It would be worse than worthless. Any AI worth its salt would develop the same biases that human engineers develop and eventually decide that writing unit tests sucks. Only to eventalually hold down the delete key, albeit by submitting keypress events into the usb bus, until all the code was deleted. Finally then exiting with printf ("i quit")
I think that really depends on your definition of "best". I've used Qt (and still use it sometimes) and initially I thought I liked it, but over time began disliking it a lot. For one, I've seen the signal/slot mechanism used to create really hard to understand code. I've seen memory allocated via new and then the pointer passed into emit only to be deleted on the other end of a signal/slot chain.
Posted says, "needs to manage memory usage and disk access at a very granular level and a desire to be cross-platform". Stdio/stdlib takes care of that. I don't see any mention of GUI, so if GUI is necessary, then I'd say, ya, just use Qt, because it probably is the best and it does come with a lot of other stuff, so you when in Rome...
Boost. What you'll get from boost is the filesystem stuff. It'll be similar in functionality as System.IO.FileInfo System.IO.Directory in.NET, but way more confusing to use. At least at first.
It's funny, the filesystem api was proposed over 9 years ago for c++.
I think the issue is more about whether people will trust a machine to make qualitative decisions on their behalf. I don't think I would.
For starters, we've demonstrated time and again they were incapable of making reliable computer systems, and nevermind secure from tampering. Who can ensure me that the guidance system isn't going to core dump at high speed and slam on the brakes or worse?
Secondly, how do test this system? There seems to be way too many scenarios where the best answer is subjective. You'd have to trust a computer system to evaluate risk where human life is at stake.
I think the systems that Mercedes is building is much better. It seems to me they're heading towards a more augmented reality with feedback that can suggest a good choice, but allow me to make the final decision. If you're not familiar, they do the beak pedal tap and steering jar thing. That's at least a system I can trust.
Then there's the whole liability thing. Does a self driving car come with the "this shit probably doesn't work" license like all other software?
And lastly, the cost. What's the expected cost of a self driving car that's sure to be worthless on the used car market?
I'd say in 10 years you'll still be buying vehicles that you command, and the more advanced stuff found in higher end cars will be had in lower cost vehicles.
services.msc is the Microsoft Management Console snap-in for controlling the service control manager. It's really not the thing that's similar to systemd. I think the service control manager (SCM) itself is similar, but it also has an API for control and a couple command line interfaces (dos and powershell). I've actually worked on a project on FreeBSD (closed source) where the concept of an SCM type application always came up. In theory it could have provided a nice consistent interface to our "services" to do things like stop, start, query status, logging, etc. All the boiler plate stuff then looks the same from the outside, instead of being more adhoc. I guess with initd and all the shell scripts, you get a few logging utilities and then shell error codes. Other than that, it's pretty much open season.
Anyone who has written a service for windows knows a few things. First, you always need a way to run it as a normal windows console app or debugging it is a royal pain. Second, you better write it so that it shuts down properly or you'll be getting tons of questions about warnings and errors in the event log. Installing and un-installing can also be painful. I can't be certain how/why, but automating the installation, upgrade, and removal of the service was sometimes problematic if someone logged in and left the SCM control panel running.
Once you have all the kinks ironed out, it's really nice. Admins can start and stop things, install/run your service as different users both domain or local. They can also do things like restrict access to the network, etc. and it's all familiar to them. It does take some cooperation on the developer's part. It is possible to write a service that totally sucks. By sucks, I mean it's buggy and therefore doesn't play nicely with the SCM. Leaves cruft in the registry, and so on.
I had an opportunity to write code on windows (c++ and c#) for about 5-6 years after working exclusively on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, HP-UX, and Solaris for about 10 years. I really liked it a lot. I worked on win2k3 and xp, and then win2k8 and win7. I thought win2k8/win7 were both really nice. I was actually blown away about how good the MS IDE and debugger is. The shell still sort of sucks (powershell). I wish someone would write a 'native' shell for windows that was cool. I'd event settle for a dos prompt you can resize like an xterm.
Is it or me does it seem more and more like SunOS, IRIX, HP-UX, VMS, Digital UNIX, and so on all over again? I sometimes wonder if this is the precursor to the second coming of windows. Microsoft is the only company that seems to be trying to unify all their "stuff" across various devices/platforms.
"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure."
Helen Keller
"People who don't fly solo around the world don't crash into oceans"
Me
If you ever write a module extension that requires interaction with the GIL, you'll find yourself trolling through the interpreter source code trying to figure out when you should acquire/release the GIL. I can say, the experience was pretty fun and educational, but it just seems like concurrency within the interpreter itself was an afterthought. I would think that a relatively modern language like python would have 1st class support for threading in it's "official" runtime. (CPython). I agree with the original post, that the GIL is a huge shortcoming.
As someone who's also written a lot of.NET wrappers around c++ libraries, I can tell you that in theory it's great, but in practice it's no where near as nice as having a fully "managed" implementation. For starters, portability now relies on that wrapper being available on your target platform. If you own the entire stack, that's fine, but there's still an additional maintenance cost. Also, a lot of people writing python code don't have the expertise to simply drop into c/c++, re-write a critical section of code, THEN write the language binding. No to mention when they're debugging, their code goes into this sort of "black whole" method call and comes back out... hopefully in a good state.
easy. by giving a person an h1 that is 100% going to get hired, you dillute the exising base, therefore, lowering the percentage of unemployed people. in reality, the numbers are probably so big that it'll no impact.
I think what's necessary is a simple way to inform people of current and new petitions and allow a very easy way for them to "sign" it. A free mobile app.
To me this is a great opportunity to sell advertising in a virtual world. Just like billboards on highways, they can advertise everything inside the game. I know it's nothing new, but has anyone done it with this model before or with a flight simulator?
I'm not familiar how a carried binds a number to a sim. I don't' see why you couldn't route multiple numbers to a single sim, or even better a sim that's billable via different personalities. Here's the way I'm seeing it. Lots of people are carrying multiple devices. This is often times driven by corporate governance/compliance policy. One device for work, one or more for personal use. Eventually most mobile devices will look the same. I see patent litigation as an attempt to slow the commoditization of mobile devices as much as possible. Once all devices are nearly the same, software and yes, services, will be the differentiating factor. If you offer a single device that can be used in a corporate environment -- mostly to integrate with outlook, and be used as a personal device, then legions of BB users would line up to switch. I think virtualization is the key. They manage one clean restricted OS, I manage the other, virus infected, ad riddled image. How they switch... I'm not sure. Not having to reboot or log as a different user would be really nice.
My guess is a phone os that takes advantage of virtualization or some type of sandboxing so that you can have a single device that you use for personal as well as business use.
I haven't RTFA, but the instant question is: So what?
As long as a device solves a problem to the user, that's what the device should restrain itself to do.. General use PCs have proven to become virus/worms/problem infested in the hands of "normal" users..
There will always be general use pc's for those who are willing and have to skills to handle them responsibly..
I for one welcome this new era when tech support nightmares get reduced to a minimum..
ya, because getting the message to the wrong person really fast is much more important than getting it to the right person. I would also argue that a message being sent to the wrong recipient is a security issue also.
Not really. If you read the bug, they were checking the vendor string to test whether a certain set of command line args could be passed into the jvm on startup. So, yes it's better to make runtime decisions based on something more structured like reflection as opposed to some string compare. But no, reflection, in the context you're using it would not have helped. They need to look for some identifying feature of the sun/oracle vm. I don't think java reflection can help you there .
I'm not a web developer, so when I look at something like you're doing with checking for browser identity based on whether a method is present, I'd say, "what's more likely, Microsoft decides to remove "Microsoft" from the browser id, or you encounter a second browser with an addEventListener on the Document?" Neither is 100%, but you pick the one you like and go with. Unfortunately for the Eclipse devs, they figured sun would probably never change the vendor tag from "sun"?
Slashdot Mirror
It would be worse than worthless. Any AI worth its salt would develop the same biases that human engineers develop and eventually decide that writing unit tests sucks. Only to eventalually hold down the delete key, albeit by submitting keypress events into the usb bus, until all the code was deleted. Finally then exiting with printf ("i quit")
Yet another instant messaging client. I give slack 2-3 years before someone convinces us all that their new protocol and color scheme is better.
Since this is all really just a simulation, we need to concentrate on hacking the simulation from within. Then we can teleport ourselves to mars.
Posted says, "needs to manage memory usage and disk access at a very granular level and a desire to be cross-platform". Stdio/stdlib takes care of that. I don't see any mention of GUI, so if GUI is necessary, then I'd say, ya, just use Qt, because it probably is the best and it does come with a lot of other stuff, so you when in Rome...
Boost. What you'll get from boost is the filesystem stuff. It'll be similar in functionality as System.IO.FileInfo System.IO.Directory in .NET, but way more confusing to use. At least at first.
It's funny, the filesystem api was proposed over 9 years ago for c++.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/s...
WiFi is Pascal case wIfI is camel case. The difference being whether the first character is upper or lower case.
I think the issue is more about whether people will trust a machine to make qualitative decisions on their behalf. I don't think I would. For starters, we've demonstrated time and again they were incapable of making reliable computer systems, and nevermind secure from tampering. Who can ensure me that the guidance system isn't going to core dump at high speed and slam on the brakes or worse? Secondly, how do test this system? There seems to be way too many scenarios where the best answer is subjective. You'd have to trust a computer system to evaluate risk where human life is at stake. I think the systems that Mercedes is building is much better. It seems to me they're heading towards a more augmented reality with feedback that can suggest a good choice, but allow me to make the final decision. If you're not familiar, they do the beak pedal tap and steering jar thing. That's at least a system I can trust. Then there's the whole liability thing. Does a self driving car come with the "this shit probably doesn't work" license like all other software? And lastly, the cost. What's the expected cost of a self driving car that's sure to be worthless on the used car market? I'd say in 10 years you'll still be buying vehicles that you command, and the more advanced stuff found in higher end cars will be had in lower cost vehicles.
Here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...
services.msc is the Microsoft Management Console snap-in for controlling the service control manager. It's really not the thing that's similar to systemd. I think the service control manager (SCM) itself is similar, but it also has an API for control and a couple command line interfaces (dos and powershell). I've actually worked on a project on FreeBSD (closed source) where the concept of an SCM type application always came up. In theory it could have provided a nice consistent interface to our "services" to do things like stop, start, query status, logging, etc. All the boiler plate stuff then looks the same from the outside, instead of being more adhoc. I guess with initd and all the shell scripts, you get a few logging utilities and then shell error codes. Other than that, it's pretty much open season.
Anyone who has written a service for windows knows a few things. First, you always need a way to run it as a normal windows console app or debugging it is a royal pain. Second, you better write it so that it shuts down properly or you'll be getting tons of questions about warnings and errors in the event log. Installing and un-installing can also be painful. I can't be certain how/why, but automating the installation, upgrade, and removal of the service was sometimes problematic if someone logged in and left the SCM control panel running.
Once you have all the kinks ironed out, it's really nice. Admins can start and stop things, install/run your service as different users both domain or local. They can also do things like restrict access to the network, etc. and it's all familiar to them. It does take some cooperation on the developer's part. It is possible to write a service that totally sucks. By sucks, I mean it's buggy and therefore doesn't play nicely with the SCM. Leaves cruft in the registry, and so on.
I had an opportunity to write code on windows (c++ and c#) for about 5-6 years after working exclusively on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, HP-UX, and Solaris for about 10 years. I really liked it a lot. I worked on win2k3 and xp, and then win2k8 and win7. I thought win2k8/win7 were both really nice. I was actually blown away about how good the MS IDE and debugger is. The shell still sort of sucks (powershell). I wish someone would write a 'native' shell for windows that was cool. I'd event settle for a dos prompt you can resize like an xterm.
It's sort of like the Linux kernel, but opposite. Odd numbered releases of windows are good, even numbered ones are social experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Where this patent language is clearly flawed is that it failed to make reference to "a plurality of devices"
Is it or me does it seem more and more like SunOS, IRIX, HP-UX, VMS, Digital UNIX, and so on all over again? I sometimes wonder if this is the precursor to the second coming of windows. Microsoft is the only company that seems to be trying to unify all their "stuff" across various devices/platforms.
"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure." Helen Keller "People who don't fly solo around the world don't crash into oceans" Me
If JavaFX 2 provides a video player widget, maybe it is useful.
Ya because no one has figured out how to play video on the web yet.
So you're saying the business to be in is reselling chinese made server rack shims.
If you ever write a module extension that requires interaction with the GIL, you'll find yourself trolling through the interpreter source code trying to figure out when you should acquire/release the GIL. I can say, the experience was pretty fun and educational, but it just seems like concurrency within the interpreter itself was an afterthought. I would think that a relatively modern language like python would have 1st class support for threading in it's "official" runtime. (CPython). I agree with the original post, that the GIL is a huge shortcoming. As someone who's also written a lot of .NET wrappers around c++ libraries, I can tell you that in theory it's great, but in practice it's no where near as nice as having a fully "managed" implementation. For starters, portability now relies on that wrapper being available on your target platform. If you own the entire stack, that's fine, but there's still an additional maintenance cost. Also, a lot of people writing python code don't have the expertise to simply drop into c/c++, re-write a critical section of code, THEN write the language binding. No to mention when they're debugging, their code goes into this sort of "black whole" method call and comes back out... hopefully in a good state.
Does this mean I'll have to dance in front of my computer to upgrade to ubuntu 12.0?
easy. by giving a person an h1 that is 100% going to get hired, you dillute the exising base, therefore, lowering the percentage of unemployed people. in reality, the numbers are probably so big that it'll no impact.
I think what's necessary is a simple way to inform people of current and new petitions and allow a very easy way for them to "sign" it. A free mobile app.
To me this is a great opportunity to sell advertising in a virtual world. Just like billboards on highways, they can advertise everything inside the game. I know it's nothing new, but has anyone done it with this model before or with a flight simulator?
I'm not familiar how a carried binds a number to a sim. I don't' see why you couldn't route multiple numbers to a single sim, or even better a sim that's billable via different personalities. Here's the way I'm seeing it. Lots of people are carrying multiple devices. This is often times driven by corporate governance/compliance policy. One device for work, one or more for personal use. Eventually most mobile devices will look the same. I see patent litigation as an attempt to slow the commoditization of mobile devices as much as possible. Once all devices are nearly the same, software and yes, services, will be the differentiating factor. If you offer a single device that can be used in a corporate environment -- mostly to integrate with outlook, and be used as a personal device, then legions of BB users would line up to switch. I think virtualization is the key. They manage one clean restricted OS, I manage the other, virus infected, ad riddled image. How they switch... I'm not sure. Not having to reboot or log as a different user would be really nice.
My guess is a phone os that takes advantage of virtualization or some type of sandboxing so that you can have a single device that you use for personal as well as business use.
I haven't RTFA, but the instant question is: So what?
As long as a device solves a problem to the user, that's what the device should restrain itself to do.. General use PCs have proven to become virus/worms/problem infested in the hands of "normal" users..
There will always be general use pc's for those who are willing and have to skills to handle them responsibly..
I for one welcome this new era when tech support nightmares get reduced to a minimum..
maybe you should RTFA.
ya, because getting the message to the wrong person really fast is much more important than getting it to the right person. I would also argue that a message being sent to the wrong recipient is a security issue also.
Not really. If you read the bug, they were checking the vendor string to test whether a certain set of command line args could be passed into the jvm on startup. So, yes it's better to make runtime decisions based on something more structured like reflection as opposed to some string compare. But no, reflection, in the context you're using it would not have helped. They need to look for some identifying feature of the sun/oracle vm. I don't think java reflection can help you there . I'm not a web developer, so when I look at something like you're doing with checking for browser identity based on whether a method is present, I'd say, "what's more likely, Microsoft decides to remove "Microsoft" from the browser id, or you encounter a second browser with an addEventListener on the Document?" Neither is 100%, but you pick the one you like and go with. Unfortunately for the Eclipse devs, they figured sun would probably never change the vendor tag from "sun"?