"DRC's flagship product is the DRC Coprocessor Module that plugs directly into an open processor socket in a multi-way Opteron system," the company notes on its web site.
If you have an open Opteron socket on your multi-way box, wouldn't you probably achieve better performance by shoving another Opteron into there?
I mean, sure, I can see the benefit of having a co-processor customized to handle your specific workload. But another Opteron would likely run at multiples of the clockspeed of that thing, and it would also be able to offload work from the *othewr* Opterons, such as disk I/O etc, giving your overall application more performance.
Sperating code from data is a good thing. But having the data loaded from an XML file and inlined in the page would be the exact same as this example, avoid the complexities of AJAX, and actually be more performant, because you would get all the information in one request rether than two.
Your comparison is like apples and oranges. The reason AJAX is good for Google Maps is because it allows you to interact with the map in real time. There is no need to interact with a slideshow in real time, other than to pause / rewind/ fast-forward it, none of which would involve trips to the server anyways.
I pay per-kilobyte charges for network traffic. Social networking just isn't important enough to pay for.
This is why this and all other "online on your phone" ventures are going to fail (adoption wise), until the phone companies stop raping people on data rates.
The only people who can afford this kind of thing right now are business users with data plans to keep in touch with the office. Thus, these companies are excluding the fastest growing segment of cellphone users (tweens, teens and young adults), which would also be the largest segment of users of this software, before it even gets off the ground.
You should be able to get unlimited data on your cell for 9.95. You can't use your cell for any real work anyway, the latency is horrid and makes even surfing WAP pages butt slow. Until the price point comes down they're never going to see any market penetration.
Basically, this guy uses Ajax to download the list of images from the server, then uses DHTML to move them around the page.
Whoop-dee-do. It's like something that could have been done in 2000.
This is the stupidest example of Ajax I have ever seen. You use Ajax asynchronously to fetch ocuments on demand in order to reduce page reloads - you don't use it to download a 1kb list of images from the server you will only be using once during that page load.
Ajax is a useful technology (I use it often), but this article is a horrible example of it. It saves you nothing here - he could have just had the image list inline in the page and the user would see no difference.
The whole rest of the article is just DHTML, of which you could get much better examples at Dynamic Drive or any of another dozen sites.
I don't know Ruby, so I will use perl's map function as an example.
In Perl:
map { $_ * 2 } @arr;
In Java:
for( Integer key : arr ) { key *=2; }
Now exactly, what would be the benefit of having a map function in Java, aside from obfuscating things? Everything in Java is already a pointer so operations inside your for() loop are already altering the objects in the array or collection.
No, I think that when someone is involved in an accident, *of any magnitude*, if the cause of the accident is determined to be because the driver was not paying attention to the road, they should have their license revoked for a period of time.
There is currently no incentive for these people to change. They hit another car, their insurance goes up a few bucks, whoopdie-do, what do they care, they're loaded. Take their license away for a few months - that will change their tune.
No, you are absolutely wrong - driving while talking on the cell phone is extremely dangerous, hands-free or not. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
Driving while drinking coffee is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.**
Driving while applying make-up is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
p>Driving while talking to your kids in the back seat is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
See how foolish this sounds yet? You can legisltae yourself to the moon and back banning specific distractions but it isn't going to eliminate them all. Bad drivers are always going to be distracted with something. The real solution is to get these bad drivers off the road and/or teach them how to not let things distract them while driving.
It's most certainly NOT the same as drinking coffee of listening to the radio...BS. I have personally been in an accident involving a person screwing around with their morning happy meal, hence my ** above. The whole "your brain tunes out the radio when you need to concentrate, but it makes more effort to keep up with the conversation when you are talking" is absolute garbage. Driving does not require concentration so much as it requires *attention*. Anything that involves you taking your eyes off the road, be it make-up, eating, radio - is **orders of magnitue** more dangerous than someone talking on a phone with their eyes *on* the road. It only takes a split second for road conditions to change, and if that split-second is the same one as when you are bending over to pick up your monring pick-me-up, you're toast.
Seriously, talking on a cell phone while driving by itself is not dangerous. Distracting yourself while on the road is. Drinking coffee , applying lipstick, eating a big mac, fiddling with the stereo, any or all of these can be just as distracting as yapping on a cell, or even more so.
Legislation singling out cell phones does nothing to combat the real problem - a 8am - 8pm working world where you need to squeeze the most out of every second, and damn the consequences.
What should be done is harsher peanalties in the case of accidents. Person gets into a minor fender bender because they were yapping on the phone? What happens now? A minor increase and insurance premuim, and they're back on the road. What should happen - take away their license for 3 months and send them to traffic school - they obviously don't know how to drive properly without distractions. Go after the problem drivers, rather than ticketing the guy who can hanle calling his wife via voice-dial for 15 seconds to let her know he is on the way home. He is not the threat - the threat is the 21 year old power-suit who is spending more time putting on her Chanel while looking in the rear-view than watching the road.
Global warming and climate change are real and undenyable. All it takes is some sampling of weather patterns over the past few hundred years (since we have been recording them) to note the drastic shifts in the past few decades.
It is absolutely not refutable that change is occuring. What is refuta ble is whether or not it is because of a natural cycle, or because of man-made change.
But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Hence the concern. It doesn't matter if we are the root cause or not, we're the only species on the planet with the capability to reduce and possibly reverse the cycle.
The example in the article is idiotic. Who is going to pay for a CD with a cell phone via text messaging? This would be insanely slow and inconvient.
But it is ideal for vending machines. How often have you wanted something from a vending machine but had no change or cash on hand? Being able to text a message to a vending machine to pay for an ideam would be extremely handy.
I am sure that I have read elsewhere that a system like this was already in use in Europe or Japan. Can anyone comment?
The default page size at Google.com is 10... I have mine set to 50, for the very reason that I hate paging. I still go through about 3 pages... but 3 of my pages is 5 times the number of results of a 10 result page.
Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.
User, meet Procmail.
Seriously - if you think you need blackberry technology to to server-side filtering then you haven't done much research.
Not to mention that Windows XP SP2 doesn't ship with DVD playback support, you have to buy it from a third party.
No distro but Gentoo ships with it either. In RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, SusE, you need edit your apt/yum mirrors to point at a 3rd party site (that you have to find using a Google search or Wiki), and install the software. Either that or build it yourself.
This is a bit of a hassle when you consider that any pre-built PC ships with a DVD player installed, and any DVD ROM you buy comes with an OEM copy of a DVD player for XP. So your point about having to buy a copy is usually bunk.
When you work in the public sector, the public is your boss, and they should be your number one priority.
What's missing in GMail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Having switched from IMAP to only GMail about 8 months ago, my only gripe is the inability to 'Mark As Read' in filters - this is my #1 pet peeve with GMail and it seems like it would be *tirivial* to do - why haven't they done it?
Oh - another thing that would be nice would be to be able to set a maximum number of messages allowed in a Label and after that to erase the oldest ones. I know, I am asking to make labels more like folders, but when you are on as many mailing lists as I am, that you know are archived anyway, you just don't want to keep copies of all that crap around in your mailbox. It just makes my POP download of messages (for archival) that much more difficult.
If you have lots of important information (pictures, music, diaries, archives, etc) on an external site, **do not assume in any way** your loved ones will be able to get access to them when you pass on. Most all sites * do not* have a policy around this, and will probably end up flat out refusing you, or just deleting the info.
If you are the kind of person who stores los of stuff externally, the best thing you could do is keep a hard copy of everything to pass down. If this is not possible, keep a hard copy of the passwords for the sites and entrust it to your attorney or simmilar.
It would be nice if there could be some legislation put into place surrounding this - if a company is presented with a valid death certificate, the estate should have access to all that person's data. However, this is not the case now. and the government is too busy worrying about HDTV DRM to bother with trivial matters like this.
....as it's asychronous and a malicious user could write data back to your database if implemented incorrectly."
The fact that it is asychronous has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it has the ability to write back to the database.
You can have AJAX calls that write to the database, and ones that don't, both being asychronous. Also you can have sychronous AJAX calls (is this just "JAX"???) that write to the database.
Anyway - its pretty much the same considerations you should take when writing any web application. Verify all inputs, period.
Netscape died because the whole Navigator 4.x line was complete crap. It was slow and chunky, had a cluttered UI, had a horrible DHTML system (layers? ugh), and had next to no CSS support. Meanwhile IE 4.0 had excellent DHTML, was way faster even when run in Windows 95 which it was not bundled into, had great CSS support for it's day, and also had a clean UI with tons of extras.
Then, insteed of getting out a new release ASAP, they wasted time deciding to re-write the entire browser from scratch. TWICE.
MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.
Say there is an infringement on the Linux kernel against one of Microsoft's patents.
Who do they sue in this case?
Sure, they can sue RedHat, Novell, etc. But that does not solve any problems - heck, all RedHat/Novell/Whoever would need to do is alter their installer to grab the source from kernel.org and build it during install time.
Would they be allowed to sue Linus for patent infringement, even if he was not the one who wrote the particular code, or would they need to sue the person who wrote that code?
What if one person wrote half the functionality and someone else the other half?
For that matter, is there even a case for infringement if you are disributing uncompiled binaries?
I never said otherwise - all these grandoise claims about IE being 'integrated into the OS' is pure bunk.
Anyone who actually thinks this hasn't been using Windows since the 3.x / 95 days, because the same old trick can still be used tto change your shell. In fact I know several people who use Litestep as their windows shell, total commander as their file manager, and Firefox as their browser, and never see IE/ Explorer *at all* on Windows.
Sure, it is a pain to uninstall, but that's just because lots of DLLs link with it. Ever say "hey, I neve rwork with pngs", and try to uninstall libpng on a linux system? You can't, cause everything links to it. Same deal with IE on windows.
Konqueror is not a file manager or a web browser, in the strictest sense. Konqueror is just a container that runs KParts. That's all. There is a file management KPart, and a Web Browsing KPart, which is what most people use by far. But really konqueror is just a shell that loads whatever you want it to. The KHTML KPart is no more 'integrated' into KDE or the OS than the PDF KPart is, or the MPlayer KPart.
Slashdot Mirror
"DRC's flagship product is the DRC Coprocessor Module that plugs directly into an open processor socket in a multi-way Opteron system," the company notes on its web site.
If you have an open Opteron socket on your multi-way box, wouldn't you probably achieve better performance by shoving another Opteron into there?
I mean, sure, I can see the benefit of having a co-processor customized to handle your specific workload. But another Opteron would likely run at multiples of the clockspeed of that thing, and it would also be able to offload work from the *othewr* Opterons, such as disk I/O etc, giving your overall application more performance.
Your comparison is like apples and oranges. The reason AJAX is good for Google Maps is because it allows you to interact with the map in real time. There is no need to interact with a slideshow in real time, other than to pause / rewind/ fast-forward it, none of which would involve trips to the server anyways.
Stupid use of AJAX.
I pay per-kilobyte charges for network traffic. Social networking just isn't important enough to pay for.
This is why this and all other "online on your phone" ventures are going to fail (adoption wise), until the phone companies stop raping people on data rates.
The only people who can afford this kind of thing right now are business users with data plans to keep in touch with the office. Thus, these companies are excluding the fastest growing segment of cellphone users (tweens, teens and young adults), which would also be the largest segment of users of this software, before it even gets off the ground.
You should be able to get unlimited data on your cell for 9.95. You can't use your cell for any real work anyway, the latency is horrid and makes even surfing WAP pages butt slow. Until the price point comes down they're never going to see any market penetration.
Basically, this guy uses Ajax to download the list of images from the server, then uses DHTML to move them around the page.
Whoop-dee-do. It's like something that could have been done in 2000.
This is the stupidest example of Ajax I have ever seen. You use Ajax asynchronously to fetch ocuments on demand in order to reduce page reloads - you don't use it to download a 1kb list of images from the server you will only be using once during that page load.
Ajax is a useful technology (I use it often), but this article is a horrible example of it. It saves you nothing here - he could have just had the image list inline in the page and the user would see no difference.
The whole rest of the article is just DHTML, of which you could get much better examples at Dynamic Drive or any of another dozen sites.
I don't know Ruby, so I will use perl's map function as an example.
In Perl:
map { $_ * 2 } @arr;
In Java:
for( Integer key : arr ) { key *=2; }
Now exactly, what would be the benefit of having a map function in Java, aside from obfuscating things? Everything in Java is already a pointer so operations inside your for() loop are already altering the objects in the array or collection.
No, I think that when someone is involved in an accident, *of any magnitude*, if the cause of the accident is determined to be because the driver was not paying attention to the road, they should have their license revoked for a period of time.
There is currently no incentive for these people to change. They hit another car, their insurance goes up a few bucks, whoopdie-do, what do they care, they're loaded. Take their license away for a few months - that will change their tune.
No, you are absolutely wrong - driving while talking on the cell phone is extremely dangerous, hands-free or not. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
Driving while drinking coffee is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.**
Driving while applying make-up is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous. p>Driving while talking to your kids in the back seat is extremely dangerous. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.
See how foolish this sounds yet? You can legisltae yourself to the moon and back banning specific distractions but it isn't going to eliminate them all. Bad drivers are always going to be distracted with something. The real solution is to get these bad drivers off the road and/or teach them how to not let things distract them while driving.
It's most certainly NOT the same as drinking coffee of listening to the radio...BS. I have personally been in an accident involving a person screwing around with their morning happy meal, hence my ** above. The whole "your brain tunes out the radio when you need to concentrate, but it makes more effort to keep up with the conversation when you are talking" is absolute garbage. Driving does not require concentration so much as it requires *attention*. Anything that involves you taking your eyes off the road, be it make-up, eating, radio - is **orders of magnitue** more dangerous than someone talking on a phone with their eyes *on* the road. It only takes a split second for road conditions to change, and if that split-second is the same one as when you are bending over to pick up your monring pick-me-up, you're toast.
Seriously, talking on a cell phone while driving by itself is not dangerous. Distracting yourself while on the road is. Drinking coffee , applying lipstick, eating a big mac, fiddling with the stereo, any or all of these can be just as distracting as yapping on a cell, or even more so.
Legislation singling out cell phones does nothing to combat the real problem - a 8am - 8pm working world where you need to squeeze the most out of every second, and damn the consequences.
What should be done is harsher peanalties in the case of accidents. Person gets into a minor fender bender because they were yapping on the phone? What happens now? A minor increase and insurance premuim, and they're back on the road. What should happen - take away their license for 3 months and send them to traffic school - they obviously don't know how to drive properly without distractions. Go after the problem drivers, rather than ticketing the guy who can hanle calling his wife via voice-dial for 15 seconds to let her know he is on the way home. He is not the threat - the threat is the 21 year old power-suit who is spending more time putting on her Chanel while looking in the rear-view than watching the road.
It is absolutely not refutable that change is occuring. What is refuta ble is whether or not it is because of a natural cycle, or because of man-made change.
But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Hence the concern. It doesn't matter if we are the root cause or not, we're the only species on the planet with the capability to reduce and possibly reverse the cycle.
The example in the article is idiotic. Who is going to pay for a CD with a cell phone via text messaging? This would be insanely slow and inconvient.
But it is ideal for vending machines. How often have you wanted something from a vending machine but had no change or cash on hand? Being able to text a message to a vending machine to pay for an ideam would be extremely handy.
I am sure that I have read elsewhere that a system like this was already in use in Europe or Japan. Can anyone comment?
The default page size at Google.com is 10... I have mine set to 50, for the very reason that I hate paging. I still go through about 3 pages... but 3 of my pages is 5 times the number of results of a 10 result page.
The adhesive can withstand an enormous amount of stress, equal to the force felt by a quarter with more than three cars piled on top of it.
Pray tell, who thinks up these outlandish anologies anyway? Why would you pile three cars on top of a quarter?
A better analogy would be something like "Equal to the force felt by CowboyNeal with more than one thousand chinese whores piled on top of him".
Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.
User, meet Procmail.
Seriously - if you think you need blackberry technology to to server-side filtering then you haven't done much research.
Not to mention that Windows XP SP2 doesn't ship with DVD playback support, you have to buy it from a third party.
No distro but Gentoo ships with it either. In RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, SusE, you need edit your apt/yum mirrors to point at a 3rd party site (that you have to find using a Google search or Wiki), and install the software. Either that or build it yourself.
This is a bit of a hassle when you consider that any pre-built PC ships with a DVD player installed, and any DVD ROM you buy comes with an OEM copy of a DVD player for XP. So your point about having to buy a copy is usually bunk.
When you work in the public sector, the public is your boss, and they should be your number one priority.
Having switched from IMAP to only GMail about 8 months ago, my only gripe is the inability to 'Mark As Read' in filters - this is my #1 pet peeve with GMail and it seems like it would be *tirivial* to do - why haven't they done it?
Oh - another thing that would be nice would be to be able to set a maximum number of messages allowed in a Label and after that to erase the oldest ones. I know, I am asking to make labels more like folders, but when you are on as many mailing lists as I am, that you know are archived anyway, you just don't want to keep copies of all that crap around in your mailbox. It just makes my POP download of messages (for archival) that much more difficult.
If you have lots of important information (pictures, music, diaries, archives, etc) on an external site, **do not assume in any way** your loved ones will be able to get access to them when you pass on. Most all sites * do not* have a policy around this, and will probably end up flat out refusing you, or just deleting the info.
If you are the kind of person who stores los of stuff externally, the best thing you could do is keep a hard copy of everything to pass down. If this is not possible, keep a hard copy of the passwords for the sites and entrust it to your attorney or simmilar.
It would be nice if there could be some legislation put into place surrounding this - if a company is presented with a valid death certificate, the estate should have access to all that person's data. However, this is not the case now. and the government is too busy worrying about HDTV DRM to bother with trivial matters like this.
The fact that it is asychronous has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it has the ability to write back to the database.
You can have AJAX calls that write to the database, and ones that don't, both being asychronous. Also you can have sychronous AJAX calls (is this just "JAX"???) that write to the database.
Anyway - its pretty much the same considerations you should take when writing any web application. Verify all inputs, period.
Perhaps if they get elected, we can finally curb the global warming trend.
Oh I pray this party has been touched by his great noodly appendage!
I have several instances of Windows XP runing in VMWare with only 128 MB of RAM, despite the "minimum" amount of 256 to be compatable.
These numbers are just to give the ideal out of box experience, so people will be happy with their purchase.
With some of the effects turned down I am positive Vista would run fine on these 256 MB machines.
Then, insteed of getting out a new release ASAP, they wasted time deciding to re-write the entire browser from scratch. TWICE.
MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.
Say there is an infringement on the Linux kernel against one of Microsoft's patents.
Who do they sue in this case?
Sure, they can sue RedHat, Novell, etc. But that does not solve any problems - heck, all RedHat/Novell/Whoever would need to do is alter their installer to grab the source from kernel.org and build it during install time.
Would they be allowed to sue Linus for patent infringement, even if he was not the one who wrote the particular code, or would they need to sue the person who wrote that code?
What if one person wrote half the functionality and someone else the other half?
For that matter, is there even a case for infringement if you are disributing uncompiled binaries?
I never said otherwise - all these grandoise claims about IE being 'integrated into the OS' is pure bunk.
Anyone who actually thinks this hasn't been using Windows since the 3.x / 95 days, because the same old trick can still be used tto change your shell. In fact I know several people who use Litestep as their windows shell, total commander as their file manager, and Firefox as their browser, and never see IE/ Explorer *at all* on Windows.
Sure, it is a pain to uninstall, but that's just because lots of DLLs link with it. Ever say "hey, I neve rwork with pngs", and try to uninstall libpng on a linux system? You can't, cause everything links to it. Same deal with IE on windows.
Konqueror is not a file manager or a web browser, in the strictest sense. Konqueror is just a container that runs KParts. That's all. There is a file management KPart, and a Web Browsing KPart, which is what most people use by far. But really konqueror is just a shell that loads whatever you want it to. The KHTML KPart is no more 'integrated' into KDE or the OS than the PDF KPart is, or the MPlayer KPart.
Why would you reboot into windows to run one piece of specialty software? Why wouldn't you just run it in VitrualPC / VMWare?