of a nearly obsolete ISA and no experience in multithreading, when you can just get someone with experience in threading and use an optimizing compiler? Or hire someone with relevant experience with modern CPUs?
Thanks, but as a longtime speaker of English I have heard this word before. Being aware of this word does not explain why some seem to enjoy using extremely old hardware despite the existence of widely and cheaply available systems that are capable of doing many more things. It seems that a more capable system would provide more opportunities for pleasure or relaxation.
Maybe.
But the cheap routers with a 200 MHz MIPS CPU can struggle with certain usage on residential broadband connections. And I'd expect there to be more overhead involved in just pushing frames around on a 486.
They could also mess around with (relatively) modern systems and learn new things. Is funness inversely proportional to clock speed or something?
10 years ago I started using Linux. It was fun. And those skills are still relevant today.
This concept did not escape me. But messing around with old hardware means you're not messing around with modern stuff. It's not like there's a shortage of open source software available on the Internet, or a shortage of cheap and significantly faster hardware.
When I mess around with computer stuff, I prefer to mess around with things that didn't become obsolete 10 years ago. I like learn things that could be useful in the future.
Why would someone want to spend his free time making use of extremely old and obsolete hardware when much newer hardware is cheaply available and there are useful and relevant things that can be done with modern software on newer hardware?
Is there some attraction to using old / obsolete hardware to do this kind of stuff?
Time could be much better spent messing around with more useful/modern hardware and software.
But frivolous activities and trying to make use of obsolete systems are not the only choices. Time could be spent messing with modern software on modern hardware instead - perhaps learning something that might be useful in the future.
I've used an Atom N270 netbook for the past six months, and it's hardly slow as molasses.
I've read that the NetWalker takes 37 seconds to load OpenOffice... I've never counted how long it takes to load an Office 2007 application on my Atom netbook, but it's certainly less than 10 seconds. It's able to decode 480p H.264 video streams using only the CPU, and I've been able to play some 720p H.264 streams as well.
I have yet to see any substantial comparison between an actual ARM-based netbook and an Atom-based one. Not even a prototype. I have yet to see any evidence showing that an ARM CPU can compete with an Atom N270 performance-wise.
Or so ARM claims. Have you seen an ARM-based system that is comparable to the 945GSE + N270? Will Intel have anything better than the N270 by the time comparable ARM systems are mass produced, if ARM-based systems are as great as some claim?
To be fair, nVidia was the worst. I used Vista with Intel GPUs during that first year, and didn't have any too many graphics problems (other than those related to my docking station; no crashes, however)
Thanks for breaking it down. Too bad Apple had to stop HAMMER time.
Windows SharePoint Services is installed with SBS, but WSS is actually "free" (as in it costs nothing extra to use on a properly licensed Windows Server.) I doubt these numbers include SBS client access licenses.
Big companies have big IT departments to do these things.
There's enough of a market for third-party addons that developers pay to promote their software via opt-in email marketing. I know this because I receive such emails.
A lot of SharePoint development might be internal.
There are lots of big companies actually using SharePoint. And there are lots of products that only really get used in large organizations. Think of SAP, IBM mainframes, Lotus Notes/Domino, etc. These products are less accessible than nearly all Microsoft or Oracle products.
As far as using SharePoint - trial versions are available to download from Microsoft for free, as are trial versions of Microsoft's server operating systems. There's also a freely downloadable pre-configured virtual machine. The core of SharePoint (WSS) is licensed as part of Windows Server. The full-featured version (MOSS) is available to TechNet and MSDN subscribers for evaluation/development use.
And yet PHP and MySQL haven't taken over the corporate world...
Large organizations that use SharePoint probably already have a large virtual machine farm, and would have used separate VMs in any case.
People are definitely developing for SharePoint. Most development is oriented for enterprise use, however.
SharePoint has mindshare within large organizations.
Irrelevant. SharePoint isn't an end-user application; it's a web-based application, and is mostly implemented on intranets. The number of SharePoint users can't be measured by web metrics. SharePoint is occasionally used on internet-facing sites, but it is licensed differently.
Microsoft is claiming they have sold some amount of SharePoint client licenses and therefore have that many SharePoint users; the argument is the number of actual users is significantly smaller than the number of sold licenses.