Regardless, I don't think there's a large contingent of people who think the Democrats are not really liberals and who also think that Stalin and Pol Pot were good guys.
Re:Corporatism aka right wing politics
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The mistake you are making is thinking that the Democrats are really left-wing. They are, at best, moderates, with left-leaning tendencies on certain social issues.
The problem with that article is that it only focuses on one aspect of design: the low-level stuff. Sure, there's no need to specify every damn function and field. That's a lot better done in the code itself. However, source code doesn't answer "why". It's hard to tease out the grand architecture by looking at lines of code. It would be silly to examine the shape of the earth by looking at every grain of dust on the surface. Sure, eventually you'd get the picture (oblate spheroid with serious perturbations in surface structure), but why not just zoom out and take a satellite picture? A good design should be focusing on the satellite picture and not the grains of dust. That part has to be explained somewhere, or else it will be lost or misinterpreted. Source code is the how, design documentation is the why.
Nobody expects cannons any more. The sheer ridiculousness of bringing cannons to a modern battlefield might be enough to confuse the enemy and allow America to be victorious.
I would say that's more like using DOS as an auxiliary library rather than "running on DOS", which implies that DOS ran the show and Windows was just a pretty shell (true in the 1.0 and 2.0 days, but not really 3.1 and later).
Earth is not a closed system. It does radiate a lot of energy back into space. If Earth really weren't dissipating heat, but only collecting it from the sun, the planet would have been toast a long time ago.
There's always a cost to this kind of stuff. That's what people don't think about and what this article tries to point out. Yes, there is a lot of energy coming from the sun and there is a lot of water out there in the world, but the cost to get it may put us in a situation where we don't even break even, let alone have enough extra energy to do things like run the internet.
I think the real point is that we're fucked. Yes, fossil fuels and nuclear are worse, but wind/solar/biomass/geothermal won't save us either, for the same reasons. Although each individual installation may not be as environmentally or economically detrimental as a fossil fuel or nuclear installation, the fact that you have to have so many more "renewable" installations to meet the same energy needs counteracts that.
The takeaway from this article is that we have to change our energy needs and growth model. There's simply no way to continue down this path, no matter what "green" technologies are developed. Energy isn't free. Energy production has side-effects. The only real solution is to use less and less of it.
I think you misunderstand what "run on top of DOS" actually means. Aside from legacy or weirdo drivers, Windows 9x didn't need DOS for anything other than bootloading.
Yes it did. But Windows apps couldn't use it. They all ran within a single pre-emptive task and cooperatively multi-tasked inside that address space (like fibers). Each DOS box was a separate pre-emptive task. Otherwise, there's no way to run multiple DOS programs at once. So ironically, it was easier to multitask DOS programs than Windows programs on 3.1.
The event log is available via API. You can write a VBScript script to dump it to the console. There are a bunch of these available online. Yeah, it's a little less convenient than having a text file readily available.
We're splitting hairs here, but I'll bite. It's true that you had to use a lot of DOS drivers for compatibility reasons, but Windows was running the show and all the core components were pure Windows. There are people who think that Windows really was just a graphical shell, like X11, running on top of DOS, with DOS doing all the heavy lifting. While this was true with pre-3.x versions of Windows, 3.11 and later were more like real OSes in their own right, especially once you get to 95 and 98. Ugly, crufty, slow -- yes, but still not pretty shells running on DOS.
Even Windows 3.1 had a "real" kernel, which supported pre-emptive multitasking (between multiple DOS machines and a single Windows VM that ran all Windows processes). DOS in Windows 95, while it existed, did not run the show. It was kept around to support 16-bit Windows functionality and DOS apps and kind of ran as a library alongside Windows 95, which had an actual OS kernel (VMM32).
That's because the window borders and title bar are handled in user-space libraries that run in the context of the client. If the client stops pumping messages, there's no way for these parts of the window to respond. There's no separate message pump or thread for them. It's stupid, but I guess it makes it easier for apps to customize the decorations by simply handling the non-client messages instead of passing them on to DefWindowProc.
Not really. Christmas is 9 months after Easter, which is when Jesus died. In the olden days, important people were believed to have died on the same day they were born or conceived, so Jesus would have been conceived at Easter and born in December. Pagan rituals did intermix with Christmas, but it was not chosen because of pagan convenience.
I never understood the dislike of mixing Greek and Latin roots. The Romans themselves did it. Every language does it. There's nothing wrong with it, at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless, I don't think there's a large contingent of people who think the Democrats are not really liberals and who also think that Stalin and Pol Pot were good guys.
That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche to do whatever ridiculous things they want to do.
Uhh, no.
The mistake you are making is thinking that the Democrats are really left-wing. They are, at best, moderates, with left-leaning tendencies on certain social issues.
Wow, the same version of Windows has been the same for 10 years? That's some smart analysis there.
C++ is a terrible language for teaching OO. There are other languages that have a stronger OO model and it's consistent throughout the language.
Teach C for basic programming concepts, memory management and that kind of thing. Use a .NET lang/Java, Python or Haskell for the modern and OO stuff.
The problem with that article is that it only focuses on one aspect of design: the low-level stuff. Sure, there's no need to specify every damn function and field. That's a lot better done in the code itself. However, source code doesn't answer "why". It's hard to tease out the grand architecture by looking at lines of code. It would be silly to examine the shape of the earth by looking at every grain of dust on the surface. Sure, eventually you'd get the picture (oblate spheroid with serious perturbations in surface structure), but why not just zoom out and take a satellite picture? A good design should be focusing on the satellite picture and not the grains of dust. That part has to be explained somewhere, or else it will be lost or misinterpreted. Source code is the how, design documentation is the why.
Nobody expects cannons any more. The sheer ridiculousness of bringing cannons to a modern battlefield might be enough to confuse the enemy and allow America to be victorious.
I would say that's more like using DOS as an auxiliary library rather than "running on DOS", which implies that DOS ran the show and Windows was just a pretty shell (true in the 1.0 and 2.0 days, but not really 3.1 and later).
Earth is not a closed system. It does radiate a lot of energy back into space. If Earth really weren't dissipating heat, but only collecting it from the sun, the planet would have been toast a long time ago.
There's always a cost to this kind of stuff. That's what people don't think about and what this article tries to point out. Yes, there is a lot of energy coming from the sun and there is a lot of water out there in the world, but the cost to get it may put us in a situation where we don't even break even, let alone have enough extra energy to do things like run the internet.
I think the real point is that we're fucked. Yes, fossil fuels and nuclear are worse, but wind/solar/biomass/geothermal won't save us either, for the same reasons. Although each individual installation may not be as environmentally or economically detrimental as a fossil fuel or nuclear installation, the fact that you have to have so many more "renewable" installations to meet the same energy needs counteracts that.
The takeaway from this article is that we have to change our energy needs and growth model. There's simply no way to continue down this path, no matter what "green" technologies are developed. Energy isn't free. Energy production has side-effects. The only real solution is to use less and less of it.
I think you misunderstand what "run on top of DOS" actually means. Aside from legacy or weirdo drivers, Windows 9x didn't need DOS for anything other than bootloading.
Yes it did. But Windows apps couldn't use it. They all ran within a single pre-emptive task and cooperatively multi-tasked inside that address space (like fibers). Each DOS box was a separate pre-emptive task. Otherwise, there's no way to run multiple DOS programs at once. So ironically, it was easier to multitask DOS programs than Windows programs on 3.1.
The event log is available via API. You can write a VBScript script to dump it to the console. There are a bunch of these available online. Yeah, it's a little less convenient than having a text file readily available.
We're splitting hairs here, but I'll bite. It's true that you had to use a lot of DOS drivers for compatibility reasons, but Windows was running the show and all the core components were pure Windows. There are people who think that Windows really was just a graphical shell, like X11, running on top of DOS, with DOS doing all the heavy lifting. While this was true with pre-3.x versions of Windows, 3.11 and later were more like real OSes in their own right, especially once you get to 95 and 98. Ugly, crufty, slow -- yes, but still not pretty shells running on DOS.
Even Windows 3.1 had a "real" kernel, which supported pre-emptive multitasking (between multiple DOS machines and a single Windows VM that ran all Windows processes). DOS in Windows 95, while it existed, did not run the show. It was kept around to support 16-bit Windows functionality and DOS apps and kind of ran as a library alongside Windows 95, which had an actual OS kernel (VMM32).
That doesn't prove what you think it does. It just means that you could boot into a full DOS instead of Windows.
That's because the window borders and title bar are handled in user-space libraries that run in the context of the client. If the client stops pumping messages, there's no way for these parts of the window to respond. There's no separate message pump or thread for them. It's stupid, but I guess it makes it easier for apps to customize the decorations by simply handling the non-client messages instead of passing them on to DefWindowProc.
Buggy drivers, win16 compatibility, the shared memory in the 2-3 GB VM range were probably big parts of it.
95 didn't run on DOS. It kind of used DOS as a bootloader, but used its own drivers and kernel once loaded.
Of course not. The point, though, is that Jesus' birthday is not meant to coincide with pagan holiday.
Not really. Christmas is 9 months after Easter, which is when Jesus died. In the olden days, important people were believed to have died on the same day they were born or conceived, so Jesus would have been conceived at Easter and born in December. Pagan rituals did intermix with Christmas, but it was not chosen because of pagan convenience.
Nothing wrong with personal aesthetics. I just have a problem with people who wrap up their aesthetic judgments in universal terms.
I never understood the dislike of mixing Greek and Latin roots. The Romans themselves did it. Every language does it. There's nothing wrong with it, at all.