What? C? On Linux? Can you say S-L-O-W!? Just wait until you get some load on that server!
The fact is that C -or- Java running on top of ANY operating system is a recipe for a performance disaster. Folks with the need for speed know this already.
The only way to program for speed and performance is to:
1. snip off any pins on the CPU that could induce interrupts
2. write your program
3. Make sure your program only uses the highest performing registers on the CPU
4. Make sure your program performs no memory I/O once loaded, and performs no loops (a common error!)
5. Convert your program into opcodes and poke them into memory byte by byte (Opcode mnemonics are for candy-assed wimps.)
6. Execute your program!
If your program & its data is too big and bloated to fit onto the CPUs internal registers, then your program will be TOO DAMN SLOW. Then it'll be time to build a custom circuit: keep it small, keep it cold, and keep it massively parallel.
Feel free to complain that we're using somewhat hacky HTML 3.2, but our site works in every browser we've come across since IE/NS 4. "Keep it simple" is all it really takes. And users seem to like it better as well.
Well, I hear you, and I agree with your principles - I was being a bit sarcastic. But in any case, I believe that sites can be both sophisticated and cross-browser at nearly zero cost.
My organization supports all web browsers... not that we explicitly try to - it's just that we have solid UI designers that know what browser features can be problematic. It really takes very low effort to build a solid and sophisticated UI that works well with IE6, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Really old and crusty browsers (IE5 on Windows, NS4) simply can't support all the sophistication due to the standards of their day, but to be honest we find that both of those browsers combined amount to less than 1% of the user population, and falling fast.
That being said, we do have a solid web UI designer & developer, and he has built some technical standards to make sure that we can evolve our site into the future.
The GAP sez: We're working on supporting Safari. Please check back soon.
Well, that's understandable. It can be a chore for retailers to support the web.
Maybe I'll wager $12 that GAP spent more money talking about and implementing the "we don't support Safari" message than it would take to get their site to support Safari. Who wants to take me up on that one?
Go ahead, let me know. Someone analyze their site and let me know what it'd take for Safari support.
If you're not pushing per-view advertising, you want to minimize your page views per visit. You want information available to your readership/users at a minimum click death. Low page views per visit is a lot nicer to the user and minimizes resource consumption (servers, bandwidth, http connections, memory, whatever)
Only those primarily interested in advertising want to maximize their click-count per visit. Those are the same folks who lace their sites with Flash and GIF animations, use faux pop-ups, etc.
(Oh, and no: my website, noted above, is not the "relatively large website" I run.)
I was thinking the same thing. I never ever had the desire or even the idea to go to Real's site more than once. And I can't see why anyone else would want to.
The fact that it's one of the top 10 sites is very curious. I'd question the measurement strategy. Maybe the high ranking was caused by Real Player talking "home" - and not because people love to surf to real.
The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573
Employers note: You can save $20,573 per year per employee. How? Just lay off your citizen employees and replace them with low-cost H1B workers!
Why deal with citizens with full citizenship rights when you can $ave $ave $ave with an H1B!
The publishers are just ticked because they see themselves losing control over content. Meet the new RIAA.
No, the publishers are not afraid of losing control over content.
The publishers want to make public libraries obsolete, and in their place have a for-profit library tightly controlled by a few very strong publishing companies.
Oh yeah, several CFL models I have do in fact discourage against enclosed fixture use, while others say it's OK. And still others have, sadly, no markings.
My three Ikea CFLs (bought about a year ago) are used in a vented ceiling fixture... so I have no idea how they'd perform in an enclosed fixture. I don't believe they had any statement regarding appropriate use.
I have some LightWiz CFLs (I think) in my four enclosed (and seeming airtight) 1950s-vintage ceiling fixtures. One fixture takes two bulbs - the others three take one bulb. In all of my fixtures the bulbs are mounted horizontally. Hope that helps.
it will usually say "instant start" if it has that feature, or "Ikea" if it doesn't:-).
I have three Ikea CFLs in my dining room ceiling fixture. They start within 1/4 second I'd say - they're no problem and they were very inexpensive. And they're quite small in size (I needed small ones to fit in the 1950s-vintage fixture.)
Ikea likely source their CFL bulbs from various manufacturers over time - so maybe I was lucky. Yep, just tried it now - instant start.
CFL's do not like enclosed fixtures - I live in a rental, so I am not inclined to change them, but *every* cfl I put in those fixtures failed
Some CFLs are designed to work in fully-enclosed fixtures.
I too live in an apartment (and I pay for my own utilities). I replaced the incandescences with fixture-rated CFLs... and again, no failures after 3+ years.
Your mileage may vary. Reliability might depend on the manufacturer or ambient temperature (I live in the north).
CFLs are inexpensive and readily available today. CFLs have a long life, and they save a ton of energy when compared to traditional light bulbs. Even more importantly, they don't suck like the CFLs of a few years ago that had a noticeable/painful "warm up" time.
Here's some facts: [...] There are going to be millions of VCRs and other hard coded devices designed to change to the old DST law, meaning many will auto-adjust to the wrong time.
Well, no, I guess those are NOT all facts, just guesses.
XDS, the data system that is used to transmit the time to your VCR, includes a bit indicating Daylight time versus Standard time. That bit is transmitted by the time provider (your local TV station).
The algorithm is not hard-coded on any of the VCRs that use my former employer's XDS-capable chip [most?]. We just used the indicator from the XDS data stream... that was the only right way to do it. I'd be shocked if any vendor bothered to bake in all the various time rules into their devices... especially since the rules change all the time. DST rules changed most recently in the USA in the 1980s.
I can't stand daylight savings time, it kills my day. If the sun is only up for a few hours it should be up later in the day, not like 7 in the morning till 5:30 or something
FYI, DST pushes the clock ahead so the sun is up later in the day (relative to local clock time).
I think you mean to express that you can't stand "standard time", which is defined so that thethe sun rises earlier and sets earlier (again, relative to local clock time)
I work with one of those academic library institutions.
This is more like an effort by the libraries, and Google is basically under contract to do the heavy lifting of scanning and technology, because they're good at such grand data projects. Traditional libraries simply aren't scaled and don't have the budgets to do it all by themselves. There's major cost savings in consolidation and expense-sharing. Why scan 7 times when you can scan once?
It seems like the publishers are really aiming for a for-fee privatized electronic library system, cutting out traditional non-profit libraries.
OK, we know that Apple is merely the 5th largest brand in terms of computer sales in the US (after Dell, IBM, HP and Gateway).
But to be honest, only Apple does stuff in the consumer space that's newsworthy. All the other brands release new computers all the time... but they aren't risk-taking, innovative computers - they're the same old stuff with a new model number and new clock speeds.
It took Apple to do something like sell a product other than beige. You know who notices? Everyone! That kind of stuff, no matter how stupid, is news WORTHY. That's why.
Furthermore, if anything, the Mac is less popular in the press than it was 10 years ago, completely deflating any argument that the Mac gets press because people in the press use Macs. Where were these reporters 10 years ago?
Oh yeah, at that time, Apple WAS selling beige computers.
Apple does have a big advantage here - they're looking to be a consumer brand. On the flip side, the other manufacturers are catering mostly to business, and any home consumer sales are gravy.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the best post I read all week. Mod up the parent: Insightful.
Excellent point! Mod up the parent!
The fact is that there is less money in "home" sales. Maybe more units are sold, but less revenue is generated!
What? C? On Linux? Can you say S-L-O-W!? Just wait until you get some load on that server!
The fact is that C -or- Java running on top of ANY operating system is a recipe for a performance disaster. Folks with the need for speed know this already.
The only way to program for speed and performance is to:
1. snip off any pins on the CPU that could induce interrupts
2. write your program
3. Make sure your program only uses the highest performing registers on the CPU
4. Make sure your program performs no memory I/O once loaded, and performs no loops (a common error!)
5. Convert your program into opcodes and poke them into memory byte by byte (Opcode mnemonics are for candy-assed wimps.)
6. Execute your program!
If your program & its data is too big and bloated to fit onto the CPUs internal registers, then your program will be TOO DAMN SLOW. Then it'll be time to build a custom circuit: keep it small, keep it cold, and keep it massively parallel.
Feel free to complain that we're using somewhat hacky HTML 3.2, but our site works in every browser we've come across since IE/NS 4. "Keep it simple" is all it really takes. And users seem to like it better as well.
Well, I hear you, and I agree with your principles - I was being a bit sarcastic. But in any case, I believe that sites can be both sophisticated and cross-browser at nearly zero cost.
My organization supports all web browsers... not that we explicitly try to - it's just that we have solid UI designers that know what browser features can be problematic. It really takes very low effort to build a solid and sophisticated UI that works well with IE6, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Really old and crusty browsers (IE5 on Windows, NS4) simply can't support all the sophistication due to the standards of their day, but to be honest we find that both of those browsers combined amount to less than 1% of the user population, and falling fast.
That being said, we do have a solid web UI designer & developer, and he has built some technical standards to make sure that we can evolve our site into the future.
The GAP sez:
We're working on supporting Safari. Please check back soon.
Well, that's understandable. It can be a chore for retailers to support the web.
Maybe I'll wager $12 that GAP spent more money talking about and implementing the "we don't support Safari" message than it would take to get their site to support Safari. Who wants to take me up on that one?
Go ahead, let me know. Someone analyze their site and let me know what it'd take for Safari support.
As someone who runs a relatively large website:
If you're not pushing per-view advertising, you want to minimize your page views per visit. You want information available to your readership/users at a minimum click death. Low page views per visit is a lot nicer to the user and minimizes resource consumption (servers, bandwidth, http connections, memory, whatever)
Only those primarily interested in advertising want to maximize their click-count per visit. Those are the same folks who lace their sites with Flash and GIF animations, use faux pop-ups, etc.
(Oh, and no: my website, noted above, is not the "relatively large website" I run.)
I was thinking the same thing. I never ever had the desire or even the idea to go to Real's site more than once. And I can't see why anyone else would want to.
The fact that it's one of the top 10 sites is very curious. I'd question the measurement strategy. Maybe the high ranking was caused by Real Player talking "home" - and not because people love to surf to real.
Microsoft seems to be blindly copying whatever is coming out of Google these days.
With that kind of attitude, your resume must be pretty weak:
"I copied a bunch of ideas and software from others in hopes of looking bright".
You should "MicroSofterize" yourself. Then your resume can read:
"I developed and patented innovative software systems for the betterment of mankind".
Yahoo is reporting that Yak Communications has launched their new voice and video calling service, yakForFree. From the article: [...]
This isn't an article written by a reporter. This is a corporate press release, evidently written by the owners of the product.
Advertising? Yep. News? No.
The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573
Employers note: You can save $20,573 per year per employee. How? Just lay off your citizen employees and replace them with low-cost H1B workers!
Why deal with citizens with full citizenship rights when you can $ave $ave $ave with an H1B!
The publishers are just ticked because they see themselves losing control over content. Meet the new RIAA. No, the publishers are not afraid of losing control over content. The publishers want to make public libraries obsolete, and in their place have a for-profit library tightly controlled by a few very strong publishing companies.
Oh yeah, several CFL models I have do in fact discourage against enclosed fixture use, while others say it's OK. And still others have, sadly, no markings.
My three Ikea CFLs (bought about a year ago) are used in a vented ceiling fixture... so I have no idea how they'd perform in an enclosed fixture. I don't believe they had any statement regarding appropriate use.
I have some LightWiz CFLs (I think) in my four enclosed (and seeming airtight) 1950s-vintage ceiling fixtures. One fixture takes two bulbs - the others three take one bulb. In all of my fixtures the bulbs are mounted horizontally. Hope that helps.
it will usually say "instant start" if it has that feature, or "Ikea" if it doesn't :-).
I have three Ikea CFLs in my dining room ceiling fixture. They start within 1/4 second I'd say - they're no problem and they were very inexpensive. And they're quite small in size (I needed small ones to fit in the 1950s-vintage fixture.)
Ikea likely source their CFL bulbs from various manufacturers over time - so maybe I was lucky. Yep, just tried it now - instant start.
CFL's do not like enclosed fixtures - I live in a rental, so I am not inclined to change them, but *every* cfl I put in those fixtures failed
Some CFLs are designed to work in fully-enclosed fixtures.
I too live in an apartment (and I pay for my own utilities). I replaced the incandescences with fixture-rated CFLs... and again, no failures after 3+ years.
Your mileage may vary. Reliability might depend on the manufacturer or ambient temperature (I live in the north).
This could be a big advance for LEDs. But as of now, commercially available LEDs do NOT produce as many lumens per watt as Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs.) Of course, this new LED discovery may improve LED efficiency to the point where they exceed CFL efficiency. We'll have to wait and see.
CFLs are inexpensive and readily available today. CFLs have a long life, and they save a ton of energy when compared to traditional light bulbs. Even more importantly, they don't suck like the CFLs of a few years ago that had a noticeable/painful "warm up" time.
I save quite a bit off of my energy bill by using CFLs. They really cut down on electricity consumption, and I've never had one "burn out" on me. Ever. Yet.
Here's some facts: [...] There are going to be millions of VCRs and other hard coded devices designed to change to the old DST law, meaning many will auto-adjust to the wrong time.
Well, no, I guess those are NOT all facts, just guesses.
XDS, the data system that is used to transmit the time to your VCR, includes a bit indicating Daylight time versus Standard time. That bit is transmitted by the time provider (your local TV station).
The algorithm is not hard-coded on any of the VCRs that use my former employer's XDS-capable chip [most?]. We just used the indicator from the XDS data stream... that was the only right way to do it. I'd be shocked if any vendor bothered to bake in all the various time rules into their devices... especially since the rules change all the time. DST rules changed most recently in the USA in the 1980s.
I can't stand daylight savings time, it kills my day. If the sun is only up for a few hours it should be up later in the day, not like 7 in the morning till 5:30 or something
FYI, DST pushes the clock ahead so the sun is up later in the day (relative to local clock time).
I think you mean to express that you can't stand "standard time", which is defined so that thethe sun rises earlier and sets earlier (again, relative to local clock time)
I work with one of those academic library institutions.
This is more like an effort by the libraries, and Google is basically under contract to do the heavy lifting of scanning and technology, because they're good at such grand data projects. Traditional libraries simply aren't scaled and don't have the budgets to do it all by themselves. There's major cost savings in consolidation and expense-sharing. Why scan 7 times when you can scan once?
It seems like the publishers are really aiming for a for-fee privatized electronic library system, cutting out traditional non-profit libraries.
OK, we know that Apple is merely the 5th largest brand in terms of computer sales in the US (after Dell, IBM, HP and Gateway).
But to be honest, only Apple does stuff in the consumer space that's newsworthy. All the other brands release new computers all the time... but they aren't risk-taking, innovative computers - they're the same old stuff with a new model number and new clock speeds.
It took Apple to do something like sell a product other than beige. You know who notices? Everyone! That kind of stuff, no matter how stupid, is news WORTHY. That's why.
Furthermore, if anything, the Mac is less popular in the press than it was 10 years ago, completely deflating any argument that the Mac gets press because people in the press use Macs. Where were these reporters 10 years ago?
Oh yeah, at that time, Apple WAS selling beige computers.
Apple does have a big advantage here - they're looking to be a consumer brand. On the flip side, the other manufacturers are catering mostly to business, and any home consumer sales are gravy.