First, good on you to start fixing things in the first week. I know that I miss the days of being able to download things off of sourceforge.
Secondly, do you have an overarching philosophy you can share about how you plan on running your new acquisitions. I know a mission statement is often a lame thing, but I think something that clearly explained your vision, and that people could judge your future actions by, would be nice..
There's no reason to believe that those day 1 concerns aren't valid. Some people who have a lot of money are willing to do things inefficiently for their personal convince... like put projects close to their house at thrice the cost.
I'm fine with them delaying as long as they like to auction the ad, as long as that delay time is made before they start serving any content. Note, Google and other ranking algorithms count time to first byte in the quality of a site.
The inability of a pure meritocracy does not make it a moot point to enumerate its benefits. In fact, it makes it more important. Because, invariably, the lack of ability to achieve a pure meritocracy means that there will be required tradeoffs in which features are implemented.
If the only advantage to a meritocracy is that we eliminate the technically incompetent from certain jobs, that seems more like a binary sorting instead of any kind -ocracy.
I'm quasi-serious about the question, in that, while I don't suggest there is a better system, I don't quite grok the theoretical reason why I really want a meritocracy.
Why do they need 500 employees? I'd be struggling to figure out what any of them do.
Except for the sales execs that encourage Microsoft, Badieu, Facebook and Google (none of whom have any experience with servers) to host their opensource projects on GitHub... for the publicity?
Old content has numerous rights issues from the way that residuals are paid in movies/TV (but not music). Therefore, it costs money to clear each old release for streaming. Therefore, some old content just isn't worth the effort.
New content, of course, has residual structures that take into account an "Internet" and "computers" and even "cellphones/tablets"
It's kinda harsh to go back to 1976. We're primarilly talking about things being made now. Because that's what most people pirate, and where most of the money we're talking about is. And stuff shows up on Netflix like a year after theaters. HBO Go first.
I don't think anyone really cares about incentivizing studios to remaster the Breakfast Club for Bluray. I think people are talking about people pirating unreleased movies, etc.
Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price
Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"
redefining the float_t to being double is the problem, when it is already defined as something else
It's not being redefined. Because of the way the C compiler works, it has different values at different points of compilation, but never does one definition get overwritten by another one. (Analogous to many wrong API based errors). The fact you would think it's checked against by the compiler makes this cleverer, because you'd expect the machine to throw a warning if it was actually redefined.
And float_t is supposed to define (at least as wide as a float) the commonly used float type in this environment. According to the given spec, the min float type was supposed to be a double. If that were consistently included in all files, it would have actually triggered errors if you ever used a regular float function. The problem was not enough redefining
You're thinking of the obfuscated C contest. That involves C code that operates correctly, but looks like junk (even under scrutiny). This is the underhanded C contest. This involves C code that looks correct (even under scrutiny), but operates like junk.
They carefully didn't include math.h (where float_t is normally defined) in the same file (but did elsewhere, to create the error.)
Even better, the floating point precision was defined in the spec as being a double. Therefore, the error looks benign. Certainly, a quick code review may thing it's actually setting the precision of the math library.
And, if discovered, it looks super-innocent.
This kind of solution is why I didn't enter. I had some ideas (all based around NaN poisoning), but knew that I didn't have a clear and clever solution like this.
I've had to yell at Uber drivers for trying to take the long way around.
Most of the problems with taxis arose from making them internalize costs. Like the cost of being out in a snowstorm and not charging $700 for a ride. Or the cost of having to pick up a woman and take her to the hospital to give birth. Heck, in may places, taxi drivers need to take special emergency driving courses for if they hurry someone to the hospital.
That's leaving aside the fact that they take into account the freal costs of labor and depreciation.
I can see why in the real-world, the assumptions fail. But I'd rather focus on fixing the assumptions than give up on teh feature of not having to think about the restarting for updates.
Although, if we're dreaming, I'd rather have updates that don't require updates at all.
Yeah, its' a huge amount of power. Although given a collection of hot tub, kiln, electric furnace, sauna, and a few other things, you may hit it. Given CRTs and incandescent lights as well?
I will say, this is at 120 amp, and they did upgrade recently from the standard from 100 to 200. Now, that is to handle peak loads....
It queries the program you left running, and asked it to close down. The program replied to the event by blindly shutting down, instead of returning false.
, I run a video compressing software or compile software and walk away. I come back in 4 hours expecting it to be finished but nope its restarted the machine.
If it's done compressing or compiling, that sounds fine!
ou can't argue that the software has to be compliant to microsoft specs because the software could easily predate those specs.
(1) It's been the spec for MS since... 95? Certainly since XP. Your software could have easily been updated since then.
(2) It's ridiculous to say that we can never upgrade an OS because legacy software will cease to work.
(3) Most importantly, The software is actively responding to the event Windows is sending. So it definitely post-dates the events creation. Old software actually doesn't respond to the windows event and causes the computer not to reboot. Because backwards compatibility.
I don't see why that is. When a person isn't using the machine is the best time to reboot it.
It's not like it reboots without first telling every other program to close. And the programs can reply to the close command with "no" and the computer won't reboot.
Like all power company calculations, it KWh. And this being a rate, the threshold is 250 KWh per year. So, for a 1000sqft building, assuming a constant draw, that's like 28kW constantly. Or, given ~240V going into the house, a constant 118 amp draw... well within common home wiring.
This one is not MS's fault. They're pretty clear on events you can respond to to prevent restarts, programs being closed (except for the "Force Quit" option in taskmgr... which is why it warns it's dangerous).
No need to invent issues that aren't their fault, when there's so many that are.
(See also, the 'require admin rights for all software released in XP, even though MS had for years been telling you how to prevent it by using a simple environmental variable, then bitch when Vista enforces it.')
And after a few years, the updates slow your system down so much you are either forced to run an old, unsupported and insecure version or buy new hardware.
Apple is moving away from this one. They've realized that no one is going to upgrade from an iPhone 4S because of a software update. So iOS9 was supposed to be better on old hardware. Hardware upgrades are great, but they've finally got patient about that. Let people upgrade when they want. Because forcing someone too cheap to upgrade to do so instantly might push them to Android. Let them wait until their carrier will upgrade them, and they'll stick with Apple. Marketshare is more important to squander on forced,lossy upgrades.
For the same name, sure. Just in different markets. Coca-Cola has like thousands of trademarks on the name Coca-Cola, covering it's use on soft drinks, attractions, games etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Too little, too late? The main reason Flash is horrible are Flash ads.
I mean, the stupid intros were bad, but those died because they weren't useful.
First, good on you to start fixing things in the first week. I know that I miss the days of being able to download things off of sourceforge.
Secondly, do you have an overarching philosophy you can share about how you plan on running your new acquisitions. I know a mission statement is often a lame thing, but I think something that clearly explained your vision, and that people could judge your future actions by, would be nice..
There's no reason to believe that those day 1 concerns aren't valid. Some people who have a lot of money are willing to do things inefficiently for their personal convince... like put projects close to their house at thrice the cost.
I'm fine with them delaying as long as they like to auction the ad, as long as that delay time is made before they start serving any content. Note, Google and other ranking algorithms count time to first byte in the quality of a site.
The inability of a pure meritocracy does not make it a moot point to enumerate its benefits. In fact, it makes it more important. Because, invariably, the lack of ability to achieve a pure meritocracy means that there will be required tradeoffs in which features are implemented.
If the only advantage to a meritocracy is that we eliminate the technically incompetent from certain jobs, that seems more like a binary sorting instead of any kind -ocracy.
What's the benefit of a meritocracy?
I'm quasi-serious about the question, in that, while I don't suggest there is a better system, I don't quite grok the theoretical reason why I really want a meritocracy.
Can you make your point with less metaphor and more direct statement. I love a good a metaphor, but I missed that.
Why do they need 500 employees? I'd be struggling to figure out what any of them do.
Except for the sales execs that encourage Microsoft, Badieu, Facebook and Google (none of whom have any experience with servers) to host their opensource projects on GitHub... for the publicity?
Old content has numerous rights issues from the way that residuals are paid in movies/TV (but not music). Therefore, it costs money to clear each old release for streaming. Therefore, some old content just isn't worth the effort.
New content, of course, has residual structures that take into account an "Internet" and "computers" and even "cellphones/tablets"
Or conversion to a lossy format...
It's kinda harsh to go back to 1976. We're primarilly talking about things being made now. Because that's what most people pirate, and where most of the money we're talking about is. And stuff shows up on Netflix like a year after theaters. HBO Go first.
I don't think anyone really cares about incentivizing studios to remaster the Breakfast Club for Bluray. I think people are talking about people pirating unreleased movies, etc.
Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"
It's not being redefined. Because of the way the C compiler works, it has different values at different points of compilation, but never does one definition get overwritten by another one. (Analogous to many wrong API based errors). The fact you would think it's checked against by the compiler makes this cleverer, because you'd expect the machine to throw a warning if it was actually redefined.
And float_t is supposed to define (at least as wide as a float) the commonly used float type in this environment. According to the given spec, the min float type was supposed to be a double. If that were consistently included in all files, it would have actually triggered errors if you ever used a regular float function. The problem was not enough redefining
You're thinking of the obfuscated C contest. That involves C code that operates correctly, but looks like junk (even under scrutiny). This is the underhanded C contest. This involves C code that looks correct (even under scrutiny), but operates like junk.
They carefully didn't include math.h (where float_t is normally defined) in the same file (but did elsewhere, to create the error.)
Even better, the floating point precision was defined in the spec as being a double. Therefore, the error looks benign. Certainly, a quick code review may thing it's actually setting the precision of the math library.
And, if discovered, it looks super-innocent.
This kind of solution is why I didn't enter. I had some ideas (all based around NaN poisoning), but knew that I didn't have a clear and clever solution like this.
Maybe next year
I've had to yell at Uber drivers for trying to take the long way around.
Most of the problems with taxis arose from making them internalize costs. Like the cost of being out in a snowstorm and not charging $700 for a ride. Or the cost of having to pick up a woman and take her to the hospital to give birth. Heck, in may places, taxi drivers need to take special emergency driving courses for if they hurry someone to the hospital.
That's leaving aside the fact that they take into account the freal costs of labor and depreciation.
I can see why in the real-world, the assumptions fail. But I'd rather focus on fixing the assumptions than give up on teh feature of not having to think about the restarting for updates.
Although, if we're dreaming, I'd rather have updates that don't require updates at all.
Yeah, its' a huge amount of power. Although given a collection of hot tub, kiln, electric furnace, sauna, and a few other things, you may hit it. Given CRTs and incandescent lights as well?
I will say, this is at 120 amp, and they did upgrade recently from the standard from 100 to 200. Now, that is to handle peak loads....
It queries the program you left running, and asked it to close down. The program replied to the event by blindly shutting down, instead of returning false.
If it's done compressing or compiling, that sounds fine!
(1) It's been the spec for MS since... 95? Certainly since XP. Your software could have easily been updated since then.
(2) It's ridiculous to say that we can never upgrade an OS because legacy software will cease to work.
(3) Most importantly, The software is actively responding to the event Windows is sending. So it definitely post-dates the events creation. Old software actually doesn't respond to the windows event and causes the computer not to reboot. Because backwards compatibility.
I don't see why that is. When a person isn't using the machine is the best time to reboot it.
It's not like it reboots without first telling every other program to close. And the programs can reply to the close command with "no" and the computer won't reboot.
Like all power company calculations, it KWh. And this being a rate, the threshold is 250 KWh per year. So, for a 1000sqft building, assuming a constant draw, that's like 28kW constantly. Or, given ~240V going into the house, a constant 118 amp draw... well within common home wiring.
Because BitCoin is old news now, and people stopped bothering to complain about it years ago
This one is not MS's fault. They're pretty clear on events you can respond to to prevent restarts, programs being closed (except for the "Force Quit" option in taskmgr... which is why it warns it's dangerous).
No need to invent issues that aren't their fault, when there's so many that are.
(See also, the 'require admin rights for all software released in XP, even though MS had for years been telling you how to prevent it by using a simple environmental variable, then bitch when Vista enforces it.')
Apple is moving away from this one. They've realized that no one is going to upgrade from an iPhone 4S because of a software update. So iOS9 was supposed to be better on old hardware. Hardware upgrades are great, but they've finally got patient about that. Let people upgrade when they want. Because forcing someone too cheap to upgrade to do so instantly might push them to Android. Let them wait until their carrier will upgrade them, and they'll stick with Apple. Marketshare is more important to squander on forced,lossy upgrades.
For the same name, sure. Just in different markets. Coca-Cola has like thousands of trademarks on the name Coca-Cola, covering it's use on soft drinks, attractions, games etc.