to sum it up, if a FB server is idle it consumes 60 watts, if CPU is minimally utilised it consumes 130 watts and if it's utilised more it consumes 150 watts.

Instead of round robin use an algorithm that pushes requests to the servers that are already processing other requests, thus allowing many CPUs to remain at 60 watts, while some CPUs to hit 150 watts of power consumption and so instead of doubling or almost trippling power consumption of all servers due to round robin distribution of requests, tripple power consumption of fewer CPUs and let many CPUs to stay at 60 watts.

Sure, it's an interesting thing to optimise, but unless you are running dozens or maybe hundreds and even thousands of servers in a data centre you won't care about this much at all.

All of the complaints about Java (and I have my own) actually show that it is not the language or the runtime that is annoying to use, it is people that are now in it who are annoying like hell.

In my company I dictate the rules of how we code and we use the bare minimum that needs to be used at any moment in time and no more than that. Basically make it as simple as possible to achieve your goal but not simpler than that.

Given this, I prevent people here from using newer syntactic sugar that was added from about version 1.5 (with minor variations), I prevent people from using gigantic libraries, where a tiny method would do the trick without adding 50 million classes and processors and factories and configuration files.

Simplicity and standardisation of code in terms of structure and of process and data flow is the key to being able to release a project successfully into production (at least when it comes to a small team working on large, complex projects).

One thing that we use here that I built and we develop further that TRULY ads value to coding, reduces time it takes to create a new piece of code that can be added to the project is code generation. I built a number of code generators and put them into a single tool that we now have online and it takes a page of Meta Data and provides 80% of code for a standard use case. This includes database code, stubbing for business logic delegates, front end action and form and bean code, jsps even with some rudimentary HTML in it. Our code generators produce vertical stacks, use cases that can be generated from a page of meta code and imported into the project, modified for an hour and become part of the project. This reduces amount of time something like that takes from 4-5 days (with debugging and possible bugs) to 2-4 hours.

This just may be what is actually needed - helping developers to create standard use cases and import them into existing or new projects rather than developing 5 more ways to write the same 'for' loop.

- Sun is dead and Oracle is as rich as ever.

Personally I do not allow my developers to use language features that prevent easier debugging, prevent reuse of objects, prevent knowing what iteration of the loop is running currently in the debugger.

So I do not allow autoboxing, I do not allow 'for each' java constructs, I do not allow generics, things of that nature. They are destructive to the language, not constructive, they allow people to write SHITTIER CODE.

AFAIC Java doesn't need more syntax sugar, it only needs to add new libraries to support missing functionality and to develop better, faster runtime environment.

How about a built in way to talk to USB and other serial ports without installing extra libraries and using JNI? How about more support for different types of hardware? There is so much that can be done to make the environment more productive, but instead people are looking at making programming less efficient and buggier.

You can simulate this guy by 2030 then.

I disagree, didn't improve for me, ofcourse I run older Ubuntu and FF 16. The only saving grace is their smtp server and lets hope PGP is for that only or at least has the disable option. If they add it as a js file to online mail, I cant even imagine the horror show that will ensue.

Whenever I hear that Yahoo is working on yet another great idea for their email, I cannot help but cringe at yet another incoming disaster to hit that half dead, half alive, halfassed half service. It is one of those situations where every next release is worsd than the one before. Things become less usable every time they touch something. It is a pitty too, could be an actual Google competitor, but no, not with that rotten carcas of a management and development team. Why not just acquire a porn service and milm that on a side? I mean cannot go wrong with another social media type 1000000000 dollar purchase. Oh maybe it will be better this time? Haaaa!

You can't spell 'hypervisor' without 'hype'. Before I even clicked on TFS link (sorry, /.) I knew I was going to see that this has something to do with VMWare and lo and behold:

so you can encrypt your virtual machine... Ok, great, an extra level of encryption, but doesn't it still have to decrypt whatever it is trying to run on the processor, eventually an unencrypted instruction has to be read and executed, or do they now allow encrypted instructions to run within a virtual machine player? I don't think so. This is not about security, this is about Facebook getting into the VMWare hype. More acquisition for the sake of acquisition, to keep FB in the news, to try and boost the stock higher.

Removing objects from images and filling in the missing space with some other content from the rest of the image based on 'awareness' has been available for some time now, it is called 'content awareness' in Photoshop and 'Resynth' in Gimp.

itext may be one of those. It comes under AGPL and under a commercial license if you buy support from the company.

In other news most Porsches have better acceleration and handling than most Fords, a large cruise liner fits more people than your dinky boat and a nuclear bomb has more 'bang' in it than a firework would.

Well, are the pixels that are 'filling up' the lines between the actual stretched lines are not just the same pixels from 320x240, then aren't those pixels unique in themselves?

Here is what I mean, take a 2x2 image, 2 lines total, have a 2x3 screen (3 lines total), output the first line from 2x2 image on the top, the last line from 2x2 image on the bottom and then fill the middle with pixels that are not even from this image itself. So now the question: how is that not giving you are 2x3 image? I mean the middle line there is not necessarily derived from information in the 2 lines in the 2x2 image. It's outputted onto the screen, the screen is filled with pixels.

The output is there, how the pixels were produced, by rendering a scene or by mixing and matching pixels somehow, technically that's a 2x3 image. It maybe that you don't like the resulting picture, but that's a different question.

Starting a class action lawsuit for not liking the product as much as you expected.... I don't think Sony should lose on this one, I mean they may lose, because in today's society you can sue and win for feeling offended, but other than nonsense like that, on the merits itself Sony shouldn't lose.

I mean if you don't like the product you can return it.

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.

Practically I hate the 1080p standard. Whatever happened to 1920x1200? When I need another monitor for the office, I always look for these, they are harder to come by nowadays.

How can images be admissible in court in our modern technological age of 3d manipulation of 2d images? Sure, they still have visual artifacts (like in the video presentation for this technology, when the airplanes are turned into 3d, their propellers are not changed, the same image of a propeller is kept for 3d model as was on the original 2d picture) but eventually all of these will go away, it may become impossible to detect that an image in front of you was manipulated at all.

Eventually this will also apply to video footage.

Add the digital augmentation of reality into the mix (Google Glass, etc.) and you can't rely even on the recorded information. We know that people are not good at remembering the details of what they saw, but if cannot be sure of images and video (and obviously audio) either, then this type of data becomes useless in courts. That's an interesting development in itself, never mind the fact that you can now turn a picture into a movie if you want.

Databases and by extension transactions, sql, relational model, dataviews, connection, statement, result set, pool handling, holistic approach to debugging (including db logs). Communucation skills, as you said, networking, protocols, leaving optimization for later, when the business problem is solved and performance starts to matter, logging data, thinking beyond the immediate, source control, working in a team. This and much more is what I end up teaching all of the students and new grads I hire, they are basically empty before they come in here. In 3 weeks they learn all of this and are put to productive use. AFAIC college is a waste of time for vast majority of them, I don't see difference between them and any novice atraight from the street, except somebody from the street may not have a crushing debt hanging above their heads due to the government backee student loans . If you come and ask me to work for me and you know nothing but are willing to learn, I do not care what your education is as long as you are interested, have the right attitude and can learn.

Nonsense, real CS people should have a year studying butterflies.

As to Java or Assembler, neither are computer science. CS is about algorithms, run time, data models, paradigms, approaches. BTW, without understanding memory management, you will have memory management problems regardless of the language used. It is just the degree of how bad the problems are, whether they cause program to terminate only or also may become attack vectors.