With a fraction of that money a lot of deaths could be prevented by improving road safety, tackling malnutration or other causes of preventable deaths. Seems more important to me than than human spaceflight in the shape of the iSS or Mars missions.
... the fact that IE usage there is below average suggests that IE users are on average smarter than the web population as a whole (so they know to avoid it).
That off-topic remark aside, why do people think that this matters? 10 years ago it made a difference, but now? Not so much.
To work on them collaboratively from disparate locations. Emailing document versions back and forth or having people access the document off a file server don't come close.
Yep. PowerPoint was also first on the Mac. Word for Mac also happened in the mid-80s. Granted, calling it "Office " happened much later, but there wasn't much more to it than bundling the individual apps.
There's no need to quit Facebook over this, all it takes is making the list of friends viewable by friends only. Which is actually good practice for all social networks.
Of course there was. JDK 1.0.2 was entirely Sun's doing. The awfulness of it prompted Applet to take over in order to control it - and the Java experience on the Mac became much better fast,
Ten years ago I worked for a manufacturer of steam turbines. The code to design the turbines still had comments dated from the mid-Fifties in it, and it was obvious it really was that old, and that some parts had barely been touched since. This was in Fortran, although some of the newer parts were in C.
I'm fairly certain that the code is still being used, due to the way it is being maintained (just update and patch, no throwing away and starting over).
Indeed, it was pulled a couple of months ago. And even if someone gets their hand on it, it doesn't work under Leopard (10.5). Of course, it hadn't been updated before being pulled for a long time.
> So basicly they are just removing the bloat and making the browser faster.
They're making the bookmark system faster, not the browser. Using bookmarks constitutes a fraction of the time spent in a browser, so the overall performnace gain will be negligible.
... and neither was Eniac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac), although Eniac was built for military purposes: the calculation of trajectory tables for ballistic artillery.
...is the 7-layer theoretical model. It's very easy to talk about network funtionality when you can just say "that's a layer 4 functionality (or protocol)" and it's just understood that it's above IP, but beneath HTTP, and what it does and does not attempt to be.
I visited the US last year, and there were still some people living there. None seemed older than about 100 or so, though. Of course, some may have procreated since then.
The line you rode must have been the one that ran underneath Eastern Berlin for a couple of miles. If you look at subway maps of the time, you won't see the stations, but the line is clearly marked as running through GDR territory. I'd guess that the policemen were there is case somebody managed to get into the stations and tried to stop and get on the train.
I have not seen any story of an Oracle DB being broken/broken in since - it's their app server that was shown to be vulnerable. Their naming scheme is confusing, though, both DB and app server have "9i" in their names.
What's especially interesting is that Darwin runs on Intel PC's. This means that if Apple wanted to make Mac OS X available as an alternative to Microsoft Windows, all it would theoretically take is a recompile for the x86 architecture...
No, it would take a hell of a lot more. Darwin runs on x86, but that's only the fundation. What's missing is e.g. Quartz (graphics engine), Aqua (UI), and all the rest of the Carbon APIs. An x86 port would be a HUGE undertaking. The rumors about Apple having (had) prototypes are in my opinion based on x86 versions of Rhapsody, the OS X precursor that never saw the light of the day. Rhapsody descended much more closely from NextStep, of which an x86 version existed. But not OS X.
Lets also not forget the little matter of needing software that can take advantage of parallelism. Not being familiar with QNX I don't know if it can schedule threads or processes across networked computers (my guess would be no), but tools for parallel execution (especially compilers and efficient networking libraries) are still hard to write and generally expensive. Something like MPI can probably be gotten for free these days, but then you're back coding Fortran or C or something, always with a watchful eye on parallel performance. That takes experience and time, both of which aren't cheap. Also, if any communication needs to hapen between processors, network latency usually tends to be a bigger problem than network bandwidth, unless large amounts of data are transferred (in which case good performance may be impossible due to a low CPU/communication ratio).
Slashdot Mirror
FlyingSaucer uses iText 2, which is licensed under the LGPL - that might maybe make it OK (and free) to use?
With a fraction of that money a lot of deaths could be prevented by improving road safety, tackling malnutration or other causes of preventable deaths. Seems more important to me than than human spaceflight in the shape of the iSS or Mars missions.
... the fact that IE usage there is below average suggests that IE users are on average smarter than the web population as a whole (so they know to avoid it).
That off-topic remark aside, why do people think that this matters? 10 years ago it made a difference, but now? Not so much.
+1. That's a paper everyone should read.
To work on them collaboratively from disparate locations. Emailing document versions back and forth or having people access the document off a file server don't come close.
Yep. PowerPoint was also first on the Mac. Word for Mac also happened in the mid-80s. Granted, calling it "Office " happened much later, but there wasn't much more to it than bundling the individual apps.
Not only is the claimed quote ("too fast to be true") nowhere to be found in the linked article, but there isn't even a basis for that claim.
There is in fact a basis for that claim, even if it isn't mentioned in that particular article. See http://crypto.junod.info/2010/12/10/sha-3-finalists-announced-by-nist/ for more about that.
There's no need to quit Facebook over this, all it takes is making the list of friends viewable by friends only. Which is actually good practice for all social networks.
There has never been a Sun Java for Macs.
Of course there was. JDK 1.0.2 was entirely Sun's doing. The awfulness of it prompted Applet to take over in order to control it - and the Java experience on the Mac became much better fast,
http://www.cringely.com/2010/01/apple-tablet-twit/
+1. Storytelling Alice might be more age-appropriate -if not gender-appropriate- though.
The Japanese satellite Ibuki has been in orbit since January.
An interesting article on historical charts -including this one and the one by Minard- was published by the Economist last year: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10278643
Ten years ago I worked for a manufacturer of steam turbines. The code to design the turbines still had comments dated from the mid-Fifties in it, and it was obvious it really was that old, and that some parts had barely been touched since. This was in Fortran, although some of the newer parts were in C.
I'm fairly certain that the code is still being used, due to the way it is being maintained (just update and patch, no throwing away and starting over).
Indeed, it was pulled a couple of months ago. And even if someone gets their hand on it, it doesn't work under Leopard (10.5). Of course, it hadn't been updated before being pulled for a long time.
> So basicly they are just removing the bloat and making the browser faster.
They're making the bookmark system faster, not the browser. Using bookmarks constitutes a fraction of the time spent in a browser, so the overall performnace gain will be negligible.
... and neither was Eniac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac), although Eniac was built for military purposes: the calculation of trajectory tables for ballistic artillery.
...is the 7-layer theoretical model. It's very easy to talk about network funtionality when you can just say "that's a layer 4 functionality (or protocol)" and it's just understood that it's above IP, but beneath HTTP, and what it does and does not attempt to be.
I visited the US last year, and there were still some people living there. None seemed older than about 100 or so, though. Of course, some may have procreated since then.
Actually, Phil Schiller even said that Apple would NOT stop it if some enterprising hacker were to do it. It would be totally unsupported of course.
Ulf
The line you rode must have been the one that ran underneath Eastern Berlin for a couple of miles. If you look at subway maps of the time, you won't see the stations, but the line is clearly marked as running through GDR territory. I'd guess that the policemen were there is case somebody managed to get into the stations and tried to stop and get on the train.
I have not seen any story of an Oracle DB being broken/broken in since - it's their app server that was shown to be vulnerable. Their naming scheme is confusing, though, both DB and app server have "9i" in their names.
What's especially interesting is that Darwin runs on Intel PC's. This means that if Apple wanted to make Mac OS X available as an alternative to Microsoft Windows, all it would theoretically take is a recompile for the x86 architecture...
No, it would take a hell of a lot more. Darwin runs on x86, but that's only the fundation. What's missing is e.g. Quartz (graphics engine), Aqua (UI), and all the rest of the Carbon APIs. An x86 port would be a HUGE undertaking. The rumors about Apple having (had) prototypes are in my opinion based on x86 versions of Rhapsody, the OS X precursor that never saw the light of the day. Rhapsody descended much more closely from NextStep, of which an x86 version existed. But not OS X.
Lets also not forget the little matter of needing software that can take advantage of parallelism. Not being familiar with QNX I don't know if it can schedule threads or processes across networked computers (my guess would be no), but tools for parallel execution (especially compilers and efficient networking libraries) are still hard to write and generally expensive. Something like MPI can probably be gotten for free these days, but then you're back coding Fortran or C or something, always with a watchful eye on parallel performance. That takes experience and time, both of which aren't cheap. Also, if any communication needs to hapen between processors, network latency usually tends to be a bigger problem than network bandwidth, unless large amounts of data are transferred (in which case good performance may be impossible due to a low CPU/communication ratio).