That's nothing. 1L = 1 dM^3... cube root of 2600 is about 13.75... we're talking about a cube about 4' x 4' x 4'.
Carnivorous, cartilaginous fish? I think not.
You guys are missing the point. Its not a matter of humans checking each link and making an oversight. Its a matter of Google accepting ads from sites that its magical filtering system knows for a fact are spam sites/link farms/malware etc.
Its "magical filtering system" doesn't know what you say "for a fact". What it knows, for a fact, is that the site meets the criteria under which Google will not list the page in search results because it appears to be such a thing. Note that Google's business model is about deliverying a variety of things (e.g., search results) to web users so that it can deliver eyeballs to advertisers.
It has very little obligation to the purveyors of random internet sites to include those sites in search listings, as no one is paying them to do that. If it is a little overzealous (but not grossly so) in filtering out potential "bad" sites, that's not necessarily bad for them. OTOH, if they are overzealous in filtering out paying advertisers, that is bad for them. So it certainly makes sense for them not to apply the automatic filtering to paying advertisers to stop them for paying for and receiving ad placement.
OTOH, it would make sense for them to have a policy that permits human review of advertised sites with some kind of response, and using their automatic filter as a way of identifying sites that might need such review would be logical.
Vista even the basic version requires a much beefier machine. So if you're an OEM, what do you do? Your basic machine can't handle Vista but MS is getting rid of XP. Really most consumers want a stable, secure OS.
If that was the issue, things would be easy: OEM's would just bundle Linux.
Mostly, what consumers want is a computer that lets them access the websites they currently use (include the MSIE-optimized ones) and use the mass market software they are used to without glitches, which means OEMs will take whatever MS gives them as long as its the best way to do that.
They take too long to start and whenever I move my cursor, they both hang - and this is with a 1.6 GHz Duo, a gig of Ram, on XP.
I suspect you're doing it wrong. I've got a similar setup on my laptop, and Netbeans is usually not too slow, and Eclipse is tolerable most of the time. Even on my older desktop -- a 3.0 Pentium IV HT with 512MB and XP -- Netbeans is mostly tolerable, though Eclipse is a bit of a drag.
This from the people who claimed that most of the DNA in our cells was just junk.
Really, the same people? I think not. DNA that doesn't seem to get used in protein synthesis in the well-understood mechanisms as "junk" is, as I understand it, mostly an misperception of popularization, not something that has ever been the dominant understanding in the field.
I would say a good F/OSS alternative to SharePoint would be great, but that would be a fairly sizable undertaking (though certainly feasible imho).
Would it? Office desktop apps + SharePoint doesn't seem to offer that much beyond (at least, as I've seen it used) what you'd get from a WebDAV server with desktop applications that were WebDAV aware.
All of the new unified storage systems include comprehensive data services at no extra cost, Fowler said. These include snapshots/cloning, restores, mirroring, optional RAID-5, optional RAID-6, replication, active-active clustering, compression, thin provisioning, CIFS (Common Internet File System), NFS (Network File System), iSCSI, HTTP/FTP and WebDAV (Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning).
So, these RAID-less devices all include optional RAID-5 and optional RAID-6?
Putting the RAID as part of the fully integrated hardware-software black box may be a convenience, and the particular way it is implemented may save money, configuration, reduce failure points, or provide some other benefit, but what it doesn't do is make the box "RAID-less" in any reasonable sense.
I have read not only TFA, but the much more useful entries on Ola Bini's blog going into detail about the language design, before posting. I know this violates expectations of Slashdot behavior...
I have several goals with the language but the most specific one is to create a language that combines the things I like about Ruby and Lisp together.
That sounds perilously close to yet another verson of Lisp.
Ruby's more like Smalltalk than Lisp, certainly a lot of its unique strengths come from there. Taking those strengths and wedding them to the best features of Lisp doesn't sound like it would get you Lisp.
Further, Ola Bini's more detailed descriptions of what he's done so far and wants to do, including the Ioke code samples, don't look a lot like Lisp.
Lisp is a power tool for a Very Smart Person. Like all such tools, they're difficult to master.
The same is true of C.
I would be inclined to think that syntax-heavy languages like C are harder to grasp initially for a complete newbie than syntax-light languages like Lisp, but also provide a higher barrier to learning languages with a different basic syntax if one of them is the first one you learn in depth, since then so much of your understanding of programming is tied up not in understanding of logical structure but understanding of particular syntax.
There is a reason why Python, Ruby, etc. are popular and Lisp not so much and that reason is in large part its syntax.
Actually, I'd argue that the reason is that Python and Ruby were comparatively new at the time when people were looking for the benefits they provide, where by then Lisp (and, for that matter, Smalltalk) was not new, and thereby inherently uncool.
That Python and Ruby syntax is more familiar to users of C-style languages is also helpful (though that's probably a result of when they came about; since both were created after C had taken over the world).
Everything in Lisps looks the same, no matter if its a function, a macro, an assignment, a piece of data or whatever.
Yeah, its kind of like XML that way.
Of course, XML is probably a popular data representation and even, increasingly, a popular way to express executable processes (i.e., programs) for large systems (e.g., in the form of BPEL) for a reason.
If the C-like languages are already implementing the desirable features, then what do we need new implementations of Lisp for?
I don't recall arguing that we need new implementations of Lisp, and this story is not about a new implementation of Lisp, but of a language with syntax that is friendlier to programmers versed in today's dominant, C-like languages that incorporates some of the powerful features of Lisp and Smalltalk.
As for where Lisp has an advantage, it seems to me to be largely in implementing large solutions, at the levels at which dynamic scripting languages are increasingly popular as glue languages for components written in relatively C-like languages like C# and Java (each of which themselves, compared to C, have adopted quite a few Lisp-ish features), and implementing even larger systems, where its quite popular now to do what amounts to coding in XML (via, e.g., BPEL), which is like coding in Lisp but with two angle brackets and an identifier everywhere Lisp would have a paren.
The latter seems to benefit a lot (though this isn't the only useful feature for it) from the code-data interchangeability that you get from homoiconicity, one feature of Lisp (and executable XML) that it is extremely difficult to graft onto a programming language not designed for it from the ground up (and which, unsurprisingly, Ola Bini has chosen as one of the design features of Ioke.)
He's announcing it way too early. He has practically nothing to show. There's only one tiny code example that I can see to gauge its merits.
Oh noes, he is sharing information about his personal language design project with people (and soliciting input) before he has a production-grade system ready for release. Horrors!
Look, if he was a big company, and he was trying to sell the idea that some competitors offering shouldn't be used because Ioke was going to be out Real Soon Now and would be so much better, and only had outlines and ideas and a very minimal implementation of some fraction of those ideas, then, yeah, this would be "too early" and deserve criticism on that basis. But that's not what he's doing.
People who come up with "l33t" ideas like this need to be put on maintenance programming of code written by others for six months or so.
Oh, boo-friggin'-hoo. Ola Bini isn't putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use Ioke tomorrow to replace banking systems. Its, overtly, something he developes primarily for his own sake and shares publicly, and that is exploratory.
Plus, Ola Bini, being (among other things) "a core JRuby developer", one would suspect, all that unfamiliar with working with code written by others.
If Lisp were that good, it would have done better in the marketplace.
Lisp did fairly well in the areas where the problems it solved particularly well were common; C and friends did well where the things it dealt with well were the main challenges. when C was conquering the world, the latter were more common than the former. Increasingly, the problems Lisp deals with well have become relevant to more software, but C-based languages are pretty entrenched (both in systems and in programmer's minds), so instead of Lisp seeing a resurgence, you see C-like languages with more and more Lisp-like features bolted on. (The same is true with "Smalltalk" in place of "Lisp", too.)
A, more accurately, a CEO who over the last two years built a large nationwide business from the ground up, demolishing all the competitors in the field.
In this case, the ODF Toolkit mentioned isn't a word processor at all, it's just a layer that makes it easy(er) for any sort of program to interact with ODF documents.
Exactly. Where this really seems likely to help is in integrating ODF as a message format within the SOA/Messaging/Web Services world.
Now I ask you: It's an ATM machine. What was gained by the transition?
If they are like the color BofA ATMs I've seen in Northern California, they play full motion video ads, which are maybe not what customers want, but presumably very significant to banks.
The GPL only applies when you distribute software. They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.
Incorrect. The GPL governs copy, modifying, distributing, and sublicensing. If you do any one of those (outside of any rights you have under law that do not require a license from the copyright holder), you are permitted to do so only under the terms of the license. Some terms of the license are only relevant to certain of those acts (or certain combinations of them).
Note, particularly, Section 4, which states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." And note that that's an or not an and, so copying and modification are each covered, even without distribution. (This is particularly true of modification, as underlined in Section 5.)
(Its also, I would say, debatable whether a voting system, designed to run one application and, by design, not having components that can be used separately, would be a "mere aggregation" of separate works, rather than a single work derived from its components, for the purposes of the GPL -- remember that the GPL "derived work" vs. "mere aggregation" distinction isn't restricted to the copyright law definition of derived works, insofar as the copying and distribution would, under copyright law, require a license whether or not the work is an unmodified copy or a derivative work.)
Looks great and everything but who has money for such toys? Core i7 965 Extreme, 6GB DDR3, NVIDIA GTX 280, X58 Mobo + other junk = easily $1,600 - $2,000.
More than that, likely; $1,600 - $2,000 sounds right for the processor (~$1,000 itself) and RAM for that setup. But you max out a system using the best processor available, and its expensive. The first PC my family got had an MSRP of approximately $4,500 (and the employee purchase price that we actually paid was ~$2,500) -- in 1984.
By comparison, $2,000 in 2008 dollars is cheap. People who need top of the line will get it, people who don't will settle for a mere 4GB of less impressive ram with a i7 920, and shave $1,000 or more off the total cost even if they don't change anything else.
Why on earth would you be expecting the the Core 3 to follow the progression of:
Core Core Duo Core2 Duo
Because that's not the progression.
The technology is Core -> Core 2.
The "Duo" indicates that there are two cores of the appropriate type (Core or Core 2). (And the alternative "Quad" indicates four cores, and "Extreme", oddly enough, is used for 2 or 4 cores, but indicates better support for overclocking.)
So, in terms of the part of the branding used to indicate the core technology, Core 3 would be a not unreasonable expectation as a successor to the prior Core and then Core 2.
OTOH, it also makes sense that they are going with a new style of moniker, since this is a pretty significant change and all the new processors are planned to be quad-core hyperthreading processors with overclocking support, so the old Duo/Quad/Extreme distinction won't make sense and there are good reasons to not portray it as a simple step upgrade from the Core 2 but as a bigger break.
so it will "see" 256 cores but will it actually use them in an efficient manner?
If you use Windows 7 for High Performance Computing, 256-core edition, then probably, for a suitably generous definition of "efficient". Of course, the license cost for that will probably exceed the cost of the 256 core computer itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is synonymous with "people of dark skin", since every human being is mostly (entirely, even) descended from Africans.
They do come in pocket size versions.
Its "magical filtering system" doesn't know what you say "for a fact". What it knows, for a fact, is that the site meets the criteria under which Google will not list the page in search results because it appears to be such a thing. Note that Google's business model is about deliverying a variety of things (e.g., search results) to web users so that it can deliver eyeballs to advertisers.
It has very little obligation to the purveyors of random internet sites to include those sites in search listings, as no one is paying them to do that. If it is a little overzealous (but not grossly so) in filtering out potential "bad" sites, that's not necessarily bad for them. OTOH, if they are overzealous in filtering out paying advertisers, that is bad for them. So it certainly makes sense for them not to apply the automatic filtering to paying advertisers to stop them for paying for and receiving ad placement.
OTOH, it would make sense for them to have a policy that permits human review of advertised sites with some kind of response, and using their automatic filter as a way of identifying sites that might need such review would be logical.
If that was the issue, things would be easy: OEM's would just bundle Linux.
Mostly, what consumers want is a computer that lets them access the websites they currently use (include the MSIE-optimized ones) and use the mass market software they are used to without glitches, which means OEMs will take whatever MS gives them as long as its the best way to do that.
I suspect you're doing it wrong. I've got a similar setup on my laptop, and Netbeans is usually not too slow, and Eclipse is tolerable most of the time. Even on my older desktop -- a 3.0 Pentium IV HT with 512MB and XP -- Netbeans is mostly tolerable, though Eclipse is a bit of a drag.
Which is perfectly reasonable for someone with a rank of Ensign in a military structured like the US navy.
Really, the same people? I think not. DNA that doesn't seem to get used in protein synthesis in the well-understood mechanisms as "junk" is, as I understand it, mostly an misperception of popularization, not something that has ever been the dominant understanding in the field.
Would it? Office desktop apps + SharePoint doesn't seem to offer that much beyond (at least, as I've seen it used) what you'd get from a WebDAV server with desktop applications that were WebDAV aware.
FTFA:
So, these RAID-less devices all include optional RAID-5 and optional RAID-6?
Putting the RAID as part of the fully integrated hardware-software black box may be a convenience, and the particular way it is implemented may save money, configuration, reduce failure points, or provide some other benefit, but what it doesn't do is make the box "RAID-less" in any reasonable sense.
I have read not only TFA, but the much more useful entries on Ola Bini's blog going into detail about the language design, before posting. I know this violates expectations of Slashdot behavior...
Ruby's more like Smalltalk than Lisp, certainly a lot of its unique strengths come from there. Taking those strengths and wedding them to the best features of Lisp doesn't sound like it would get you Lisp.
Further, Ola Bini's more detailed descriptions of what he's done so far and wants to do, including the Ioke code samples, don't look a lot like Lisp.
The same is true of C.
I would be inclined to think that syntax-heavy languages like C are harder to grasp initially for a complete newbie than syntax-light languages like Lisp, but also provide a higher barrier to learning languages with a different basic syntax if one of them is the first one you learn in depth, since then so much of your understanding of programming is tied up not in understanding of logical structure but understanding of particular syntax.
Actually, I'd argue that the reason is that Python and Ruby were comparatively new at the time when people were looking for the benefits they provide, where by then Lisp (and, for that matter, Smalltalk) was not new, and thereby inherently uncool.
That Python and Ruby syntax is more familiar to users of C-style languages is also helpful (though that's probably a result of when they came about; since both were created after C had taken over the world).
Yeah, its kind of like XML that way.
Of course, XML is probably a popular data representation and even, increasingly, a popular way to express executable processes (i.e., programs) for large systems (e.g., in the form of BPEL) for a reason.
Homoiconicity is a good thing.
I don't recall arguing that we need new implementations of Lisp, and this story is not about a new implementation of Lisp, but of a language with syntax that is friendlier to programmers versed in today's dominant, C-like languages that incorporates some of the powerful features of Lisp and Smalltalk.
As for where Lisp has an advantage, it seems to me to be largely in implementing large solutions, at the levels at which dynamic scripting languages are increasingly popular as glue languages for components written in relatively C-like languages like C# and Java (each of which themselves, compared to C, have adopted quite a few Lisp-ish features), and implementing even larger systems, where its quite popular now to do what amounts to coding in XML (via, e.g., BPEL), which is like coding in Lisp but with two angle brackets and an identifier everywhere Lisp would have a paren.
The latter seems to benefit a lot (though this isn't the only useful feature for it) from the code-data interchangeability that you get from homoiconicity, one feature of Lisp (and executable XML) that it is extremely difficult to graft onto a programming language not designed for it from the ground up (and which, unsurprisingly, Ola Bini has chosen as one of the design features of Ioke.)
Oh noes, he is sharing information about his personal language design project with people (and soliciting input) before he has a production-grade system ready for release. Horrors!
Look, if he was a big company, and he was trying to sell the idea that some competitors offering shouldn't be used because Ioke was going to be out Real Soon Now and would be so much better, and only had outlines and ideas and a very minimal implementation of some fraction of those ideas, then, yeah, this would be "too early" and deserve criticism on that basis. But that's not what he's doing.
Oh, boo-friggin'-hoo. Ola Bini isn't putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use Ioke tomorrow to replace banking systems. Its, overtly, something he developes primarily for his own sake and shares publicly, and that is exploratory.
Plus, Ola Bini, being (among other things) "a core JRuby developer", one would suspect, all that unfamiliar with working with code written by others.
Lisp did fairly well in the areas where the problems it solved particularly well were common; C and friends did well where the things it dealt with well were the main challenges. when C was conquering the world, the latter were more common than the former. Increasingly, the problems Lisp deals with well have become relevant to more software, but C-based languages are pretty entrenched (both in systems and in programmer's minds), so instead of Lisp seeing a resurgence, you see C-like languages with more and more Lisp-like features bolted on. (The same is true with "Smalltalk" in place of "Lisp", too.)
A, more accurately, a CEO who over the last two years built a large nationwide business from the ground up, demolishing all the competitors in the field.
Exactly. Where this really seems likely to help is in integrating ODF as a message format within the SOA/Messaging/Web Services world.
So, you have an internet connection that lets you get to slashdot, but not (among other places) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html?
If they are like the color BofA ATMs I've seen in Northern California, they play full motion video ads, which are maybe not what customers want, but presumably very significant to banks.
Incorrect. The GPL governs copy, modifying, distributing, and sublicensing. If you do any one of those (outside of any rights you have under law that do not require a license from the copyright holder), you are permitted to do so only under the terms of the license. Some terms of the license are only relevant to certain of those acts (or certain combinations of them).
Note, particularly, Section 4, which states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." And note that that's an or not an and, so copying and modification are each covered, even without distribution. (This is particularly true of modification, as underlined in Section 5.)
(Its also, I would say, debatable whether a voting system, designed to run one application and, by design, not having components that can be used separately, would be a "mere aggregation" of separate works, rather than a single work derived from its components, for the purposes of the GPL -- remember that the GPL "derived work" vs. "mere aggregation" distinction isn't restricted to the copyright law definition of derived works, insofar as the copying and distribution would, under copyright law, require a license whether or not the work is an unmodified copy or a derivative work.)
More than that, likely; $1,600 - $2,000 sounds right for the processor (~$1,000 itself) and RAM for that setup. But you max out a system using the best processor available, and its expensive. The first PC my family got had an MSRP of approximately $4,500 (and the employee purchase price that we actually paid was ~$2,500) -- in 1984.
By comparison, $2,000 in 2008 dollars is cheap. People who need top of the line will get it, people who don't will settle for a mere 4GB of less impressive ram with a i7 920, and shave $1,000 or more off the total cost even if they don't change anything else.
Because that's not the progression.
The technology is Core -> Core 2.
The "Duo" indicates that there are two cores of the appropriate type (Core or Core 2). (And the alternative "Quad" indicates four cores, and "Extreme", oddly enough, is used for 2 or 4 cores, but indicates better support for overclocking.)
So, in terms of the part of the branding used to indicate the core technology, Core 3 would be a not unreasonable expectation as a successor to the prior Core and then Core 2.
OTOH, it also makes sense that they are going with a new style of moniker, since this is a pretty significant change and all the new processors are planned to be quad-core hyperthreading processors with overclocking support, so the old Duo/Quad/Extreme distinction won't make sense and there are good reasons to not portray it as a simple step upgrade from the Core 2 but as a bigger break.
How is this clear? Each side has issued a press release, with conflicting claims. Where's the extrinsic evidence?
If you use Windows 7 for High Performance Computing, 256-core edition, then probably, for a suitably generous definition of "efficient". Of course, the license cost for that will probably exceed the cost of the 256 core computer itself.