They did compare it to IE8. IE8 blew everything away except IE9 which did a bit better still. Seriously, it's right there in the summary.
Microsoft, who was paying for the study and controlled the timing of its release for its own marketing purposes
Do you honestly think they sat on it until it wasn't true and then released it? What would the point of that be? We'll probably be on a double-digits Chrome version by the time IE9 releases.
Among other things, this is comparing malware lists that actually updates online in real-time, so strictly speaking it's out of date before the statistical analysis is even finished. Hell, IE would have been patched a couple times in the interim. This is roughly equivalent to the frequent comparisons of time-to-patch for client vulnerabilities.
Yes, it's fair to ask to try again on the newest version. It's also fair to question the methodology. No, it's not irrelevant after being out for just a month. Chrome happens to be revving version numbers like crazy while everybody else releases patches.
It's burdensome not just because of going on vacation or buying shit for your family, but also because nobody is hiring in the holiday season, because everybody else is going on their vacations.
I think that's a good argument to get people to stop calling it "imaginary property". Things like currency and many forms of contract (retainers, rental agreements, etc.) fit under an intuitive definition of "imaginary property" and not under one of "intellectual property".
Twisting words like that to inject your opinions has always struck me as juvenile. I don't mean to pick on anybody here in particular -- slashdot has its jargon. But imagining this term at the outset makes me think of a grown man heckling a little girl giving a sales pitch for cookies: "Suzie? More like Snoozie! Am I right or am I right?"
Throughout Windows, Shift+F10 is a context menu key, which long predated it appearing on standard keyboards. I don't happen to know an equivalent in other OSes because I haven't worked in client-side keyboard accessibility in apps for other OSes -- I use the mouse for context menus.
Funny enough, they don't map to the exact same virtual key codes so there are apps that fuck up one or the other -- and Windows' own start menu has a perverse behaviour where when you have a search term, shift+F10 is context for the search box and the context key is the context for search results. I honestly can't tell whether that's on purpose, because I can see wanting a way to access both context menus but I don't know who but a programmer would ever guess to try both methods on the same field.
I was *taught* to hit caps lock for single capital letters. I refused, and the teacher let it slide so long as I didn't introduce others to this concept because I was already a skilled typist.
Basically, yes, it will have constantly updated lists like AdBlock Plus. I can't tell for sure whether Microsoft intends to actually provide a list themselves, but it looks like the user can opt into any number of them. This as opposed to InPrivate filtering's heuristic identification.
If you have sex with somebody who is telling you to stop, it's rape.
This has nothing to do with the moral philosophy of murdering abortion providers. This has nothing to do with whether religion is immoral. This isn't even a hard question. Having sex with somebody who has told you not to have sex with them is rape. It's obvious and there's not a lot of room to fuck it up.
If the police catch you, and then they find out you helped him because he was holding your wife at gunpoint and would fire if you didn't rob the bank, then the justice system WILL take that into account.
This isn't about morning regrets. If you find you were coerced, then it was rape. We're not talking about "he wasn't very good in bed therefore RAPE!!!!". That basically never happens. Coercion however, is real. For instance, there's chemical coercion (eg. spiked her drink), psychological coercion (eg. "I'm going to kill myself if you don't have sex with me right now", or more direct, "I'll break your arms if you don't have sex with me right now"). And coerced consent is not consent. And sex without consent is rape. Even if the coercion was not obvious to bystanders at the time that false "consent" was given. Sometimes a person can't even tell they are being coerced until later.
Too often this argument gets derailed into something it's not.
That would only work if our calendar system was 0-indexed. It isn't.
Also noteworthy: the traditional 12 hour clock ranges from 1 through 12 and 59/60 instead of 0 through 11 59/60.
You can mentally warp your mind into seeing "12" as an alternative symbol for "0". In the same way, you can say that a century ends at any year you please. But if we're counting years from the start of the Gregorian calendar, then sadly we're not done 100 years until year 101.
It's not patents that prevent that today, it's copyright. It's relatively uncommon (though not rare*) that people suggest the outright dissolution of copyright (the famous example at slashdot is without copyright, there can be no GPL). The common position on slashdot -- and indeed, in many other venues -- is that copyright is far too powerful right now but that it has redeeming value.
* Usually people don't suggest the dissolution of copyright in so many words. What they argue is that because the marginal cost of reproducing digital goods is $0, software piracy is not immoral and therefore should not be illegal. This is really an argument against copyright, whose whole point is to allow you time to recover fixed costs and turn a profit without somebody undercutting you by stealing the idea and replicating it at-cost.
What the hell are you talking about, though? Microsoft continues to make crazy money on their OS. How are they struggling? Why would they give up making an OS with a track record of "makes crazy money consistently"? If anything, that's an argument for them to stop doing all the trying something else that they are currently doing (eg. Kinect, Bing, maps, etc.) and go nuts making more and more OSes (and office suites).
You seem to be trying at sarcasm, but umm...yes. Yes, it does sometimes make sense for limited sales to go buy-one-get-one. Especially for something that comes attached to a subscription service with a monetary cost which dominates the initial price. And if it's not a limited sale, well, then that's the price of two and not the price of one, by definition.
It's a marketing promotion. That's all.
Note: I have no idea if Windows Phone 7 is selling or not and I've never tried using one. I'm perfectly happy with my iPhone 3GS. I just think that concluding that a product has failed based on a limited marketing promotion put together by a company other than Microsoft for hardware not produced by Microsoft that has software made by Microsoft on it is a bit of a stretch.
The thing you seem to be missing is that the bank fucked up in exactly this way. The bank didn't cover their financial obligations first. Why would the customers deserve the late fees and not the bank when both failed to meet their obligations and the bank was the root cause of it? Regardless of how stupid you think the customers' cash-flow strategy is.
That doesn't follow. People who get motion sickness from an FPS also frequently get motion sickness from TV and movies done with a shake camera. Remember all the people throwing up during the Blair Witch Project? Being as immersive as watching TV, isn't very immersive at all for a video game.
I'm also opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think the GP was actually inconsistent. You're showing an unusual preconception by declaring that execution of a single person is greater violence than serial rape and dismemberment. I think you might be able to make that argument, maybe, if there's only one victim, but I think cutting off the arms and legs of 100 people without killing them is easily more violent than killing one person.
You know it's wrong to kidnap people and lock them into cages, even though the main alternative to execution is to kidnap the criminal and lock them in a cage. For many, many years. With murderers and rapists. There's really nothing inconsistent about executing criminals, and I think it's hypocrisy to complain about killing people to demonstrate it's wrong to kill when we imprison people against their will to demonstrate that it's wrong to imprison people against their will.
I think the death penalty is wrong because we have a flawed justice system, because I believe in attempting rehabilitation, and because I think that even if the person is guilty and a lost cause, I think locking them in a cage forever -- with the option of suicide -- is sufficient to protect everybody since they are now removed from the pool of people that can commit crimes relatively easily. I do not consider the revenge motive, sufficient cause to kill somebody, even if it gives comfort to the victims; I'm invested in the justice system to protect everyone, not for vengeance. This is, I believe, a non-hypocritical position against the death penalty.
Also, you got a flamebait because you flamebaited, not because people just disagree. You called the GP these things:
1. Immense hypocrite (to be fair, I also called your argument hypocritical here, lest I be accused of hypocrisy). 2. Fucking bully. 3. Irrational. 4. Psychopath. 5. Commie (that one might have been a joke).
When really he only pointed out what appeared to him to be an inversion of severity.
Frankly, I don't think either meaning is plain. The idea that the new meaning is more natural and thus the language is improved by it is really begging the question (original meaning). You wouldn't say that's natural if it weren't for the older meaning. Nobody would jam together those words in that way. It's awkward. You (or your actions) don't beg the anything else. They usually beg for things. It's most certainly still a colloquialism whose meaning is not plain.
Dead code elimination is only worth it sometimes, and you have to guess before trying whether it was worth it. That's not cheating. That's the only reasonable way to do dead code elimination, especially just-in-time.
That doesn't mean that they are correct that they chose the right balance. But you do have to strike a balance.
What's also frustrating is people who claim that just because two different sequences of code can be proven semantically equivalent, that they must therefore behave equivalently in the presence of a just-in-time optimizing compiler.
A dead-code elimination heuristic should not be comprehensive -- even if something is in principle provably dead-code, it's not necessarily worth it to undergo the analysis to try to prove it. For instance, you might find that code blocks of X instructions of can be eliminated Y% of the time if you spend Z milliseconds to prove it, or YY% of the time if you spend ZZ milliseconds. So if you take a guess at the run-tome of those X instructions (including things like cache impact) and multiply by Y% and the result is greater than Z, you shouldn't even bother trying. This analysis could come out as "try dead code elimination on any function of exact same bug that would affect it without cheating. In both cases, an algorithm (either legitimate dead code elimination or the hypothesized Sunspider code elimination) is running against code that has not been preprocessed to remove no-ops (that is, an initial dead code elimination pass that only runs at the single-statement level). It's really unlikely that Microsoft would have cheated in such a poor way that only affects one microbenchmark.
All this proves is that this microbenchmark is a poor benchmark. It's not even a fantastic test of dead code elimination, because this isn't really a realistic piece of dead code.
Slashdot Mirror
They did compare it to IE8. IE8 blew everything away except IE9 which did a bit better still. Seriously, it's right there in the summary.
Microsoft, who was paying for the study and controlled the timing of its release for its own marketing purposes
Do you honestly think they sat on it until it wasn't true and then released it? What would the point of that be? We'll probably be on a double-digits Chrome version by the time IE9 releases.
Among other things, this is comparing malware lists that actually updates online in real-time, so strictly speaking it's out of date before the statistical analysis is even finished. Hell, IE would have been patched a couple times in the interim. This is roughly equivalent to the frequent comparisons of time-to-patch for client vulnerabilities.
Yes, it's fair to ask to try again on the newest version. It's also fair to question the methodology. No, it's not irrelevant after being out for just a month. Chrome happens to be revving version numbers like crazy while everybody else releases patches.
It's burdensome not just because of going on vacation or buying shit for your family, but also because nobody is hiring in the holiday season, because everybody else is going on their vacations.
He's arguing that government itself is the problem and electing a different leader of the government is therefore meaningless. Essentially, anarchism.
I don't agree with his position, just trying to clarify it on his behalf.
I think that's a good argument to get people to stop calling it "imaginary property". Things like currency and many forms of contract (retainers, rental agreements, etc.) fit under an intuitive definition of "imaginary property" and not under one of "intellectual property".
Twisting words like that to inject your opinions has always struck me as juvenile. I don't mean to pick on anybody here in particular -- slashdot has its jargon. But imagining this term at the outset makes me think of a grown man heckling a little girl giving a sales pitch for cookies: "Suzie? More like Snoozie! Am I right or am I right?"
Throughout Windows, Shift+F10 is a context menu key, which long predated it appearing on standard keyboards. I don't happen to know an equivalent in other OSes because I haven't worked in client-side keyboard accessibility in apps for other OSes -- I use the mouse for context menus.
Funny enough, they don't map to the exact same virtual key codes so there are apps that fuck up one or the other -- and Windows' own start menu has a perverse behaviour where when you have a search term, shift+F10 is context for the search box and the context key is the context for search results. I honestly can't tell whether that's on purpose, because I can see wanting a way to access both context menus but I don't know who but a programmer would ever guess to try both methods on the same field.
I was *taught* to hit caps lock for single capital letters. I refused, and the teacher let it slide so long as I didn't introduce others to this concept because I was already a skilled typist.
Basically, yes, it will have constantly updated lists like AdBlock Plus. I can't tell for sure whether Microsoft intends to actually provide a list themselves, but it looks like the user can opt into any number of them. This as opposed to InPrivate filtering's heuristic identification.
If you have sex with somebody who is telling you to stop, it's rape.
This has nothing to do with the moral philosophy of murdering abortion providers. This has nothing to do with whether religion is immoral. This isn't even a hard question. Having sex with somebody who has told you not to have sex with them is rape. It's obvious and there's not a lot of room to fuck it up.
If the police catch you, and then they find out you helped him because he was holding your wife at gunpoint and would fire if you didn't rob the bank, then the justice system WILL take that into account.
This isn't about morning regrets. If you find you were coerced, then it was rape. We're not talking about "he wasn't very good in bed therefore RAPE!!!!". That basically never happens. Coercion however, is real. For instance, there's chemical coercion (eg. spiked her drink), psychological coercion (eg. "I'm going to kill myself if you don't have sex with me right now", or more direct, "I'll break your arms if you don't have sex with me right now"). And coerced consent is not consent. And sex without consent is rape. Even if the coercion was not obvious to bystanders at the time that false "consent" was given. Sometimes a person can't even tell they are being coerced until later.
Too often this argument gets derailed into something it's not.
That would only work if our calendar system was 0-indexed. It isn't.
Also noteworthy: the traditional 12 hour clock ranges from 1 through 12 and 59/60 instead of 0 through 11 59/60.
You can mentally warp your mind into seeing "12" as an alternative symbol for "0". In the same way, you can say that a century ends at any year you please. But if we're counting years from the start of the Gregorian calendar, then sadly we're not done 100 years until year 101.
It's not patents that prevent that today, it's copyright. It's relatively uncommon (though not rare*) that people suggest the outright dissolution of copyright (the famous example at slashdot is without copyright, there can be no GPL). The common position on slashdot -- and indeed, in many other venues -- is that copyright is far too powerful right now but that it has redeeming value.
* Usually people don't suggest the dissolution of copyright in so many words. What they argue is that because the marginal cost of reproducing digital goods is $0, software piracy is not immoral and therefore should not be illegal. This is really an argument against copyright, whose whole point is to allow you time to recover fixed costs and turn a profit without somebody undercutting you by stealing the idea and replicating it at-cost.
You can make that impractical, though. They aren't really talking about defending against actively malicious code, but rather obnoxious code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design
Consumer market design is industrial design.
I would assume he's talking about Tk via Tkinter.
What the hell are you talking about, though? Microsoft continues to make crazy money on their OS. How are they struggling? Why would they give up making an OS with a track record of "makes crazy money consistently"? If anything, that's an argument for them to stop doing all the trying something else that they are currently doing (eg. Kinect, Bing, maps, etc.) and go nuts making more and more OSes (and office suites).
It's AT&T that did the buy one get one, not Microsoft.
You seem to be trying at sarcasm, but umm...yes. Yes, it does sometimes make sense for limited sales to go buy-one-get-one. Especially for something that comes attached to a subscription service with a monetary cost which dominates the initial price. And if it's not a limited sale, well, then that's the price of two and not the price of one, by definition.
It's a marketing promotion. That's all.
Note: I have no idea if Windows Phone 7 is selling or not and I've never tried using one. I'm perfectly happy with my iPhone 3GS. I just think that concluding that a product has failed based on a limited marketing promotion put together by a company other than Microsoft for hardware not produced by Microsoft that has software made by Microsoft on it is a bit of a stretch.
The thing you seem to be missing is that the bank fucked up in exactly this way. The bank didn't cover their financial obligations first. Why would the customers deserve the late fees and not the bank when both failed to meet their obligations and the bank was the root cause of it? Regardless of how stupid you think the customers' cash-flow strategy is.
Tri-University Meson Facility.
That doesn't follow. People who get motion sickness from an FPS also frequently get motion sickness from TV and movies done with a shake camera. Remember all the people throwing up during the Blair Witch Project? Being as immersive as watching TV, isn't very immersive at all for a video game.
I'm also opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think the GP was actually inconsistent. You're showing an unusual preconception by declaring that execution of a single person is greater violence than serial rape and dismemberment. I think you might be able to make that argument, maybe, if there's only one victim, but I think cutting off the arms and legs of 100 people without killing them is easily more violent than killing one person.
You know it's wrong to kidnap people and lock them into cages, even though the main alternative to execution is to kidnap the criminal and lock them in a cage. For many, many years. With murderers and rapists. There's really nothing inconsistent about executing criminals, and I think it's hypocrisy to complain about killing people to demonstrate it's wrong to kill when we imprison people against their will to demonstrate that it's wrong to imprison people against their will.
I think the death penalty is wrong because we have a flawed justice system, because I believe in attempting rehabilitation, and because I think that even if the person is guilty and a lost cause, I think locking them in a cage forever -- with the option of suicide -- is sufficient to protect everybody since they are now removed from the pool of people that can commit crimes relatively easily. I do not consider the revenge motive, sufficient cause to kill somebody, even if it gives comfort to the victims; I'm invested in the justice system to protect everyone, not for vengeance. This is, I believe, a non-hypocritical position against the death penalty.
Also, you got a flamebait because you flamebaited, not because people just disagree. You called the GP these things:
1. Immense hypocrite (to be fair, I also called your argument hypocritical here, lest I be accused of hypocrisy).
2. Fucking bully.
3. Irrational.
4. Psychopath.
5. Commie (that one might have been a joke).
When really he only pointed out what appeared to him to be an inversion of severity.
Frankly, I don't think either meaning is plain. The idea that the new meaning is more natural and thus the language is improved by it is really begging the question (original meaning). You wouldn't say that's natural if it weren't for the older meaning. Nobody would jam together those words in that way. It's awkward. You (or your actions) don't beg the anything else. They usually beg for things. It's most certainly still a colloquialism whose meaning is not plain.
Dead code elimination is only worth it sometimes, and you have to guess before trying whether it was worth it. That's not cheating. That's the only reasonable way to do dead code elimination, especially just-in-time.
That doesn't mean that they are correct that they chose the right balance. But you do have to strike a balance.
What's also frustrating is people who claim that just because two different sequences of code can be proven semantically equivalent, that they must therefore behave equivalently in the presence of a just-in-time optimizing compiler.
A dead-code elimination heuristic should not be comprehensive -- even if something is in principle provably dead-code, it's not necessarily worth it to undergo the analysis to try to prove it. For instance, you might find that code blocks of X instructions of can be eliminated Y% of the time if you spend Z milliseconds to prove it, or YY% of the time if you spend ZZ milliseconds. So if you take a guess at the run-tome of those X instructions (including things like cache impact) and multiply by Y% and the result is greater than Z, you shouldn't even bother trying. This analysis could come out as "try dead code elimination on any function of exact same bug that would affect it without cheating. In both cases, an algorithm (either legitimate dead code elimination or the hypothesized Sunspider code elimination) is running against code that has not been preprocessed to remove no-ops (that is, an initial dead code elimination pass that only runs at the single-statement level). It's really unlikely that Microsoft would have cheated in such a poor way that only affects one microbenchmark.
All this proves is that this microbenchmark is a poor benchmark. It's not even a fantastic test of dead code elimination, because this isn't really a realistic piece of dead code.
Selling to everyone is ALWAYS more profitable than locking it down.
This just isn't correct at all. Look at the history of the Mac. There are a million reasons you'd want to sell to a small market.