Ack! I can't believe that no one has mentioned Object Oriented Software Construction (2nd Edition) by Bertrand Meyer.
Though you may not always agree with what he says, he brings a rigor and thoughtfulness to OO design. This book can help you understand how stuff like multiple inheritance should work. He also gives some interesting ideas on things like parallel programming in an OO world... something beyond just threads and semaphores.
Even if you don't (or can't) program in Eiffel (the language used in the book) I believe this hefty tome (1000+ pages) can improve your design ability.
Not a superperbly manouverable aircraft, but it had a T/W ratio far better than anything else in it's day, IIRC. That, and the fact that it can "take some licks and keep on ticking" contributed to its long and distinguished career in many air forces of the world.
There's no 'reverse lift' when you're flying upside down.
A plane's wing is optimized to provide lift and reduce drag when it's right-side up. Just because wings are optimized, it doesn't mean that other things won't work.
You can, for example, make a regular plane with flat boards as wings. You have to tilt them up at a high angle of attack, which greatly increases drag. With sufficient power, you'll get off the ground.
When flying inverted, it's the same sort of thing. You have to increase the angle of attack (as you mention) and you'll get lift, even if you're using the wing "wrong". Takes more power, causes more drag, but it will work.
Hmmm... Interesting. Did you have a single process running the inserts or multiple ones. It has been previously claimed that PostgreSQL and O are better than MySQL for multi-user applications.
hypocrisy
n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real
conviction [syn: {lip service}]
2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or
beliefs that you do not really have
It seems pretty clear to me that unless Cmdr. Taco uses Open Source, he is in danger of having his opinions disregarded. And his site disregarded.
Some fuel cells, like the ones on the space shuttle, combine H2 and O2 to generate electricity and water.
Other fuel cells use methane or propane plus O2 to generate electricity.
For hydrogen fuel cells, you have to create and store the hydrogen gas. With other fuel cells that use hydrocarbon fuels directly, that's not necessary.
Re:You twisted the question though.
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
Hello? Not everyone has broadband access to the Internet. Not everyone has untimed access to the Internet.
In many countries, there is a per minute charge for dial-up connections. Every second spent downloading spam is directly costing the user money.
Well, when companies have laws passed that restrict the development of free software (by making the authors liable for problems), then maybe you'll start to worry.
Oh, wait. Read up on the UCTIA. Start worrying now.
Check out PC Weasel. It is a card that emulates a MDA but pipes the output over serial. With this you can run your system headless, and still be able to get into the BIOS.
Sheesh. If you were seriously thinking about buying a TiVo without the subscription, then you are going to be wasting your money anyway.
Yes, unless you get the lifetime subscription, it is $10/month. Unless your time is worth nothing to you, then the it is well worth the price.
My TiVo has allowed me to watch what I want, when I want. I consider it to be one of my best purchase decisions... ever.
So instead of spending time bashing a product that you haven't really tried out, why don't you go talk to a friend that has one (and has the subscription)?
So much effort is spent by corporations to try to get me to buy things I don't want and I don't need. TiVo is one of the few companies that actually turns out a useful product and service.
So what if they messed up the features for people who don't have a subscription? Perhaps they made a mistake, perhaps it was intentional. It doesn't really matter to me and the other TiVo subscribers. If you bought the device thinking it would be greatly useful without the service then you were misled. Maybe they are to blame for that too.
Re:Interesting, but I wouldn't want it...
on
DSLBlaster?
·
· Score: 2
I've always been very skeptical of the claims surrounding the notion of transmitting data at high speed over power lines.
Even if power line data transmission can do all they claim it can (which is doubtful given the reasons you've listed), there is still one fundamental problem to be overcome.
The bandwidth will be shared. If it becomes popular, you're back in the same boat as a cable modem (and to a lesser extent DSL)... a slow connection with high latency.
Bah. If they spent their money on research to make fiber optic lines cheaper to install, they'll be a lot more successful and would make more money.
I mean, why don't they figure out how to trench in a cable more quickly and cheaply? Or how about some radar detection system that would warn you before you dug into a buried power line or water pipe? Or a badger-type robot that digs a hole and drags a cable behind it?
That's exactly right. No matter how much code you personally write, you are still dependant upon a far larger body of code (compilers, linkers, editors, libraries, etc.). Stallman and the FSF want to make sure that the tools you use as a developer are free, and continue to remain so.
The primary, if not sole, user of a software library is a developer.
I really don't know where you came up with this. The primary user of a software library is the person running the application it is linked into! Sure, the developer has much more intimate knowledge of the library, but the ultimate user is still the application user.
All that being said, I obviously can't use GPL'ed libraries for my proprietary software development. But so what? If my only choices were proprietary libraries, then I'd have to either pay money, or do it myself. I'm no worse off with that GPL'ed library out there, even if I can't use it.
The FSF cares more about the end user than the profit potential of proprietary software developers. That's fine by me.
On the other hand... most Linux enthusists aren't playing the capitalist game. We aren't in it for the cash. And jokes aside, we're not looking to take over the world. We just want to work on computers that don't suck. With development tools that don't lock you in. With programs that do our bidding, not the other way around.
As long as I can run Linux and OpenBSD, and can continue to buy hardware for them, I'll be fine. Maybe I'll still maintain a Windoze box for playing games, but that's it. I'm not going to give MS much of my money. And if more people adopt that attitude, MS will wither away and be forgotten.
At any rate, I'm certainly not hoping that one of those other mega-corporations is going to save the day. They are all the same, it's just that MS is the most powerful at this moment.
I agree with you to the extent that if you're trying to play MS's game on their own turf, you're likely to lose. They'd like you to believe that their game is the only one in existance. They'd like you to believe that proprietary software is the only way to achieve quality. But they are wrong.
The only answer is not to play their game. They know they can't play our game (cooperation) because they'd lose status and become marginalized.
You might be able to get away with such a Perl script hack in college, but not in the real world.
Changing variable names won't substantially change the binary code the code compiles into.
Even switching compilers and optimization levels doesn't give you much obfuscation. Besides, how many viable compilers are there for any particular platform? It's not hard to try them all.
To substantially change the generated code (in a hard to detect fashion), you need to change the fundamental structure. And then you need to be careful and not introduce new bugs. And you still have to test it a lot. You might as well write it from scratch.
Try running 'objdump --disassemble/bin/ls' on your Linux system for yucks.
The 1600SW does indeed have a better DPI, since both displays have the same resolution but different sizes. No complaints there.
Unless they've been fixed, there are still significant issues with using the multi-link adapter.
The number one problem is that if you want 1600x1024 through the multi-link, you have to use an analog connection.
The other common standards for digital connection (like DVI) don't have enough bandwidth for 1600x1024. This is why SGI and Number Nine went with OpenLDI (the native interface on the 1600SW). But no one else natively supports OpenLDI.
I'm still using the Number Nine cards with my 1600SWs, because it is the only way to get the cleanest display on the 1600SW.
I'm just pissed off at the whole display industry. We could have had a one, decent standard for digital displays, that would have been good for HDTV too. But noooo, everybody has got to push their own standard, and most of them suck (not enough bandwidth). We have wasted years screwing around. Settling on one good standard would mean that in 2001, LCD displays would have only had digital connections, and you'd have multiple graphic cards to pick from.
Fools. Has it occured to these idiots (display and card manufacturers) that they could have made more money with a decent standard than the miss-mash of crap they have now?
The new 22" cinema display would seem to be a worthy sucessor to my SGI 1600SWs.
If someone gets Debian running smoothly (with full hardware support) on a G4, that could well be my next desktop system.
It's kinda sad that my SGIs (first produced in 1998) are still state-of-the-art as far as digital flat panels go. I'd have expected something even bigger by now, that costs less than the IBM monsters.
There is a cult within the spacetime physics community led by a small but influential cadre of nerd physicists and mathematicians whose credo is "physics is math" and who think they are free to create physics simply by manipulating spacetime equations using what-if scenarios.
LOL! That reminds me of Logopolis episode of Dr. Who. This was where the Doctor and the Master visited this city where these people run "block transfer computations" which control reality.
You don't usually have to buy printer drivers either.
As an example with our HP LJ4050N, I got the PPD file from the W2K Postscript driver bundle, and installed it under CUPS. Works great: duplex, alternate paper trays, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Ack! I can't believe that no one has mentioned Object Oriented Software Construction (2nd Edition) by Bertrand Meyer.
Though you may not always agree with what he says, he brings a rigor and thoughtfulness to OO design. This book can help you understand how stuff like multiple inheritance should work. He also gives some interesting ideas on things like parallel programming in an OO world... something beyond just threads and semaphores.
Even if you don't (or can't) program in Eiffel (the language used in the book) I believe this hefty tome (1000+ pages) can improve your design ability.
Odd, I've gotten about 14 now. One is from Korea, but the others are USA;with Road Runner the most.
Interesting.
Hence the famous quote regarding the F-4 Phantom.
Not a superperbly manouverable aircraft, but it had a T/W ratio far better than anything else in it's day, IIRC. That, and the fact that it can "take some licks and keep on ticking" contributed to its long and distinguished career in many air forces of the world.
This is getting waaaay off topic...
There's no 'reverse lift' when you're flying upside down.
A plane's wing is optimized to provide lift and reduce drag when it's right-side up. Just because wings are optimized, it doesn't mean that other things won't work.
You can, for example, make a regular plane with flat boards as wings. You have to tilt them up at a high angle of attack, which greatly increases drag. With sufficient power, you'll get off the ground.
When flying inverted, it's the same sort of thing. You have to increase the angle of attack (as you mention) and you'll get lift, even if you're using the wing "wrong". Takes more power, causes more drag, but it will work.
Hmmm... Interesting. Did you have a single process running the inserts or multiple ones. It has been previously claimed that PostgreSQL and O are better than MySQL for multi-user applications.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
It seems pretty clear to me that unless Cmdr. Taco uses Open Source, he is in danger of having his opinions disregarded. And his site disregarded.
I sense a bit of confusion on this sub-thread.
Some fuel cells, like the ones on the space shuttle, combine H2 and O2 to generate electricity and water.
Other fuel cells use methane or propane plus O2 to generate electricity.
For hydrogen fuel cells, you have to create and store the hydrogen gas. With other fuel cells that use hydrocarbon fuels directly, that's not necessary.
Hello? Not everyone has broadband access to the Internet. Not everyone has untimed access to the Internet.
In many countries, there is a per minute charge for dial-up connections. Every second spent downloading spam is directly costing the user money.
I'm sorry, but you need to get a clue.
Well, when companies have laws passed that restrict the development of free software (by making the authors liable for problems), then maybe you'll start to worry.
Oh, wait. Read up on the UCTIA. Start worrying now.
That's exactly right. Any open source developer that looks at MS's code is tainted, and can't work on other similar projects. Beware.
If I was an anarchist, I wouldn't bother with the computer center itself. I'd just attack the fiber optic cables running to it.
What good is the world's most secure data center if you can't talk to it?
Check out PC Weasel. It is a card that emulates a MDA but pipes the output over serial. With this you can run your system headless, and still be able to get into the BIOS.
Sheesh. If you were seriously thinking about buying a TiVo without the subscription, then you are going to be wasting your money anyway.
Yes, unless you get the lifetime subscription, it is $10/month. Unless your time is worth nothing to you, then the it is well worth the price.
My TiVo has allowed me to watch what I want, when I want. I consider it to be one of my best purchase decisions... ever.
So instead of spending time bashing a product that you haven't really tried out, why don't you go talk to a friend that has one (and has the subscription)?
So much effort is spent by corporations to try to get me to buy things I don't want and I don't need. TiVo is one of the few companies that actually turns out a useful product and service.
So what if they messed up the features for people who don't have a subscription? Perhaps they made a mistake, perhaps it was intentional. It doesn't really matter to me and the other TiVo subscribers. If you bought the device thinking it would be greatly useful without the service then you were misled. Maybe they are to blame for that too.
I've always been very skeptical of the claims surrounding the notion of transmitting data at high speed over power lines.
Even if power line data transmission can do all they claim it can (which is doubtful given the reasons you've listed), there is still one fundamental problem to be overcome.
The bandwidth will be shared. If it becomes popular, you're back in the same boat as a cable modem (and to a lesser extent DSL)... a slow connection with high latency.
Bah. If they spent their money on research to make fiber optic lines cheaper to install, they'll be a lot more successful and would make more money.
I mean, why don't they figure out how to trench in a cable more quickly and cheaply? Or how about some radar detection system that would warn you before you dug into a buried power line or water pipe? Or a badger-type robot that digs a hole and drags a cable behind it?
Say what you will about Theo, but there's no denying the fact that he's just as fanatical about BSD-licensed software as RMS is about GPL'ed software.
That's to be respected, even if you don't agree with them.
Developers are users too.
That's exactly right. No matter how much code you personally write, you are still dependant upon a far larger body of code (compilers, linkers, editors, libraries, etc.). Stallman and the FSF want to make sure that the tools you use as a developer are free, and continue to remain so.
The primary, if not sole, user of a software library is a developer.
I really don't know where you came up with this. The primary user of a software library is the person running the application it is linked into! Sure, the developer has much more intimate knowledge of the library, but the ultimate user is still the application user.
All that being said, I obviously can't use GPL'ed libraries for my proprietary software development. But so what? If my only choices were proprietary libraries, then I'd have to either pay money, or do it myself. I'm no worse off with that GPL'ed library out there, even if I can't use it.
The FSF cares more about the end user than the profit potential of proprietary software developers. That's fine by me.
You're completely right. We should give up now.
On the other hand... most Linux enthusists aren't playing the capitalist game. We aren't in it for the cash. And jokes aside, we're not looking to take over the world. We just want to work on computers that don't suck. With development tools that don't lock you in. With programs that do our bidding, not the other way around.
As long as I can run Linux and OpenBSD, and can continue to buy hardware for them, I'll be fine. Maybe I'll still maintain a Windoze box for playing games, but that's it. I'm not going to give MS much of my money. And if more people adopt that attitude, MS will wither away and be forgotten.
At any rate, I'm certainly not hoping that one of those other mega-corporations is going to save the day. They are all the same, it's just that MS is the most powerful at this moment.
I agree with you to the extent that if you're trying to play MS's game on their own turf, you're likely to lose. They'd like you to believe that their game is the only one in existance. They'd like you to believe that proprietary software is the only way to achieve quality. But they are wrong.
The only answer is not to play their game. They know they can't play our game (cooperation) because they'd lose status and become marginalized.
You might be able to get away with such a Perl script hack in college, but not in the real world.
Changing variable names won't substantially change the binary code the code compiles into.
Even switching compilers and optimization levels doesn't give you much obfuscation. Besides, how many viable compilers are there for any particular platform? It's not hard to try them all.
To substantially change the generated code (in a hard to detect fashion), you need to change the fundamental structure. And then you need to be careful and not introduce new bugs. And you still have to test it a lot. You might as well write it from scratch.
Try running 'objdump --disassemble /bin/ls' on your Linux system for yucks.
Um, no.
It proves again that the GPL can't be indescriminately combined with proprietary software.
But remember that proprietary != commercial. Though you do have to structure your business differently if you're developing GPL'd software.
Hmmm... I may have been mistaken. I know at least one of the standards doesn't support really high resolutions, and I thought DVI was one of them.
Maybe they've come out with a newer version of the spec that has better bandwidth.
The 1600SW does indeed have a better DPI, since both displays have the same resolution but different sizes. No complaints there.
Unless they've been fixed, there are still significant issues with using the multi-link adapter.
The number one problem is that if you want 1600x1024 through the multi-link, you have to use an analog connection.
The other common standards for digital connection (like DVI) don't have enough bandwidth for 1600x1024. This is why SGI and Number Nine went with OpenLDI (the native interface on the 1600SW). But no one else natively supports OpenLDI.
I'm still using the Number Nine cards with my 1600SWs, because it is the only way to get the cleanest display on the 1600SW.
I'm just pissed off at the whole display industry. We could have had a one, decent standard for digital displays, that would have been good for HDTV too. But noooo, everybody has got to push their own standard, and most of them suck (not enough bandwidth). We have wasted years screwing around. Settling on one good standard would mean that in 2001, LCD displays would have only had digital connections, and you'd have multiple graphic cards to pick from.
Fools. Has it occured to these idiots (display and card manufacturers) that they could have made more money with a decent standard than the miss-mash of crap they have now?
Yoikes!
I just assumed that since the G4s (like the cube) are relatively recent, that full hardware support wasn't available yet.
That is excellent news.
The new 22" cinema display would seem to be a worthy sucessor to my SGI 1600SWs.
If someone gets Debian running smoothly (with full hardware support) on a G4, that could well be my next desktop system.
It's kinda sad that my SGIs (first produced in 1998) are still state-of-the-art as far as digital flat panels go. I'd have expected something even bigger by now, that costs less than the IBM monsters.
There is a cult within the spacetime physics community led by a small but influential cadre of nerd physicists and mathematicians whose credo is "physics is math" and who think they are free to create physics simply by manipulating spacetime equations using what-if scenarios.
LOL! That reminds me of Logopolis episode of Dr. Who. This was where the Doctor and the Master visited this city where these people run "block transfer computations" which control reality.
You don't usually have to buy printer drivers either.
As an example with our HP LJ4050N, I got the PPD file from the W2K Postscript driver bundle, and installed it under CUPS. Works great: duplex, alternate paper trays, etc.
Check out CUPS and the LinuxPrinting.org Database