The NMEA feed is not in sync with the actual clock, nor is the delay consistent. It's useless for synching NTP. One needs access to the PPS line from
the GPS module, which pretty much means buying the OEM module and building the support (power, ports -- they're plenty of schematics for this out on the net) or buying one of the ready made clocks.
1. They meant the Icon programming language, see here
2. There are such things as graphical/icon programming languages. (After all, isn't that what a flowchart is?) The may make the most sense in simulations, where each box can be a type of transform, and you can connect them together in (presumably) interesting ways. Here's one link that might be interesting.
Or not.
b) at this stage upgrading is not easy at all. I upgrade KDE fairly regularly, and even though I use binary packages built specifically for my Mandrake distro (the supposedly user-friendly one), I still have to slog through the dependency swamp every time I install it.
Install Debian. Yeah, the initial install isn't
as pretty or easy as Mandrake or Redhat. But you
only have to do it once. After that, you have
the joy of apt-get upgrade. And no, the
clone for RPMs is not the same, because there's more
to the way that Debian works than just apt-get. (Think Debian Policy).
For example, freedb is open source, which means anyone can upload track listings. The result is 30 spellings of "Oops I did it again!", while anything that isn't in the top 40 is unrecognized.
I'll grant you the spelling issues, but I have a fairly eclectic collection, and I think the only one that freedb came up empty on was an obscure local band. Anyway, if it misses, you add them for the next person. That's the whole point of the system, isn't it? If you just want to leach off of the work of others, then stick with CDDB.
What makes you think I don't? I generally ask my passengers not to talk to me while I'm in traffic, as I've found I make many more mistakes if I try to converse. But, FWIW, I've found talking on the phone to somehow be even more isolating that talking with
a passenger, so I do think they're different. And my experience is that the majority of people I see weaving, or letting their speed vary erratically, or just plain cutting people off, are talking on a cellphone.
But there's more. I also have a Bluetooth headset. It sits in my ear and I can talk on my cell phone, without dangly wires. It's a pain in the ass to get in your car while you're on a cell phone, because you have to thread the wired headset through the seat belt just right, or risk getting all tangled up. Me, I just carry my phone in my pocket, no muss, no fuss.
Oh, just great. Another jerk yakking on his cellphone while driving, and I can't even see the wires to know to stay the hell away. And no, "hands free" doesn't make it safe. Driving safely in traffic requires 100% concentration. You cannot converse on phone and drive at the same time.
Pricewatch is useful, but before you take
the lowest price, check them out at
Reseller Ratings. Sometimes it's better to spend the extra $10 and avoid the rip-off artists.
And I'm not just MS bashing. I've had experiences
with MS tech that closely resemble these. Every time
I hear a PHB say "We have to use MS, becase we need the support" I just laugh and laugh and laugh. Then I go back to my office and cry.
You don't have to click. All the cracker need do is force a redirect to a "gopher" site via HTTP or Javascript or whatever. And it doesn't have to be
a real gopher site, just a server that injects the exploit.
Qmail is probably secure. The controversial issues that I can think of are these:
The license doesn't allow one to distribute binaries of modified source. This pretty much keeps it out of Linux distributions, because they need to modify the default layout, etc. There's other annoying bits about his licenses. See
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html for info.
It has (or perhaps used to, maybe this has been fixed) some pretty abusive behaviors when delivering mail to lots of users on the same host.
Sure, you can cut the bad box off at the router,
but that's not going to help the other people in
the building, or sharing the switch. One needs to decide whether the value of that functionality (being able to remotely turn off a particular node, w/o affecting anyone else) is worth the expense, or
that need will be rare enough that you're willing to
go the switch closet and physically unplug the node.
A lot of C code is written by people who are not completely sure of the difference between C and Visual Basic; that doesn't justify benchmarking C compilers with with --skip-boring-loops enabled.
...but the kind of code that normal people actually use does.
Hmmm, I guess I'm abnormal...I'd always suspected as much.
I had thought of games, but aren't there fixed point algorithms for MP3 and DIVX that are faster than floating point? Or is it primarily that the fixed point algorithms are faster on machines w/o floating point hardware, but not in general?
While there are some uses for it, I doubt that any serious floating-point codes would use "fast-math" (shorthand for "not-quite-right-math"). IEEE math is not perfect, but it allows one to estimate and control error accumulation reliably. The correct response to discovering that ICC defaults to fast-math is not to enable it in GCC, but disable it in ICC.
I've no idea whether it change the relative result of the benchmarks, but at least they'd be representative of actual use. (Or run them both ways, actually, to see which compiler is "cheating" more:-)).
What can happen with inlining is that code size expands to be larger than the available CPU cache memory. (Re-)Loading code from main memory (or slower cache, for CPU's with multi-level caches) is slower than a few register updates. You can see the same effect with loop-unrolling, although given the way CPU caches have grown means it's becomeing less of a factor.
Note in particular the article's observation that "inlining doesn't show any slowdown" is exactly that: an observation, applicable to that particular processor. A serious project would have to benchmark their particular application on their particular target machine to determine the best choice of compiler options.
The goal of GCC is to work on a wide variety of architectures, which it does.Another goal is to comply with various language standards, which is getting there. Performance is a much lower priority -- it's "good enough" for most uses, and if you seriously need to crunch some numbers, well, then you need to spring for the vendor's compiler. My experience (several years working on software that ran on SunOS/Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and (Open)VMS) was that GCC was a superior tool for developement and debugging (much better compliance and error messages), but then we went with the vendor compilers for final testing and release to get the performance we needed.
GCC is *not* competing with ICC, because they have different goals and different target markets. As far as Mr. Mitchel evaluating ICC, he probably can't due to fears of copyright or patent infringement.
"The reason why you're seeing such a focus on VeriSign is that the safety and the integrity of these systems needs to be analyzed and needs to be improved upon regardless of how safe they currently are." -- Commerce Department spokesman Trevor Francis
No matter how good it is, we need to improve it. That makes a whole lot of sense. 'Hey people, we're doing something to make you safer!'. What a bunch of loons.
I work in an open arrangement. The benefit is I can shout to whomever I want to ask a question. And I might get an answer but from someone else.
So you *liked* working in an environment where one person would interrupt and destroty the concentration of the whole group to ask
a question? And you think that's productive?
However in the move the executives were now on their own floor. They were more isolated.
Having individual (or paired) offices for people doesn't mean that you can't have everyone accessible. The point of having offices is that
a few people can have a conversation without disturbing everyone in the area.
And no company can sustain "4-digit growth".
It's simply not possible.
I thought scientific names...
on
Megapnosaurus?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...included family/genus/species as well (e.g.
homo habilus vs homo sapien), so how can
a beetle name conflict with a dinosaur name? And if they do conflict, why is there an "elephant beetle"?
This is exactly the kind of question you need to ask a real lawyer, in your jurisdiction.
My guess is that you are less likely to be sued by a company over a favorable recommendation than by a person over an unfavorable recommendation. But I'm not lawyer, and that's only a guess.
It's buggy as hell - it's easier then signing up for aol to nuke your system this way (in other words, it happens quite often by accident)
Huh? I suspect user error. I've been using Debian/dpkg since pre 1.0 days, and I can count
the number of times dpkg has had system wrecking errors on one hand. I can count the number of times that it actually wrecked my system on one finger -- after that, I got a little more cautious about upgrading dpkg in the unstable tree. (i.e. wait a few hours and read debian-devel), There are ways to tell dpkg to hose your system, but those aren't bugs, those are options with big nasty warnings next to them.
Now, there have been many more occurences of buggy packages screwing things up, but that's hardly dpkg's fault. And if you live on unstable, well, that's what you get.
No good front-ends -
apt-get install aptitude
(Not in stable, but coming soon[1] to a release near you.
Configuration - dpkg has a system that allows the package to prompt for a few options before it is installed. this is a good thing, but the packages usually don't ask enough.
Again, not a dpkg issue. If the package doesn't
provide sufficient configuration flexibility, it's an issue with the particular package.
Available packages - this is where dpkg falls flat on it's face. 95% of unix packages are rpms. that never helps. a unified packaging system needs to be put into place
I don't know where you got that statistic. Yes,
maybe 95% of packages you see floating around random websites are in rpm, but I doubt that 20 times as many software packages available as rpms
vs. debs. Most upstream developers don't provide debs, because there's a debian developer to do so for them; the fact that mozilla.org has rpms but not debs doesn't mean there aren't.debs of Mozilla. (I'll allow that the ratio for non-free software is much worse, for fairly obvious reasons.)
Slashdot Mirror
The NMEA feed is not in sync with the actual clock, nor is the delay consistent. It's useless for synching NTP. One needs access to the PPS line from the GPS module, which pretty much means buying the OEM module and building the support (power, ports -- they're plenty of schematics for this out on the net) or buying one of the ready made clocks.
1. They meant the Icon programming language, see here
2. There are such things as graphical/icon programming languages. (After all, isn't that what a flowchart is?) The may make the most sense in simulations, where each box can be a type of transform, and you can connect them together in (presumably) interesting ways. Here's one link that might be interesting. Or not.
b) at this stage upgrading is not easy at all. I upgrade KDE fairly regularly, and even though I use binary packages built specifically for my Mandrake distro (the supposedly user-friendly one), I still have to slog through the dependency swamp every time I install it.
Install Debian. Yeah, the initial install isn't as pretty or easy as Mandrake or Redhat. But you only have to do it once. After that, you have the joy of apt-get upgrade. And no, the clone for RPMs is not the same, because there's more to the way that Debian works than just apt-get. (Think Debian Policy).
For example, freedb is open source, which means anyone can upload track listings. The result is 30 spellings of "Oops I did it again!", while anything that isn't in the top 40 is unrecognized.
I'll grant you the spelling issues, but I have a fairly eclectic collection, and I think the only one that freedb came up empty on was an obscure local band. Anyway, if it misses, you add them for the next person. That's the whole point of the system, isn't it? If you just want to leach off of the work of others, then stick with CDDB.
No, those of us who are seriously into music and audio quality will buy bigger disks and compress with a lossless encoder like flac.
What makes you think I don't? I generally ask my passengers not to talk to me while I'm in traffic, as I've found I make many more mistakes if I try to converse. But, FWIW, I've found talking on the phone to somehow be even more isolating that talking with a passenger, so I do think they're different. And my experience is that the majority of people I see weaving, or letting their speed vary erratically, or just plain cutting people off, are talking on a cellphone.
But there's more. I also have a Bluetooth headset. It sits in my ear and I can talk on my cell phone, without dangly wires. It's a pain in the ass to get in your car while you're on a cell phone, because you have to thread the wired headset through the seat belt just right, or risk getting all tangled up. Me, I just carry my phone in my pocket, no muss, no fuss.
Oh, just great. Another jerk yakking on his cellphone while driving, and I can't even see the wires to know to stay the hell away. And no, "hands free" doesn't make it safe. Driving safely in traffic requires 100% concentration. You cannot converse on phone and drive at the same time.
I bought a domain for precisely that reason. But: $100/12 ~= $8/month. Good luck getting reliable domain hosting and e-mail forwarding for $8 a month.
Yeah, the upgrade ought to be less, especially for those who bought recently.
No, don't write one, get dia2sql
And just how is adding "woody/updates" to your sources list going to help you with potato?
Pricewatch is useful, but before you take the lowest price, check them out at Reseller Ratings. Sometimes it's better to spend the extra $10 and avoid the rip-off artists.
This would be funnier if it weren't so accurate: Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network
And I'm not just MS bashing. I've had experiences with MS tech that closely resemble these. Every time I hear a PHB say "We have to use MS, becase we need the support" I just laugh and laugh and laugh. Then I go back to my office and cry.
You don't have to click. All the cracker need do is force a redirect to a "gopher" site via HTTP or Javascript or whatever. And it doesn't have to be a real gopher site, just a server that injects the exploit.
is qmail controversial?
Qmail is probably secure. The controversial issues that I can think of are these:
"Um, no." Or, at least, "Um, maybe."
Sure, you can cut the bad box off at the router, but that's not going to help the other people in the building, or sharing the switch. One needs to decide whether the value of that functionality (being able to remotely turn off a particular node, w/o affecting anyone else) is worth the expense, or that need will be rare enough that you're willing to go the switch closet and physically unplug the node.
A lot of C code is written by people who are not completely sure of the difference between C and Visual Basic; that doesn't justify benchmarking C compilers with with --skip-boring-loops enabled.
Hmmm, I guess I'm abnormal...I'd always suspected as much.
I had thought of games, but aren't there fixed point algorithms for MP3 and DIVX that are faster than floating point? Or is it primarily that the fixed point algorithms are faster on machines w/o floating point hardware, but not in general?
While there are some uses for it, I doubt that any serious floating-point codes would use "fast-math" (shorthand for "not-quite-right-math"). IEEE math is not perfect, but it allows one to estimate and control error accumulation reliably. The correct response to discovering that ICC defaults to fast-math is not to enable it in GCC, but disable it in ICC.
I've no idea whether it change the relative result of the benchmarks, but at least they'd be representative of actual use. (Or run them both ways, actually, to see which compiler is "cheating" more :-)).
What can happen with inlining is that code size expands to be larger than the available CPU cache memory. (Re-)Loading code from main memory (or slower cache, for CPU's with multi-level caches) is slower than a few register updates. You can see the same effect with loop-unrolling, although given the way CPU caches have grown means it's becomeing less of a factor.
Note in particular the article's observation that "inlining doesn't show any slowdown" is exactly that: an observation, applicable to that particular processor. A serious project would have to benchmark their particular application on their particular target machine to determine the best choice of compiler options.
The goal of GCC is to work on a wide variety of architectures, which it does.Another goal is to comply with various language standards, which is getting there. Performance is a much lower priority -- it's "good enough" for most uses, and if you seriously need to crunch some numbers, well, then you need to spring for the vendor's compiler. My experience (several years working on software that ran on SunOS/Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and (Open)VMS) was that GCC was a superior tool for developement and debugging (much better compliance and error messages), but then we went with the vendor compilers for final testing and release to get the performance we needed.
GCC is *not* competing with ICC, because they have different goals and different target markets. As far as Mr. Mitchel evaluating ICC, he probably can't due to fears of copyright or patent infringement.
"The reason why you're seeing such a focus on VeriSign is that the safety and the integrity of these systems needs to be analyzed and needs to be improved upon regardless of how safe they currently are." -- Commerce Department spokesman Trevor Francis
No matter how good it is, we need to improve it. That makes a whole lot of sense. 'Hey people, we're doing something to make you safer!'. What a bunch of loons.
I work in an open arrangement. The benefit is I can shout to whomever I want to ask a question. And I might get an answer but from someone else.
So you *liked* working in an environment where one person would interrupt and destroty the concentration of the whole group to ask a question? And you think that's productive?
However in the move the executives were now on their own floor. They were more isolated.
Having individual (or paired) offices for people doesn't mean that you can't have everyone accessible. The point of having offices is that a few people can have a conversation without disturbing everyone in the area.
And no company can sustain "4-digit growth". It's simply not possible.
...included family/genus/species as well (e.g. homo habilus vs homo sapien), so how can a beetle name conflict with a dinosaur name? And if they do conflict, why is there an "elephant beetle"?
This is exactly the kind of question you need to ask a real lawyer, in your jurisdiction.
My guess is that you are less likely to be sued by a company over a favorable recommendation than by a person over an unfavorable recommendation. But I'm not lawyer, and that's only a guess.
It's buggy as hell - it's easier then signing up for aol to nuke your system this way (in other words, it happens quite often by accident)
Huh? I suspect user error. I've been using Debian/dpkg since pre 1.0 days, and I can count the number of times dpkg has had system wrecking errors on one hand. I can count the number of times that it actually wrecked my system on one finger -- after that, I got a little more cautious about upgrading dpkg in the unstable tree. (i.e. wait a few hours and read debian-devel), There are ways to tell dpkg to hose your system, but those aren't bugs, those are options with big nasty warnings next to them.
Now, there have been many more occurences of buggy packages screwing things up, but that's hardly dpkg's fault. And if you live on unstable, well, that's what you get.
No good front-ends -
apt-get install aptitude
(Not in stable, but coming soon[1] to a release near you.
Configuration - dpkg has a system that allows the package to prompt for a few options before it is installed. this is a good thing, but the packages usually don't ask enough.
Again, not a dpkg issue. If the package doesn't provide sufficient configuration flexibility, it's an issue with the particular package.
Available packages - this is where dpkg falls flat on it's face. 95% of unix packages are rpms. that never helps. a unified packaging system needs to be put into place
I don't know where you got that statistic. Yes, maybe 95% of packages you see floating around random websites are in rpm, but I doubt that 20 times as many software packages available as rpms vs. debs. Most upstream developers don't provide debs, because there's a debian developer to do so for them; the fact that mozilla.org has rpms but not debs doesn't mean there aren't .debs of Mozilla. (I'll allow that the ratio for non-free software is much worse, for fairly obvious reasons.)
Steve
[1] "soon" in Debian terms, at least :-)