An argument which basically says that don't trust people until you knwo them. Frankly, that doesn't seem like anything really off to me. more like common sense...
Sure, nanotech could be designed to destroy all life - but it would have to be DESIGNED to do so. The odds of it happening by chance are so low as to be not worth considering. The chances of nanotech being designed to be deadly are actually very very high. Think of it as a very advanced targetted virus. This probably won't possible in the near decade or two but designing a nanobot which kills and replicates based on certain characteristics is far from impossible. Say... you don't like that certain terrorist or president. Well, we take this nanobot here, key in the DNA and off it goes to do its job. Its use as a wepon is very attractive and humans have a history of getting a weapon out of nearly everything. To think that nanotech is not going to be weaponized is naive. The flip side is that the moment we get nano-assassins, we will get nano-defenders; bots which can identify and destroy those would-be assasin bots. Maybe we will develope an artificial immune system in our bodies for this purpose. just a little speculation but I am pretty sure that nanotech WILL be weaponized. Its too effective not to be.
jedit replace emacs. yeah right... emacs takes about 2 seconds to startup (with a 33K.emacs file) and has TONS more capability than jedit. Say, how does one script jedit... Now how easy is it to script emacs...
Hmm. Emacs is not really IDE so it wouldn't be that great a comparison. I think it is definately possible however (and probably not even that hard) with some lisp coding. In that case, it would probably win out with its nice 12.2 megs (on my computer) allocated.
Re:BTW, Java is far from "dead" or even a coma
on
2007 Java Predictions
·
· Score: 1
Just out of curiosity, where would unsigned types be used?
to my knowledge, no. C is still the best for these. The closest is C++ and no kernel developer worth their weight in code would even think about writing and OS level components in C++. C will be the base OS coding language until CPU's take its place entirely (think a few decades in the future). The one exception to this is IBM mainframe assembler. It could replace C but would require too much redevelopement so it is out.
speak for yourself. On my desktop, there are no toolbars, no window borders, and no menus. Why? because I don't like using the mouse and those things are only useful with a mouse. I have replaced those with ~50 keyboard shortcuts because they are MUCH faster to use. My UI doesn't look anything like MS windows.
oh, I ran into this problem too many times so I set up the following function:
function pmv () {
local src dest oifs
oifs=$IFS
export IFS=$'\n'
src="${1:? 'Error: input pattern not specified'}"
dest="${2:? 'Error: destination pattern not specified'}"
for i in $src ; do
mv "$i" $(sed -e "s/$dest/" <<< "$i")
done
export IFS=$oifs }
Now I can move files by regexps by typing pmv <file-match-pattern> <sed-matcher>/<replacement> very very convenient.
my copy of emacs is taking up 12.2 mb right now but that is with several major modes loaded while viewing several verlarge files and undo limit set to 100,000 (5 times norm). Knowing elisp, that much usage is frankly not very surprising. In elisp (or any lisp implementation I think), most things have to be kept as lists which means that instead of a pointer, you have a pointer-->cons cell-->2 pointers-->actual stuff. Combine that with the object arrays, function name strings etc... and they can eat up RAM pretty quickly. Its still surprising becuse when I start my computer up but have not yet started any apps, I am only using about 50 megs. Then again, my bash processes are taking up ~3.2 megs each (but thats with several thousand history commands in RAM + custom completions for pretty much everything + loads of other crap). Still, wonder where all that memory goes.
OOo is nice because it is free. It is however the most bloated piece of software that I have seen in terms of resource consumption including MS products. True non-bloatedness comes with emacs+LaTeX. Now there are things which do not take up any significant resources (until they are done reading my 33K startup.emacs file and increasing buffer and undo limits to ungodly levels that is.).
When a politician is thinking of what regulations to make, most (thankfully not all) think not about how to help the country but how to maintain there power. In a democracy, maintaining power=being popular (note: popular not smart. Dont confuse the two). You can't be popular if you tell people to suck it up because there is no reasonable way to prevent some security threats and so you do crap like national IDs.
Nothing will stop fraud until the banks start having to pay for it instead of dumping the expense on their clients. Actually, in the US you can contest any claim on a bank statement of credit card report and the bank is required to prove that you made the purchase. Remember reading an essay by Bruce Schneir about why this was a good thing but don't remember where it was of the top of my head. Not so in the UK i think.
depends on how effectively it is done. When going against any organized power, the only two rational choices are non-interference or total anihalation since anything else just provokes them to fighting back. This is especially true in this case. If you want to take out the trash in the US gov, you would probably have to take out most of washington and a good portion of new york to trash the politicians. Anything less and the ones left will legislate you to oblivion.
economys of scale. if you melt enough of them, you will make a (small) profit. There is no significant overhead cost in purifying 1 coins of 1,000,000 coins but with 1,000,000 coins, its only 1/1,000,000 of the cost per coin. This law will atleast limit any operations of that kind until the composition is changed. Once the composition is changed, those new coins will proably take over since bad money drives out the good money and this won't be a problem anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
An argument which basically says that don't trust people until you knwo them. Frankly, that doesn't seem like anything really off to me. more like common sense...
Mod parent up. a lot.
jedit replace emacs. yeah right... emacs takes about 2 seconds to startup (with a 33K .emacs file) and has TONS more capability than jedit. Say, how does one script jedit... Now how easy is it to script emacs...
Hmm. Emacs is not really IDE so it wouldn't be that great a comparison. I think it is definately possible however (and probably not even that hard) with some lisp coding. In that case, it would probably win out with its nice 12.2 megs (on my computer) allocated.
Just out of curiosity, where would unsigned types be used?
to my knowledge, no. C is still the best for these. The closest is C++ and no kernel developer worth their weight in code would even think about writing and OS level components in C++. C will be the base OS coding language until CPU's take its place entirely (think a few decades in the future). The one exception to this is IBM mainframe assembler. It could replace C but would require too much redevelopement so it is out.
for starcraft, WINE works extremely well. Same with some of the older command and conquer games. try it.
speak for yourself. On my desktop, there are no toolbars, no window borders, and no menus. Why? because I don't like using the mouse and those things are only useful with a mouse. I have replaced those with ~50 keyboard shortcuts because they are MUCH faster to use. My UI doesn't look anything like MS windows.
Godwin's law in invalidated by an explicit reference.
got it. Thanks a lot for your help.
oh, I ran into this problem too many times so I set up the following function:
function pmv ()
{
local src dest oifs
oifs=$IFS
export IFS=$'\n'
src="${1:? 'Error: input pattern not specified'}"
dest="${2:? 'Error: destination pattern not specified'}"
for i in $src ; do
mv "$i" $(sed -e "s/$dest/" <<< "$i")
done
export IFS=$oifs
}
Now I can move files by regexps by typing pmv <file-match-pattern> <sed-matcher>/<replacement>
very very convenient.
slrn here.
just out of curiosity, how did they manage to implement 24 bit pointers? since C only have 32 bit pointers (or 64bit on amd64 maybe).
my copy of emacs is taking up 12.2 mb right now but that is with several major modes loaded while viewing several verlarge files and undo limit set to 100,000 (5 times norm). Knowing elisp, that much usage is frankly not very surprising. In elisp (or any lisp implementation I think), most things have to be kept as lists which means that instead of a pointer, you have a pointer-->cons cell-->2 pointers-->actual stuff. Combine that with the object arrays, function name strings etc... and they can eat up RAM pretty quickly. Its still surprising becuse when I start my computer up but have not yet started any apps, I am only using about 50 megs. Then again, my bash processes are taking up ~3.2 megs each (but thats with several thousand history commands in RAM + custom completions for pretty much everything + loads of other crap). Still, wonder where all that memory goes.
emacs + LaTeX + pdfLaTeX + tex4ht (when it finally owrks properly) FTW.
I would mod you up if I had mod points.
OOo is nice because it is free. It is however the most bloated piece of software that I have seen in terms of resource consumption including MS products. True non-bloatedness comes with emacs+LaTeX. Now there are things which do not take up any significant resources (until they are done reading my 33K startup .emacs file and increasing buffer and undo limits to ungodly levels that is.).
damn. you are right. wonder why its present in both systems though? do they just both suck in terms of code quality -- Not ver hard to believe.
When a politician is thinking of what regulations to make, most (thankfully not all) think not about how to help the country but how to maintain there power. In a democracy, maintaining power=being popular (note: popular not smart. Dont confuse the two). You can't be popular if you tell people to suck it up because there is no reasonable way to prevent some security threats and so you do crap like national IDs.
depends on how effectively it is done. When going against any organized power, the only two rational choices are non-interference or total anihalation since anything else just provokes them to fighting back. This is especially true in this case. If you want to take out the trash in the US gov, you would probably have to take out most of washington and a good portion of new york to trash the politicians. Anything less and the ones left will legislate you to oblivion.
economys of scale. if you melt enough of them, you will make a (small) profit. There is no significant overhead cost in purifying 1 coins of 1,000,000 coins but with 1,000,000 coins, its only 1/1,000,000 of the cost per coin. This law will atleast limit any operations of that kind until the composition is changed. Once the composition is changed, those new coins will proably take over since bad money drives out the good money and this won't be a problem anymore.