forth is a language which allows you to define itself on the fly.
i did a uni project on extensible languages and covered this a little. it looked very interesting, although i can't say i learnt much about it, since i was writing my own application which could load an extensible language definition and compile applications to Java. (geez, anyone got some money for a patent? btw this is the second time today i've asked this question if anyone wants to employ me... hahaha)
i think languages that let you create new language constructs are the way of the future, since as i proved for my project - it is the best way to maximise the ratio of functionality VS code written.
maybe i missed the boat and someone is already working on such a thing.
as far as internet languages - what's the go? it's just another regular language with a different system environment isn't it?
people thought that distributed programming was the new 'programming model' until they realised they were writing the same code in a different environment (IMHO one that will overcomplicate all but the largest project).
'language model'.... guess i probably should RTFA, but if you really mean the next level in grammars for directing computers i don't think either of these things qualify.
If you like racing for the sake of racing (ie being faster than everyone else at something), PLEASE buy this game. make your own tracks and then get your arse kicked online by some french guy. the racing style varies with environment, none of them are realistic - they just encourage certain styles of driving.
I'm not affiliated with the game in any way, i just think we should encourage innovation like this. That said it's a sequel game with (basically) improved graphics....
excuse graamar/punctuation/spelling/lack of coherent point - can't be arsed.
The problem is the useless patent office. How can they approve the patent on something so vague?
Just because I word it as
'A way of inhaling and exhaling alternately, beginning at a point close to the user's birth and ceasing at death.'
doesn't mean I can patent breathing!
I think it's just that lawyer's inability to concisely state the bleeding obvious with the computer industry's ability to create new technical jargon on a daily basis. The lawyers cannot understand each other's babble and so allow the patenting of ridiculous things just because they have been carefully worded to sound unique.
It is absolutely impossible that such an operation has never been done before but you can't convince a patent lawyer that something is so obvious that there really is only one way to do it on a computer, so they allow whoever has the money to sit around all day doing this to get away with it.
Can someone with some cash and time please patent
'A method of causing a computer to take action based on a list of instructions that guide the computer and the user through a set of operations to a logical conclusion.'
so that we can ALWAYS have prior claim and finally show these guys (ie the Patent Office) the door.
'Thanks for all your work... morons! Go back to sueing victims of robberies or something.'
OK, for the record, since you seem to think my arguments are all false:
I am a regular user and multi-threaded programmer of both Windows and Linux.
Macs I'm not so crash hot on, but they are peripheral to our main discussion.
Now for the percentage of Graphic Artists I know that are using Windows: basically all of them. In fact my GF is a journalist, and the company she works for just threw out all their Macs. I'll remember to ask her if her mouse froze up at work all the time after that.
About mice and hardware: you are no doubt aware of the serious limitations in the ATX standard regarding the number of available interrupts. This requires IRQ steering and so forth. To drag this into a discussion about kernel task prioritisation, while perfectly valid, is only complicating the issue.
Small percentage of people running Java: Try telling that to all the web developers using Tomcat. As for now attempting to drag security into the converstion to further complicate the issue and give you another subject with which to make baseless accusations about my supposed lack of knowledge - do you know me? F*ck off.
Besides which you totally failed to respond to my point - that being that Linux threading is still in the dark ages.
Your freezing mouse: What program? What hardware setup? What version of Windows? The last time my mouse froze up it was because I overclocked my Radeon and played a DirectX game - causing major system instability.
User permissions: I am now totally convinced that you are running Windows 98 or really have not used it since then. I will (unlike you) concede the fact that Windows does not have user levels for tasks that affect their prioritisation. Again as a multithreaded programmer of both OSes I'd point to your software if such a scheme is necessary.
I will withdraw my claim of you being a zealot if you stop and think for five seconds about accusing someone who gets their hands dirty with both implementations of multithreading on a regular basis of having a 'weak' understanding. In fact unless you can tell me you have the same understanding I'm still going to dismiss most of your arguments as hearsay and zealotry.
Your final argument pretty much sums things up - you expect me to accept something I've never observed simply because you assert that it is so. Furthermore you attempt to generalise real-world performance using OS as a category - something noone with any truly varied experience would ever do.
Work with them long enough and I'm sure you will see any OS pounded into the ground by several bloated apps hogging all the resources they can pre-allocate. Why do large hosts run separate database boxes and web servers? Because you get better (more than double) performance out of both applications.
Anyway I think the discussion has gone around in circles enough times. I will await your reply but will not continue the thread (unless you bait me real good).
To make my original argument clear one more time: The less things you have running, the less time a task switch takes. If you have many things running on the one priority level with the app you are interested in, the time taken to switch tasks is linearly related to the number of tasks running at that level.
Unless you can explain/demonstrate to me the exact method by which this is avoided in Linux, I'm afraid I must (for the record) declare myself correct at least on my original argument.
If an application on my computer has a higher 'nice' than anything else I'm doing (we like to call it task priority here at MS Land) and it's time to schedule a task, then yes I expect it to be given processor time whether it is being displayed or not. To expect my system to do anything else would be a very unuseful situation - I couldn't just turn down the priority of the task I wanted to 'get in front of', could I? Do you really believe that is the situation on Windows all the time, or that I couldn't recreate the scenario under Linux?
Do you honestly believe I can't move my mouse or launch Battlefield 2 while running LAME? Windows does in fact boost the priority of the Window that has focus (something Linux can't do as well since Windows and Threads aren't so tightly bound).
I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any graphic artists I know claiming their mouse freezes while they work *all day every day* with Windows.
Mouse input is driven by interrupts, which work outside the usual system of task scheduling - they gain access to CPU cycles through hardware, so your example is particularly bad in this case.
To assert that my view of task scheduling is 'theoretical' is outrageous. It is and will be for the foreseeable future exactly how Linux, OS X and Windows schedule tasks. And yes they all have a priority system both for processes and the threads they run.
Oh that's right, you can't have threads belonging to processes in Linux can you? Its implementation of multitasking is so poor that if I start a new thread in Java I get another java.exe running.
I don't know when you last used Windows, but I've never seen my mouse stop working when it shouldn't. It will do it if you mess with the system default priorities for tasks....and yes we can do that in Windows too.
Believe it or not, it really is up to the application to set its default values for 'niceness' and to be friendly with allocation of resources. To believe that a poorly written application can't ruin your peformance under Linux is what is absurd. You are free to blame your OS for the shortcomings of your software, just don't expect to ever fix the problem.
Try running the following code on your box (you will need to write it in some language you are familiar with) and then complain to the Linux developers about their scheduling and see what they say.
System.Threading.Thread.ThreadPriority = REALTIME; while(true);... wow did you realise you can regain control over your computer by lowering the priority of this task? Reckon maybe every OS on the market has a way of doing this perhaps?
I wasn't talking about cache misses or context switches. I was talking about the reported CPU usage for an application that is sitting idle in the background. Believe it or not I can both read and run the included applications to display this information on several OSs. In any case, I don't need to be able to read to notice a 10 second delay after I click a mouse button, but before the system registers that click.
By definition the usage of an idle task is zero. The kernel still checks to see if that task has to do anything on each task switch, and the more tasks are running the longer and the more memory accesses (cache interference) this will take. This happens on any OS whether you like it or not, unless Linux coders have discovered some magic way to run instructions without using the CPU. (The way some people carry on I'd just about believe it.)
If you're running applications that don't play nice when they are supposed to be idle, you can't blame the OS you're running.
So it's OK for the US to start making nuclear substances AT THE SAME TIME as they tell Iran not to?
Not just being hypocritical, they are having the gall to think noone can connect the dots.
AT THE VERY SAME TIME? I just can't believe it. How long will the rest of the world just stand there while you hold the gun America? We have a right to bear arms defending agaist (your) tyranny too, you know. (We just don't point it out to each other every day of the week.)
Can you honestly believe anyone else will listen while you try to monopolise weapons of mass destruction?
Pfft I could go on for hours rephrasing just how ridiculously stupid this is. I don't necessarily agree with their leader's social attitudes but it's about time somebody told you to back off.
I can see Bush's TODO list now: Finish of with Iraq and then raze Iran. If those guys ever decide to unite against you (and I hope one day they do) you will all be f*cked. But then, you already know that, which is why you need to cull the population install new dictators about once every 20 years.
C'mon people, you gotta get your transparent voting procedures back and vote that guy out (again).
Screw the lot of you, there is no inviolable universal law that says I give you the right to manage all the nuclear power and all the nuclear bombs for me. I think I'll try to convince the Australia government to set up its own arms programme.
Screw it, the pople that need to hear this message are chronically incapable of listening anyway...
Your are obviously totally oblivious of how multitasking actually works.
Then you can talk about CPU performance hits due to cache misses and context switches. OK it's pretty damn small but most gamers can't subjectively evaluate real-world performance and hence keep trying to get 5 more points out of 3DMark.
Or does Linux do all this using some piece of standard ATX hardware I've never heard of, using no CPU cycles at all?
You are completely correct RE memory usage however for CPU, there is a point to shutting down running tasks before starting a game.
Why don't you switch to one of the methods of P2P that a) requires less uploading b) helps you identify fake files c) uses a semi-anonymous networking protocol
???
Torrents are the maximum sux0r, IMNSHO. Sure you can get movies 15 minutes after the last frame is shot - but then again are you really sure you want to put yourself that far up the food chain?
What "loss"? At the most it is a missed income. That is certainly not a "loss". How do that "loss" end up in the companies budget for example. I would assume they list monetary losses there. What if gather 1 million people (none of whom even have a computer) all making a copy and using it, have that now created an even larger loss? So large so that the company suddenly is bancrupt?
Under the present model of software production and distribution, and in the context of this analysis, if you were running the software, you should have paid for it. Therefore the company has missed out on the cost of the software, and it is your fault. (You naughty little bluebottle you...)
Besides, I frequently use software I have not payed for, for example, earlier today I used my girlfriends copy of Word to write something. After that I used some software that was available for download by the creators. Later today I will play this game I got for free from a friend who was so tired of it he decided to give it to me instead of throwing it away.
The second part of your statement, while an entertaining train of thought, doesn't really factor into the analysis since they were talking about copies of software installed on computers that shouldn't have been, not people using software they shoudn't. (Naughty sausinges...)
So, have you ever heared of anyone filing for a "theft" in such a case?
As I did point out later on, I am aware of the legal distinction. I'm sitting on the other side of the fence to most users in this debate so in true slashdot style I will trounce my enemies with loud inaccurate arguments from time to time. Once again I apologise for the technical inaccuracy.
There is a VERY big difference between "taking" and "making" (regardless of if what you make is a copy of something or not). FOr example, you can "take" my chair (which would most likely be theft) or you can "make" a chair (identical for example of it) which would NOT be theft.
As a craftsman of software (not chairs), I absolutely love this argument. People think that they can make this distinction with someone's work but I just laugh at them.
If you make a chair, you've invested not only the materials in the chair, but the skills involved in creating a chair. You have created your very own chair. What sort of useless lame-ass user honestly believes that by copying a CD they have created their very own Unreal Tournament or Halflife? Are you really that technically inadequate that you think there has been some investment of your own in copying thousands or millions of man-hours work from one place to another? Who do you assholes think you are, to demand that we provide you with software? Did we take an oath to provide software for everyone? Did we spend years being poor nerds so we could stay poor nerds?
And if the creator of a (rather special) chair takes the correct steps to protect their work, they too can stop you from copying the fruits of their labour. Now can anybody think WHY?
Would you prefer that we regress to an age where everyone has to write their own software without a development environment? We can start over again. "Oh would you like me to write you/give you a copy of some/my software?" "Why, yes, that would be useful at work!" "Well, here you go, give me $50 for my effort, and don't give it to everyone you see." "Hey do you think if people start using your program you could support yourself enough to spend time making it really great?" "Hey what a cool idea!"
Should we annouce the STLOY licence? We will force everyone to use this for a short time...
It is illegal for you to be reading this text.
It is completely illegal for you to own this software in any form, or to use this software under any circumstances.
The author retains discretion to bring charges against anyone who even LOOKS at this software. The author may allow anyone he or she sees worthy to use this software by simply not havi
OK so the software didn't cost the company anything for you to get illegally - they didn't have to produce it.
However under their present business model (which I must stress I do not agree with in all cases) it would normally have cost you $500 dollars just to have a copy of that software on your computer, which the company would see at least part of.
Therefore it does make sense for them to analyse their loss by tallying up estimated numbers of copies and multiplying by the amount they would have received had you purchased the software.
In fact if you think about it that's really the only way they could have done it, without introducing arbitrary fudge factors or more statistics with their own error margins and shortcomings.
As I have also already said, any inflation of the true monetary gain to the company from sales of the pirated software in the analysis is pure BS.
We're talking about the monetary loss to a company as a result of someone using a piece of software they haven't paid for.
The software is worth what the company charges for it. If they set the price too high their sales will suffer as you say, however the price of the software is the price of the software, period. (In this context)
To deprive someone of that money by not paying for something IS theft. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how a piece of software is not a real tangible thing, but a copy of a piece of software with a licence is a (legally) a 'thing' which can be sold. To take (or make) a copy of said 'thing' without paying is 'theft', and the value of the loss is the current market price of 'thing'. (In this context)
OK so it's semantic, but you must agree that the parent's original assertion that their intention not to pay in any way reduces the value of the lost sale to the company is outrageous.
To say that the later legal use of this software helps the company recoup all that revenue (lost years ago) is quite another thing, but it is silly to expect the software companies to include this in their analysis of how many squillions in software (that should have been cheaper) they miss out on each year.
To be quite clear, from what I gather the analysis in the so called 'BS' report is completely flawed and if half of what I've heard is true then it's useless statistics brewing.
I do apologise for my exaggeration of copyright infringement as theft, however I was speaking as a developer having money 'thefted' (sic) from my pocket when piracy does occur.
Ah, the joys of the kinds of arguments you use. Build up an imaginary foe and than attack it mercylessly.:-D
Listen to yourself for a second!
"1)"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale"
OK, so let's say I go in to get my car's wheels rebalanced (or some other service). When they're done.. I just drive off without paying. Have I done anything wrong? Well, what if "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway"? So it's not a lost sale!"
Ok, so let's say I get the opportunity to "pirate" photoshop and play around with it. Does that translate into a loss for adobe of whatever photoshop might cost today?
No, of course not, as I wouldn't have bought it anyway. It's just the fact that I can get it for free that makes me use it.
Ummm, yes it does. Arguing that you wouldn't have bought it anyway is a ridiculous excuse for theft. If you're running a copy you should have paid for, the cost to the company that provided you with that software is EXACTLY the price of the pirate software you shouldn't be running. If you want to later examine the company's ability to make some of that money back from you, fine, but don't use it to justify your initial act.
Run away windmill!
I smoke pot!
But I still can't believe how many people in here think that skewed statistics somehow justifies their actions.
How many of you have opined that piracy is actually good for the industry?
Where did you get *your* figures from and how were *they* calculated?
Oh, so you were pulling things out of your arse even faster than the BSA wankers?
Thought so.
I agree. It's quite obvious that the sun itself is to blame, and I think we should immediately start trade embargoes against the Sun, and pressure the UN to outlaw the Sun.
that stopping distance is a lie? Let me guess, it came from the land where wearing seatbelts is optional?
I know you probably got flamed in the extreme already, but I have to say, that is the stupidest thing I've heard. Ever.
Introducing the NGGPL, the GPL that allows you to avoid exploitation by your government, making it illegal for them to use your software.
They're always really good at showing you some previous contract you never signed (they like to call them laws) that binds you for life, aren't they?
Why not just let them know how we feel about being manipulated and exploited our whole lives by banning them from using what we produce in our own time?
"Sorry, but ignorance of the fact that each installation by a government worker or department costs $50,000 is no excuse - this contract already existed and you accepted it just by being a citizen of this country.
We put a few tiny words into a ill-reputed tabloid one weekday - it's public knowledge. We voted on it but you weren't there, sorry."
Would it be possible? I'd love to see the backlash on both sides as they realised that they really don't like OR trust each other. (At least, the government would be surprised.)
If this goes anything like other 'innovative' work for the dole schemes I've seen, I given them about 3-4 weeks before they realise they are actually losing cash and that it's not nearly as easy as it sounds.
For example, you can't fire someone at all. This won't really work if you give this person access to hack at the code every day even after the relationship has long since gone sour.
Aaron
You mean that period of history where most of the world was brainwashed into believing another economic system was a threat to their own, perpetuating the end of WW2 through until it became too difficult to conceal the truth about how other cultures lived?
At which point it became the War on Terror.
I agree with your sentiment, I guess, but the cold war is a bad example of since it was overshadowed by an arms race by both sides and was also a propaganda war.
I think what he probably meant was that it's wierd some people still can't examine an alternative way of organising society for what it is and leave aside the fact that the whole system was corrupt, like ours is.
While I do agree with the sentiments of the very first post...
As a programmer and hardware salesman/repairman I've seen and dealt with open source as well as MS solutions in both the home and office, long and short term.
I will say that the price of Microsoft software is pretty outrageous, almost the same as the hardware if you want the whole shebang. (Then again, try buying enough MYOB functionality to run a shop, that will set you back a pretty penny:-o).
Some free software is fantastic, in fact in many cases the free stuff is superior in various ways. Some users will NEVER get the hang of Open Office. "It's just all too differenty to Word".
It's good to see a worldwide push towards this sort of software model because it will drive prices down and functionality up....... but I can ring Microsoft 24/7 and talk to someone who will sort me out with basically anything on Windows, Office, the Internet...... (ellipses are cool)...
The question still remains whether or not these government departments (or anyone) will benefit in the long term. One thing I can tell you is that in Australia getting some guy to fix your XP box will cost about $35/hr whereas a really hopeless Linux administrator will cost about $75. In a 'regional' area like Newcastle you'll have a hard time finding a guy who can install Debian. ("Debbie who?")
I think it will depend on what these people are doing, and how often they normally have to call the 'computer guy' (me).
Re the post on Juicer virii, it could be kind of cool if, say, your date ended up with a triple vodka on the rocks rather than whatever non-fun thing she had requested.
That's if she didn't run out the door after seeing how incredibly geeky you were whilst showing her your collection of smoothies.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
forth is a language which allows you to define itself on the fly.
i did a uni project on extensible languages and covered this a little. it looked very interesting, although i can't say i learnt much about it, since i was writing my own application which could load an extensible language definition and compile applications to Java. (geez, anyone got some money for a patent? btw this is the second time today i've asked this question if anyone wants to employ me... hahaha)
i think languages that let you create new language constructs are the way of the future, since as i proved for my project - it is the best way to maximise the ratio of functionality VS code written.
maybe i missed the boat and someone is already working on such a thing.
as far as internet languages - what's the go? it's just another regular language with a different system environment isn't it?
people thought that distributed programming was the new 'programming model' until they realised they were writing the same code in a different environment (IMHO one that will overcomplicate all but the largest project).
'language model'.... guess i probably should RTFA, but if you really mean the next level in grammars for directing computers i don't think either of these things qualify.
Has anyone played trackmania sunrise?
If you like racing for the sake of racing (ie being faster than everyone else at something), PLEASE buy this game. make your own tracks and then get your arse kicked online by some french guy. the racing style varies with environment, none of them are realistic - they just encourage certain styles of driving.
I'm not affiliated with the game in any way, i just think we should encourage innovation like this. That said it's a sequel game with (basically) improved graphics....
excuse graamar/punctuation/spelling/lack of coherent point - can't be arsed.
Frequency UnKnown
The problem is the useless patent office. How can they approve the patent on something so vague?
Just because I word it as
'A way of inhaling and exhaling alternately, beginning at a point close to the user's birth and ceasing at death.'
doesn't mean I can patent breathing!
I think it's just that lawyer's inability to concisely state the bleeding obvious with the computer industry's ability to create new technical jargon on a daily basis. The lawyers cannot understand each other's babble and so allow the patenting of ridiculous things just because they have been carefully worded to sound unique.
It is absolutely impossible that such an operation has never been done before but you can't convince a patent lawyer that something is so obvious that there really is only one way to do it on a computer, so they allow whoever has the money to sit around all day doing this to get away with it.
Can someone with some cash and time please patent
'A method of causing a computer to take action based on a list of instructions that guide the computer and the user through a set of operations to a logical conclusion.'
so that we can ALWAYS have prior claim and finally show these guys (ie the Patent Office) the door.
'Thanks for all your work... morons! Go back to sueing victims of robberies or something.'
Aaron.
OK, for the record, since you seem to think my arguments are all false:
I am a regular user and multi-threaded programmer of both Windows and Linux.
Macs I'm not so crash hot on, but they are peripheral to our main discussion.
Now for the percentage of Graphic Artists I know that are using Windows: basically all of them. In fact my GF is a journalist, and the company she works for just threw out all their Macs. I'll remember to ask her if her mouse froze up at work all the time after that.
About mice and hardware: you are no doubt aware of the serious limitations in the ATX standard regarding the number of available interrupts. This requires IRQ steering and so forth. To drag this into a discussion about kernel task prioritisation, while perfectly valid, is only complicating the issue.
Small percentage of people running Java: Try telling that to all the web developers using Tomcat. As for now attempting to drag security into the converstion to further complicate the issue and give you another subject with which to make baseless accusations about my supposed lack of knowledge - do you know me? F*ck off.
Besides which you totally failed to respond to my point - that being that Linux threading is still in the dark ages.
Your freezing mouse: What program? What hardware setup? What version of Windows? The last time my mouse froze up it was because I overclocked my Radeon and played a DirectX game - causing major system instability.
User permissions: I am now totally convinced that you are running Windows 98 or really have not used it since then. I will (unlike you) concede the fact that Windows does not have user levels for tasks that affect their prioritisation. Again as a multithreaded programmer of both OSes I'd point to your software if such a scheme is necessary.
I will withdraw my claim of you being a zealot if you stop and think for five seconds about accusing someone who gets their hands dirty with both implementations of multithreading on a regular basis of having a 'weak' understanding. In fact unless you can tell me you have the same understanding I'm still going to dismiss most of your arguments as hearsay and zealotry.
Your final argument pretty much sums things up - you expect me to accept something I've never observed simply because you assert that it is so. Furthermore you attempt to generalise real-world performance using OS as a category - something noone with any truly varied experience would ever do.
Work with them long enough and I'm sure you will see any OS pounded into the ground by several bloated apps hogging all the resources they can pre-allocate. Why do large hosts run separate database boxes and web servers? Because you get better (more than double) performance out of both applications.
Anyway I think the discussion has gone around in circles enough times. I will await your reply but will not continue the thread (unless you bait me real good).
To make my original argument clear one more time: The less things you have running, the less time a task switch takes. If you have many things running on the one priority level with the app you are interested in, the time taken to switch tasks is linearly related to the number of tasks running at that level.
Unless you can explain/demonstrate to me the exact method by which this is avoided in Linux, I'm afraid I must (for the record) declare myself correct at least on my original argument.
Take it easy,
Aaron.
Wow you really are a rabid zealot aren't you.
...and yes we can do that in Windows too.
... wow did you realise you can regain control over your computer by lowering the priority of this task? Reckon maybe every OS on the market has a way of doing this perhaps?
If an application on my computer has a higher 'nice' than anything else I'm doing (we like to call it task priority here at MS Land) and it's time to schedule a task, then yes I expect it to be given processor time whether it is being displayed or not. To expect my system to do anything else would be a very unuseful situation - I couldn't just turn down the priority of the task I wanted to 'get in front of', could I? Do you really believe that is the situation on Windows all the time, or that I couldn't recreate the scenario under Linux?
Do you honestly believe I can't move my mouse or launch Battlefield 2 while running LAME? Windows does in fact boost the priority of the Window that has focus (something Linux can't do as well since Windows and Threads aren't so tightly bound).
I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any graphic artists I know claiming their mouse freezes while they work *all day every day* with Windows.
Mouse input is driven by interrupts, which work outside the usual system of task scheduling - they gain access to CPU cycles through hardware, so your example is particularly bad in this case.
To assert that my view of task scheduling is 'theoretical' is outrageous. It is and will be for the foreseeable future exactly how Linux, OS X and Windows schedule tasks. And yes they all have a priority system both for processes and the threads they run.
Oh that's right, you can't have threads belonging to processes in Linux can you? Its implementation of multitasking is so poor that if I start a new thread in Java I get another java.exe running.
I don't know when you last used Windows, but I've never seen my mouse stop working when it shouldn't. It will do it if you mess with the system default priorities for tasks.
Believe it or not, it really is up to the application to set its default values for 'niceness' and to be friendly with allocation of resources. To believe that a poorly written application can't ruin your peformance under Linux is what is absurd. You are free to blame your OS for the shortcomings of your software, just don't expect to ever fix the problem.
Try running the following code on your box (you will need to write it in some language you are familiar with) and then complain to the Linux developers about their scheduling and see what they say.
System.Threading.Thread.ThreadPriority = REALTIME;
while(true);
I wasn't talking about cache misses or context switches. I was talking about the reported CPU usage for an application that is sitting idle in the background. Believe it or not I can both read and run the included applications to display this information on several OSs. In any case, I don't need to be able to read to notice a 10 second delay after I click a mouse button, but before the system registers that click.
By definition the usage of an idle task is zero. The kernel still checks to see if that task has to do anything on each task switch, and the more tasks are running the longer and the more memory accesses (cache interference) this will take. This happens on any OS whether you like it or not, unless Linux coders have discovered some magic way to run instructions without using the CPU. (The way some people carry on I'd just about believe it.)
If you're running applications that don't play nice when they are supposed to be idle, you can't blame the OS you're running.
So it's OK for the US to start making nuclear substances AT THE SAME TIME as they tell Iran not to?
Not just being hypocritical, they are having the gall to think noone can connect the dots.
AT THE VERY SAME TIME? I just can't believe it. How long will the rest of the world just stand there while you hold the gun America? We have a right to bear arms defending agaist (your) tyranny too, you know. (We just don't point it out to each other every day of the week.)
Can you honestly believe anyone else will listen while you try to monopolise weapons of mass destruction?
Pfft I could go on for hours rephrasing just how ridiculously stupid this is. I don't necessarily agree with their leader's social attitudes but it's about time somebody told you to back off.
I can see Bush's TODO list now: Finish of with Iraq and then raze Iran. If those guys ever decide to unite against you (and I hope one day they do) you will all be f*cked. But then, you already know that, which is why you need to cull the population install new dictators about once every 20 years.
C'mon people, you gotta get your transparent voting procedures back and vote that guy out (again).
Screw the lot of you, there is no inviolable universal law that says I give you the right to manage all the nuclear power and all the nuclear bombs for me. I think I'll try to convince the Australia government to set up its own arms programme.
Screw it, the pople that need to hear this message are chronically incapable of listening anyway...
Your are obviously totally oblivious of how multitasking actually works. Then you can talk about CPU performance hits due to cache misses and context switches. OK it's pretty damn small but most gamers can't subjectively evaluate real-world performance and hence keep trying to get 5 more points out of 3DMark. Or does Linux do all this using some piece of standard ATX hardware I've never heard of, using no CPU cycles at all? You are completely correct RE memory usage however for CPU, there is a point to shutting down running tasks before starting a game.
Why don't you switch to one of the methods of P2P that
a) requires less uploading
b) helps you identify fake files
c) uses a semi-anonymous networking protocol
???
Torrents are the maximum sux0r, IMNSHO. Sure you can get movies 15 minutes after the last frame is shot - but then again are you really sure you want to put yourself that far up the food chain?
Chill for a couple of days then launch eMule.
What "loss"? At the most it is a missed income. That is certainly not a "loss". How do that "loss" end up in the companies budget for example. I would assume they list monetary losses there. What if gather 1 million people (none of whom even have a computer) all making a copy and using it, have that now created an even larger loss? So large so that the company suddenly is bancrupt?
Under the present model of software production and distribution, and in the context of this analysis, if you were running the software, you should have paid for it. Therefore the company has missed out on the cost of the software, and it is your fault. (You naughty little bluebottle you...)
Besides, I frequently use software I have not payed for, for example, earlier today I used my girlfriends copy of Word to write something. After that I used some software that was available for download by the creators. Later today I will play this game I got for free from a friend who was so tired of it he decided to give it to me instead of throwing it away.
The second part of your statement, while an entertaining train of thought, doesn't really factor into the analysis since they were talking about copies of software installed on computers that shouldn't have been, not people using software they shoudn't. (Naughty sausinges...)
So, have you ever heared of anyone filing for a "theft" in such a case?
As I did point out later on, I am aware of the legal distinction. I'm sitting on the other side of the fence to most users in this debate so in true slashdot style I will trounce my enemies with loud inaccurate arguments from time to time. Once again I apologise for the technical inaccuracy.
There is a VERY big difference between "taking" and "making" (regardless of if what you make is a copy of something or not). FOr example, you can "take" my chair (which would most likely be theft) or you can "make" a chair (identical for example of it) which would NOT be theft. As a craftsman of software (not chairs), I absolutely love this argument. People think that they can make this distinction with someone's work but I just laugh at them. If you make a chair, you've invested not only the materials in the chair, but the skills involved in creating a chair. You have created your very own chair. What sort of useless lame-ass user honestly believes that by copying a CD they have created their very own Unreal Tournament or Halflife? Are you really that technically inadequate that you think there has been some investment of your own in copying thousands or millions of man-hours work from one place to another? Who do you assholes think you are, to demand that we provide you with software? Did we take an oath to provide software for everyone? Did we spend years being poor nerds so we could stay poor nerds?
And if the creator of a (rather special) chair takes the correct steps to protect their work, they too can stop you from copying the fruits of their labour. Now can anybody think WHY?
Would you prefer that we regress to an age where everyone has to write their own software without a development environment? We can start over again. "Oh would you like me to write you/give you a copy of some/my software?" "Why, yes, that would be useful at work!" "Well, here you go, give me $50 for my effort, and don't give it to everyone you see." "Hey do you think if people start using your program you could support yourself enough to spend time making it really great?" "Hey what a cool idea!"
Should we annouce the STLOY licence? We will force everyone to use this for a short time...
It is illegal for you to be reading this text.
It is completely illegal for you to own this software in any form, or to use this software under any circumstances.
The author retains discretion to bring charges against anyone who even LOOKS at this software. The author may allow anyone he or she sees worthy to use this software by simply not havi
As I said before it's sort of semantic.
OK so the software didn't cost the company anything for you to get illegally - they didn't have to produce it.
However under their present business model (which I must stress I do not agree with in all cases) it would normally have cost you $500 dollars just to have a copy of that software on your computer, which the company would see at least part of.
Therefore it does make sense for them to analyse their loss by tallying up estimated numbers of copies and multiplying by the amount they would have received had you purchased the software.
In fact if you think about it that's really the only way they could have done it, without introducing arbitrary fudge factors or more statistics with their own error margins and shortcomings.
As I have also already said, any inflation of the true monetary gain to the company from sales of the pirated software in the analysis is pure BS.
In this context, your arguments are baseless.
We're talking about the monetary loss to a company as a result of someone using a piece of software they haven't paid for.
The software is worth what the company charges for it. If they set the price too high their sales will suffer as you say, however the price of the software is the price of the software, period. (In this context)
To deprive someone of that money by not paying for something IS theft. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how a piece of software is not a real tangible thing, but a copy of a piece of software with a licence is a (legally) a 'thing' which can be sold. To take (or make) a copy of said 'thing' without paying is 'theft', and the value of the loss is the current market price of 'thing'. (In this context)
OK so it's semantic, but you must agree that the parent's original assertion that their intention not to pay in any way reduces the value of the lost sale to the company is outrageous.
To say that the later legal use of this software helps the company recoup all that revenue (lost years ago) is quite another thing, but it is silly to expect the software companies to include this in their analysis of how many squillions in software (that should have been cheaper) they miss out on each year.
To be quite clear, from what I gather the analysis in the so called 'BS' report is completely flawed and if half of what I've heard is true then it's useless statistics brewing.
I do apologise for my exaggeration of copyright infringement as theft, however I was speaking as a developer having money 'thefted' (sic) from my pocket when piracy does occur.
Aaron.
Ah, the joys of the kinds of arguments you use. Build up an imaginary foe and than attack it mercylessly. :-D
Listen to yourself for a second!
"1)"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale" OK, so let's say I go in to get my car's wheels rebalanced (or some other service). When they're done.. I just drive off without paying. Have I done anything wrong? Well, what if "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway"? So it's not a lost sale!"
Ok, so let's say I get the opportunity to "pirate" photoshop and play around with it. Does that translate into a loss for adobe of whatever photoshop might cost today? No, of course not, as I wouldn't have bought it anyway. It's just the fact that I can get it for free that makes me use it.
Ummm, yes it does. Arguing that you wouldn't have bought it anyway is a ridiculous excuse for theft. If you're running a copy you should have paid for, the cost to the company that provided you with that software is EXACTLY the price of the pirate software you shouldn't be running. If you want to later examine the company's ability to make some of that money back from you, fine, but don't use it to justify your initial act. Run away windmill!
I smoke pot! But I still can't believe how many people in here think that skewed statistics somehow justifies their actions. How many of you have opined that piracy is actually good for the industry? Where did you get *your* figures from and how were *they* calculated? Oh, so you were pulling things out of your arse even faster than the BSA wankers? Thought so.
FRIST POTS!!!! Sorry, had to do it. I'm new here.
I agree. It's quite obvious that the sun itself is to blame, and I think we should immediately start trade embargoes against the Sun, and pressure the UN to outlaw the Sun.
that stopping distance is a lie? Let me guess, it came from the land where wearing seatbelts is optional? I know you probably got flamed in the extreme already, but I have to say, that is the stupidest thing I've heard. Ever.
It's probably like GPS, the military will have access to a system that is an order of magnitude more accurate.
:-(
25cm pixels still won't give you that close up of the next door's daughter tho
Aaron.
Introducing the NGGPL, the GPL that allows you to avoid exploitation by your government, making it illegal for them to use your software.
They're always really good at showing you some previous contract you never signed (they like to call them laws) that binds you for life, aren't they?
Why not just let them know how we feel about being manipulated and exploited our whole lives by banning them from using what we produce in our own time?
"Sorry, but ignorance of the fact that each installation by a government worker or department costs $50,000 is no excuse - this contract already existed and you accepted it just by being a citizen of this country.
We put a few tiny words into a ill-reputed tabloid one weekday - it's public knowledge. We voted on it but you weren't there, sorry."
Would it be possible? I'd love to see the backlash on both sides as they realised that they really don't like OR trust each other. (At least, the government would be surprised.)
Aaron.
You think that's a fanciful joke don't you?
Why do you think we want to get into North Korea/China so much?
Aaron.
If this goes anything like other 'innovative' work for the dole schemes I've seen, I given them about 3-4 weeks before they realise they are actually losing cash and that it's not nearly as easy as it sounds. For example, you can't fire someone at all. This won't really work if you give this person access to hack at the code every day even after the relationship has long since gone sour. Aaron
They've been in reseller catalogues for weeks, and I saw them for sale in an Australian PC Mag.
Why do people post this shit? Are we at the cutting edge or what?
Aaron
You mean that period of history where most of the world was brainwashed into believing another economic system was a threat to their own, perpetuating the end of WW2 through until it became too difficult to conceal the truth about how other cultures lived?
At which point it became the War on Terror.
I agree with your sentiment, I guess, but the cold war is a bad example of since it was overshadowed by an arms race by both sides and was also a propaganda war.
I think what he probably meant was that it's wierd some people still can't examine an alternative way of organising society for what it is and leave aside the fact that the whole system was corrupt, like ours is.
While I do agree with the sentiments of the very first post...
:-o).
... ... but I can ring Microsoft 24/7 and talk to someone who will sort me out with basically anything on Windows, Office, the Internet... ... (ellipses are cool) ...
As a programmer and hardware salesman/repairman I've seen and dealt with open source as well as MS solutions in both the home and office, long and short term.
I will say that the price of Microsoft software is pretty outrageous, almost the same as the hardware if you want the whole shebang. (Then again, try buying enough MYOB functionality to run a shop, that will set you back a pretty penny
Some free software is fantastic, in fact in many cases the free stuff is superior in various ways.
Some users will NEVER get the hang of Open Office. "It's just all too differenty to Word".
It's good to see a worldwide push towards this sort of software model because it will drive prices down and functionality up.
The question still remains whether or not these government departments (or anyone) will benefit in the long term. One thing I can tell you is that in Australia getting some guy to fix your XP box will cost about $35/hr whereas a really hopeless Linux administrator will cost about $75. In a 'regional' area like Newcastle you'll have a hard time finding a guy who can install Debian.
("Debbie who?")
I think it will depend on what these people are doing, and how often they normally have to call the 'computer guy' (me).
this.mod(-2, "RAMBLING");
Aaron.
Otherwise how does it make a Margerita? :-)
:-D
Re the post on Juicer virii, it could be kind of cool if, say, your date ended up with a triple vodka on the rocks rather than whatever non-fun thing she had requested.
That's if she didn't run out the door after seeing how incredibly geeky you were whilst showing her your collection of smoothies.