The idea that the centralized data storage location will go away in favor of distributed storage is, frankly, ridiculous.
Asset management is already a challenge in organizations of any significant size - it's bad enough when your employees lose their laptops; if the loss of the physical asset also means the actual loss of company data, the situation is orders of magnitude worse.
Distributed devices, moreover, are inherently less reliably available. While you may store all the data you commonly use locally, there could always be a need to access a piece of data from quite a distance across the org chart.
The legal ramifications are also overwhelming: data retention policies are hard enough to implement on a central filestore, they'd be impossible to reliably enforce across a myriad of differing devices. Not to mention the gaping liability hole introduced by subpoena: if the court subpoenas all the records you have for the last fifteen years regarding a specific client, they expect all the records, not just the ones you were able to find on the two hundred laptops you think were the only ones involved in the transactions (and this isn't a flight of fancy; I'm the DBA for a medium-sized accounting firm, and we get these sorts of requests almost weekly).
His comparison to power generation is equally ridiculous. Power is fungible, data aren't. Besides:
We certainly don't put power generators in precious city center real estate, or put them on pristine raised flooring with luxuriant environmentals, or surround them with glass and dramatic lighting to host tours for customers. (But now you know why we put 5 foot logos on the sides of our machines.)
We absolutely centralize power generation; they're called power plants. We put generators on the roof and in the basement to provide redundancy in the event of failure at the central location - but that's, if anything, analogous to having local copies of data on the device in question, not analagous to replacing the power plant with thousands of CO4-burning generators.
And that's not even getting into defining where this "most useful" place for data is - if you've got a company with offices around the country (much less the world), and you have one corporate website contributed to by people in each office, where "should" that information reside, if not in a single location? And if it does, guess what - you've got a data center.
The steps in his methodology are counter-intuitive and therefore stupid
I agree with your general statement, but this isn't good evidence. Plenty of things are counterintuitive, yet correct and useful.
I present exhibit A: the whole of statistics. It is counterintuitive that after the tenth straight "heads" result, the eleventh flip still has even odds of coming up heads - despite the fact that the odds of eleven straight flips coming up heads are 2048:1. It is counterintuitive that you should always switch doors in the Monty Hall problem.
Or, if you're scientifically minded, I give you relativity. It is counterintuitive that no matter how fast you're moving relative to a light source, the speed of the light from your point of view will never change.
It is counterintuitive that gravity causes hot air balloons to rise, or that the way to escape Earth orbit is to accelerate along it, not away from Earth.
Counterintuitive doesn't necessarily mean that something's incorrect.
What does "good enough" mean? Good enough for it to be included as a general-use software development tool?Good enough to guarantee that released code is bug-free? Good enough to guarantee that released code has no glaring security-affecting errors?
It makes a difference which "good enough" you're asking for.
(The answers to those questions, to channel one Urban Chronotis, are yes, no, and maybe. Not necessarily in that order)
What percentage of earth orbiting satellites are powered by anything but PV?
I hope you're not seriously implying that the relative performance and cost characteristics of PV in orbit, where the cost per kg of payload at launch is astronomical (har!), the environment they operate in varies in temperature by hundreds of degrees, available sunlight is completely unfiltered by atmosphere, and there is zero chance of replacing spent fuel (see point 1)somehow translates meaningfully to their performance characteristics on the surface in comparison to other energy sources.
Anything with hardcore RPG elements is better done with a keyboard
Really? What do you consider hardcore RPG elements? I ask this out of honest curiosity; I've played roughly as many RPGs on consoles as I have on PCs, and I don't see it. But I've never played an MMORPG (unless you count MOOing, which you shouldn't), and the RPG has never been my primary game genre.
What does an RPG have to do to make it hardcore that is infeasible with a console controller?
What I'm concerned about is my government being able to defend itself the best it can
Small nit, but IMHO, significant: what you should actually be worrying about is your government being able to defend you, or society at large, as best it can. Yes, this is probably what you meant.
But putting it interms of government defending itself is putting it in the larger terms that are such a problem: government doing things to help government, when in fact, government is only useful insofar as it helps society run.
The key, here, is when you say "it probably is." Not only is it "probable," it's certain. China has had the capability of launching satellites since at least 1984 (IIRC, that's the year they first put a bird in geosynch) that I know of. If they've got satellites up there, it's virtually guaranteed that some of them overfly the US, and some of those are capable of looking down. And if not China, every other space-capable nation on the planet has satellites that overfly the US.
Yet you don't see us blinding their satellites and claiming "it's not aggressive, it's just common sense."
Satellites, outside of a state of war, are like transoceanic cables. You're supposed to leave each other's alone because it starts a chain of retaliations that ends up with very little accomplished aside from a disastrous collapse of certain types of infrastructure.
So yes, China going and doing this is an openly aggressive act. It's not as aggressive as cutting a cable would be, or landing soldiers in Hawaii, but don't think it's somehow innocent.
By that rationale, though, the filibuster would have been written out of the rules decades ago.
The way it seems to work is that each person values the possibility of wielding the tactic to his benefit more than he feels hurt by the "other guy" wielding it against him.
Part of this is because it's all a game. When the other team takes a knee to run the clock out, you don't try and change rules to stop the clock after every down, because you know next time you're on top at the end of the game, you'll do the same thing.*
*This analogy references American football. If you're unfamiliar with the sport, I can try another one.
Line item veto is a terrible idea - it would concentrate even more authority into the already overpowerful hands of the executive branch.
Unfortunately, what needs to happen is an actual Constitutional amendment banning the inclusion of clauses unrelated to the central topic of a resolution or bill. This, at least, would give the SCOTUS grounds to deny enforcement of some portions of some bills.
There are two problems with this: first, getting 2/3 of both houses to voluntarily give up a legislative tactic that allows members to push through pork and special interest legislation upon which their contribution receipts depend is just about the definition of "lost cause." Second, there is an example of a rule like this in American politics. Technically speaking, Minnesota disallows exactly this, unrelated clauses tacked onto bills. That does not stop it from happening. It's certainly a good idea, but it's no panacea to the problem. The real solution would be for the constituency to call their representatives on shady parliamentary procedure. But since it generally benefits the constituents directly, that's hard to manage, too.
Really, the best bet for a change like this making it into the Constitution is for the states to call a Constitutional Convention. But that would be a whole different order of disaster.
Yes, the system is broken. No, it won't be fixed any time soon.
Because it works to the benefit of each individual in the body to let it happen. Expecting the powers-that-be to relinquish some of that power simply for the betterment of the process or the fairness of their governance is a good way to lead a life filled with disappointment.
It's not that anyone ever actually considered the process and said, "you know it would be really keen if we could attach completely unrelated topics to bills, we should make that possible." It's more a matter of nothing being set up to stop it from happening. Since there's an advantage to it in terms of personal political clout, then, it happens.
You're right, it's ridiculous. But it's like the bracketed tax system: it doesn't matter whether another method is demonstrably and obviously more fair, just, or cheaper. If it means that it would take power out of the hands of those who have it, it will be, at best, an uphill battle. And uphill battles aren't won by a population that's largely apathetic to the entire political process (no matter how up in arms they might get about the executive office, that's really a very minor part of the legislative process in this country).
Which, as far as I'm concerned, is at best overrated, and at worst completely useless. So, from my point of view, the answer to your question is "nothing." That's why I've got a 360, and I don't plan on getting a PS3.
My point, though, was that even if your typical Sony fanboi is right that the PS3 is somehow a "better value" than the 360, it really dosn't matter if the price is still too high. Which it is.
Let's say I agree that the PS3 is a fantastic value, it does things the 360 can't even dream of doing, and does it at a price that is less than I would have to spend to bring a 360 into the same performance ballpark.
It doesn't matter.
As an analogy, let's say I'm shopping for a car, because I need to get to work every day. Let's also say someone offers to sell me a new Viper for $40,000. That's a great value, there's no doubt about it. But if I don't care whether my car can get from 0-60 in less than six seconds, or I can't justify spending $40,000, or I flat don't have $40,000, then I'll just go buy a $20,000 Saturn*. And it really doesn't matter that it would cost me more than $20,000 to make the Saturn drive like the Viper.
That's what we're dealing with.
Sony hasn't done a good job of convincing people that the acceleration curve of the Viper will do such great things for their daily commute that it's worth the price premium.
*Ignoring, for the purposes of the analogy, that I could turn around and sell the Viper at a hefty profit. We're talking about buying things for use, here, not as investments.
Don't think of it as being about Blu-Ray, necessarily. It's not. Really, it's about the price. $600 (or $580, if you count the 20% of production that will be priced at $500) is, to many people too much money. It's really that simple.
Blu-Ray is something that many people aren't excited about that also drives the price up and the production quantity down - this makes it the obvious target for people who don't want/aren't willing/can't afford to shell out $580 for a game console before purchasing even a single game (much less any of the usual hardware accessories).
Had the DS been sold at $500, with the only obvious thing that might account for its far-above-the-competition price the second screen, then yes, you would have heard similar complaints about it. If the Wii was priced at $500 because of problems with the Wiimote, then you'd be hearing similar complaints about that.
Say what you want about how great Blu-Ray is, or how it's actually for games, not for pushing Sony's pet format, or whatever else you want to say about it. But what it comes down to is that, for (seemingly) a lot of people, $580 is just too damn much money. And it doesn't matter how cool Blu-Ray is if the price is more than people are willing to pay.
Re:We don't need any steenkin' new paradigms...
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
I hesitate to defend the Windows UI, but...when you're renaming a file, the right arrow key will take you to the end of the filename, and the left arrow key will take you to the beginning. Given that the text is oriented left-to-right, this seems to make perfect sense to me. I don't think up/down has any "natural" mapping to left/right, while left/right has a fairly obvious one to left/right.
Alternatively, of course, you can use end and home - two keys which, I've found, are grossly underutilized by most people.
The world is heating up. It's heating up faster than the species can naturally adapt to. What does this mean? How much will sea level rise, taking into account: melting ice sheets, saltwater's coefficient of expansion, average landmass coefficient of expansion, increased evaporation and water vapor carrying capacity of the atmosphere, increasing albedo due to cloud cover, decreasing albedo due to vanishing ice sheets, and whatever else I haven't thought of here? What effect will climate change have on the amount of arable land? Will increasing desertification in some areas be less than offset, equally offset, or more than offset by temperate zones closer to the poles than previously existed? How much of an increase in annual storm damage can we expect worldwide?
Translate all this into cost in human lives and cost in money. What are we at risk for? What will happen if we don't change anything, and assume that exploitation of fossil fuels continues to grow at its current rate?
Is it physically possible for anything we do at this point to affect the warming trend? Assuming that all fossil fuel use worldwide stopped tomorrow, what impact would that have on climate change? Would it be enough to avoid the calamities often predicted? What if it dropped by 50%? 25%? 0%, but the rate of growth stopped increasing? What if the rate of growth dropped to zero?
Conversely, what would the cost be in human lives and money for each of those scenarios? Where do the two graphs cross? What's the minimum cost we can achieve through reduction of CO2 emissions while still maintaining reasonable technology levels?
Can we devise a way to re-sequester atmospheric CO2? What would the cost of development and deployment of such a scheme be? Would it be greater or less than the cost of eliminating fossil fuel usage?
Is the cost of any change-mitigation strategy less than or more than the cost of implementing strategies to cope with the effects of climate change, rather than trying to change the fact of climate change? What might some of these strategies be?
If I haven't made the point yet, it's all about cost/benefit. The altogether too common thought that "I don't care why it's happening, but if there's any chance to help, shouldn't we DO SOMETHING?" is ridiculous. That's the kind of thinking that has led to MTBE contaminated groundwater and a resurgence in malaria (via banning DDT). No, we shouldn't just "do something," we should do something that a) we have solid reason to believe will be useful, and b) won't cause more problems than it solves.
(And this completely ignores the rather thorny ethical/legal/social/moral problem of "who decides what sacrifices have to be made by whom." This is a question the US has traditionally answered with "those who can afford not to make sacrifices don't have to," but perhaps there's a better method than increasing cost to allocate such sacrifices)
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that the centralized data storage location will go away in favor of distributed storage is, frankly, ridiculous.
Asset management is already a challenge in organizations of any significant size - it's bad enough when your employees lose their laptops; if the loss of the physical asset also means the actual loss of company data, the situation is orders of magnitude worse.
Distributed devices, moreover, are inherently less reliably available. While you may store all the data you commonly use locally, there could always be a need to access a piece of data from quite a distance across the org chart.
The legal ramifications are also overwhelming: data retention policies are hard enough to implement on a central filestore, they'd be impossible to reliably enforce across a myriad of differing devices. Not to mention the gaping liability hole introduced by subpoena: if the court subpoenas all the records you have for the last fifteen years regarding a specific client, they expect all the records, not just the ones you were able to find on the two hundred laptops you think were the only ones involved in the transactions (and this isn't a flight of fancy; I'm the DBA for a medium-sized accounting firm, and we get these sorts of requests almost weekly).
His comparison to power generation is equally ridiculous. Power is fungible, data aren't. Besides:
We certainly don't put power generators in precious city center real estate, or put them on pristine raised flooring with luxuriant environmentals, or surround them with glass and dramatic lighting to host tours for customers. (But now you know why we put 5 foot logos on the sides of our machines.)
We absolutely centralize power generation; they're called power plants. We put generators on the roof and in the basement to provide redundancy in the event of failure at the central location - but that's, if anything, analogous to having local copies of data on the device in question, not analagous to replacing the power plant with thousands of CO4-burning generators.
And that's not even getting into defining where this "most useful" place for data is - if you've got a company with offices around the country (much less the world), and you have one corporate website contributed to by people in each office, where "should" that information reside, if not in a single location? And if it does, guess what - you've got a data center.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed.
All right, point taken. I was, perhaps, exaggerating slightly. For effect.
Mea maxima culpa, and all that.
By masochists, maybe.
The steps in his methodology are counter-intuitive and therefore stupid
I agree with your general statement, but this isn't good evidence. Plenty of things are counterintuitive, yet correct and useful.
I present exhibit A: the whole of statistics. It is counterintuitive that after the tenth straight "heads" result, the eleventh flip still has even odds of coming up heads - despite the fact that the odds of eleven straight flips coming up heads are 2048:1. It is counterintuitive that you should always switch doors in the Monty Hall problem.
Or, if you're scientifically minded, I give you relativity. It is counterintuitive that no matter how fast you're moving relative to a light source, the speed of the light from your point of view will never change.
It is counterintuitive that gravity causes hot air balloons to rise, or that the way to escape Earth orbit is to accelerate along it, not away from Earth.
Counterintuitive doesn't necessarily mean that something's incorrect.
If I'm a troll, you're guilty of feeding me.
And if you're going to do that, I'll take a WOPR and fries.
Thanks!
What does "good enough" mean? Good enough for it to be included as a general-use software development tool?Good enough to guarantee that released code is bug-free? Good enough to guarantee that released code has no glaring security-affecting errors?
It makes a difference which "good enough" you're asking for.
(The answers to those questions, to channel one Urban Chronotis, are yes, no, and maybe. Not necessarily in that order)
Perfect!
/. day.
Thank you, Tackhead, you've just made my
What percentage of earth orbiting satellites are powered by anything but PV?
I hope you're not seriously implying that the relative performance and cost characteristics of PV in orbit, where the cost per kg of payload at launch is astronomical (har!), the environment they operate in varies in temperature by hundreds of degrees, available sunlight is completely unfiltered by atmosphere, and there is zero chance of replacing spent fuel (see point 1)somehow translates meaningfully to their performance characteristics on the surface in comparison to other energy sources.
Because that would be ridiculous.
Drat. Beaten to the WarGames punch by 2 minutes.
How about a game of chess?
The only way to win is not to play!
Oh, it's not impressive. The very concept of unrelated riders, in my opinion, is more than a bit crap.
Anything with hardcore RPG elements is better done with a keyboard
Really? What do you consider hardcore RPG elements? I ask this out of honest curiosity; I've played roughly as many RPGs on consoles as I have on PCs, and I don't see it. But I've never played an MMORPG (unless you count MOOing, which you shouldn't), and the RPG has never been my primary game genre.
What does an RPG have to do to make it hardcore that is infeasible with a console controller?
What I'm concerned about is my government being able to defend itself the best it can
Small nit, but IMHO, significant: what you should actually be worrying about is your government being able to defend you, or society at large, as best it can. Yes, this is probably what you meant.
But putting it interms of government defending itself is putting it in the larger terms that are such a problem: government doing things to help government, when in fact, government is only useful insofar as it helps society run.
[/rant]
The key, here, is when you say "it probably is." Not only is it "probable," it's certain. China has had the capability of launching satellites since at least 1984 (IIRC, that's the year they first put a bird in geosynch) that I know of. If they've got satellites up there, it's virtually guaranteed that some of them overfly the US, and some of those are capable of looking down. And if not China, every other space-capable nation on the planet has satellites that overfly the US.
Yet you don't see us blinding their satellites and claiming "it's not aggressive, it's just common sense."
Satellites, outside of a state of war, are like transoceanic cables. You're supposed to leave each other's alone because it starts a chain of retaliations that ends up with very little accomplished aside from a disastrous collapse of certain types of infrastructure.
So yes, China going and doing this is an openly aggressive act. It's not as aggressive as cutting a cable would be, or landing soldiers in Hawaii, but don't think it's somehow innocent.
By that rationale, though, the filibuster would have been written out of the rules decades ago.
The way it seems to work is that each person values the possibility of wielding the tactic to his benefit more than he feels hurt by the "other guy" wielding it against him.
Part of this is because it's all a game. When the other team takes a knee to run the clock out, you don't try and change rules to stop the clock after every down, because you know next time you're on top at the end of the game, you'll do the same thing.*
*This analogy references American football. If you're unfamiliar with the sport, I can try another one.
Line item veto is a terrible idea - it would concentrate even more authority into the already overpowerful hands of the executive branch.
Unfortunately, what needs to happen is an actual Constitutional amendment banning the inclusion of clauses unrelated to the central topic of a resolution or bill. This, at least, would give the SCOTUS grounds to deny enforcement of some portions of some bills.
There are two problems with this: first, getting 2/3 of both houses to voluntarily give up a legislative tactic that allows members to push through pork and special interest legislation upon which their contribution receipts depend is just about the definition of "lost cause." Second, there is an example of a rule like this in American politics. Technically speaking, Minnesota disallows exactly this, unrelated clauses tacked onto bills. That does not stop it from happening. It's certainly a good idea, but it's no panacea to the problem. The real solution would be for the constituency to call their representatives on shady parliamentary procedure. But since it generally benefits the constituents directly, that's hard to manage, too.
Really, the best bet for a change like this making it into the Constitution is for the states to call a Constitutional Convention. But that would be a whole different order of disaster.
Yes, the system is broken. No, it won't be fixed any time soon.
Because it works to the benefit of each individual in the body to let it happen. Expecting the powers-that-be to relinquish some of that power simply for the betterment of the process or the fairness of their governance is a good way to lead a life filled with disappointment.
It's not that anyone ever actually considered the process and said, "you know it would be really keen if we could attach completely unrelated topics to bills, we should make that possible." It's more a matter of nothing being set up to stop it from happening. Since there's an advantage to it in terms of personal political clout, then, it happens.
You're right, it's ridiculous. But it's like the bracketed tax system: it doesn't matter whether another method is demonstrably and obviously more fair, just, or cheaper. If it means that it would take power out of the hands of those who have it, it will be, at best, an uphill battle. And uphill battles aren't won by a population that's largely apathetic to the entire political process (no matter how up in arms they might get about the executive office, that's really a very minor part of the legislative process in this country).
Play games on high-capacity discs.
Which, as far as I'm concerned, is at best overrated, and at worst completely useless. So, from my point of view, the answer to your question is "nothing." That's why I've got a 360, and I don't plan on getting a PS3.
My point, though, was that even if your typical Sony fanboi is right that the PS3 is somehow a "better value" than the 360, it really dosn't matter if the price is still too high. Which it is.
Which is still missing the point.
Let's say I agree that the PS3 is a fantastic value, it does things the 360 can't even dream of doing, and does it at a price that is less than I would have to spend to bring a 360 into the same performance ballpark.
It doesn't matter.
As an analogy, let's say I'm shopping for a car, because I need to get to work every day. Let's also say someone offers to sell me a new Viper for $40,000. That's a great value, there's no doubt about it. But if I don't care whether my car can get from 0-60 in less than six seconds, or I can't justify spending $40,000, or I flat don't have $40,000, then I'll just go buy a $20,000 Saturn*. And it really doesn't matter that it would cost me more than $20,000 to make the Saturn drive like the Viper.
That's what we're dealing with.
Sony hasn't done a good job of convincing people that the acceleration curve of the Viper will do such great things for their daily commute that it's worth the price premium.
*Ignoring, for the purposes of the analogy, that I could turn around and sell the Viper at a hefty profit. We're talking about buying things for use, here, not as investments.
Don't think of it as being about Blu-Ray, necessarily. It's not. Really, it's about the price. $600 (or $580, if you count the 20% of production that will be priced at $500) is, to many people too much money. It's really that simple.
Blu-Ray is something that many people aren't excited about that also drives the price up and the production quantity down - this makes it the obvious target for people who don't want/aren't willing/can't afford to shell out $580 for a game console before purchasing even a single game (much less any of the usual hardware accessories).
Had the DS been sold at $500, with the only obvious thing that might account for its far-above-the-competition price the second screen, then yes, you would have heard similar complaints about it. If the Wii was priced at $500 because of problems with the Wiimote, then you'd be hearing similar complaints about that.
Say what you want about how great Blu-Ray is, or how it's actually for games, not for pushing Sony's pet format, or whatever else you want to say about it. But what it comes down to is that, for (seemingly) a lot of people, $580 is just too damn much money. And it doesn't matter how cool Blu-Ray is if the price is more than people are willing to pay.
I hesitate to defend the Windows UI, but...when you're renaming a file, the right arrow key will take you to the end of the filename, and the left arrow key will take you to the beginning. Given that the text is oriented left-to-right, this seems to make perfect sense to me. I don't think up/down has any "natural" mapping to left/right, while left/right has a fairly obvious one to left/right.
Alternatively, of course, you can use end and home - two keys which, I've found, are grossly underutilized by most people.
OK, I'm convinced.
The world is heating up. It's heating up faster than the species can naturally adapt to. What does this mean? How much will sea level rise, taking into account: melting ice sheets, saltwater's coefficient of expansion, average landmass coefficient of expansion, increased evaporation and water vapor carrying capacity of the atmosphere, increasing albedo due to cloud cover, decreasing albedo due to vanishing ice sheets, and whatever else I haven't thought of here? What effect will climate change have on the amount of arable land? Will increasing desertification in some areas be less than offset, equally offset, or more than offset by temperate zones closer to the poles than previously existed? How much of an increase in annual storm damage can we expect worldwide?
Translate all this into cost in human lives and cost in money. What are we at risk for? What will happen if we don't change anything, and assume that exploitation of fossil fuels continues to grow at its current rate?
Is it physically possible for anything we do at this point to affect the warming trend? Assuming that all fossil fuel use worldwide stopped tomorrow, what impact would that have on climate change? Would it be enough to avoid the calamities often predicted? What if it dropped by 50%? 25%? 0%, but the rate of growth stopped increasing? What if the rate of growth dropped to zero?
Conversely, what would the cost be in human lives and money for each of those scenarios? Where do the two graphs cross? What's the minimum cost we can achieve through reduction of CO2 emissions while still maintaining reasonable technology levels?
Can we devise a way to re-sequester atmospheric CO2? What would the cost of development and deployment of such a scheme be? Would it be greater or less than the cost of eliminating fossil fuel usage?
Is the cost of any change-mitigation strategy less than or more than the cost of implementing strategies to cope with the effects of climate change, rather than trying to change the fact of climate change? What might some of these strategies be?
If I haven't made the point yet, it's all about cost/benefit. The altogether too common thought that "I don't care why it's happening, but if there's any chance to help, shouldn't we DO SOMETHING?" is ridiculous. That's the kind of thinking that has led to MTBE contaminated groundwater and a resurgence in malaria (via banning DDT). No, we shouldn't just "do something," we should do something that a) we have solid reason to believe will be useful, and b) won't cause more problems than it solves.
(And this completely ignores the rather thorny ethical/legal/social/moral problem of "who decides what sacrifices have to be made by whom." This is a question the US has traditionally answered with "those who can afford not to make sacrifices don't have to," but perhaps there's a better method than increasing cost to allocate such sacrifices)
mostly money, meaning they have no 'special' privilege in a court of law.
LOL, ROTFL...wow, that's a good one: "money != special privilege in the legal system". You've got a future in comedy, my friend.
Wait - you were serious?
ROTFLMAO!!!11one!eleventy-one
Oh, I don't know...sudden application of 6.67 x 10^11 Nm^2kg^-2 doesn't strike me as being all that problematic. Or even noticeable, really.