No, it isn't. It's generally JIT-compiled, and for some applications the installers run ngen against important startup libraries to statically compile them at install-time. That's not at all the same thing, and while it does have tradeoffs, they are tradeoffs, not always-wrongs. You'll note the OP listed a bunch of languages that are almost always interpreted as ones he's considering moving too.
Even JVMs are JIT-ted and have been for a very long time, though old JVMs used to be interpreted.
A browser bug is a bug in a web browser, which is far more confusing still than web bug. We might just need a third word to clarify this, like Web Application Bug.
A quick search shows that Slashdot headlines aren't the only things referring to these as web bugs.
No, Kin was a completely different thing built on the old Windows CE platform, not based on the rewrite at all.
From what I've read there was basically a big executive grudge-match with Kin sidelined in favour of Windows Phone 7 when Kin's supporter "left to spend more time with his family" or something long before either was released, and a hobbled version was eventually completed, marketed, and dropped to fulfill the terms of a contract with one of the carriers. Not sure how accurate or one-sided that is but there has to be some kind of a story behind the weird forking of the phone software followed by summary execution.
I've not had any crashes in New Vegas over a similar timeline.
However, I have had probably ~8 hangs where I eventually killed the process, which is even worse. Maybe the hangs would eventually have cleared, but they went beyond my patience threshold. They included the last second or so of audio looping.
Other than that, no major bugs. Clipping issue once let me walk into a mountain, and in the sewers I didn't realize my +1 rad / second was because I was standing in radioactive sludge until much later when I looked back from higher ground and noted that depending on the camera angle, the bottom had either sewer water or ground with a very sharp border.
Plus there's all the weird engine quirks that also existed in Fallout 3 and many of which are also in Oblivion, like the weird object physics (especially when you pick something up nearby), none of which are even close to gamebreaking.
Despite that, it was the best game I've played all year (and I was disappointed in Fallout 3 -- it was fun, but not all I'd hoped).
It's not for free -- they have to include Google content and follow rules about how it displays, and now the terms seem to be changing out from under them to also have to hide their own content behind an annoying, user-unfriendly click-through.
Basically the problem is that Google is wielding an advertising monopoly to dictate the business terms of its suppliers (supplying eyeballs and data). That tends to be controversial -- sure, we're mostly okay if they refuse to do business with explicitly pro-slavery organizations, but as you back off into grey areas more and more people's hackles start to rise. This particular case smells like a light form of censorship, which is particularly unpopular on slashdot.
I don't think this incident is a huge deal, though I do find it frustrating that TV Tropes will be a little harder to use the next time I decide to lose myself in its pages for a while. And to be clear, I don't think Sergei Brin is sitting atop a dark tower laughing maniacally and screaming "by the power of this monopoly SOON ALL WILL BE UNDER MY CONTROL". It's merely that relatively innocent actions, when backed up by an effective monopoly, have profound effects.
That suggests a question -- does Google have an advertising monopoly? It's a tough question. French courts have ruled that they are (I'd paste a link but Chrome has had problems pasting into slashdot these days -- use Google:) to find a court ruling from France on July 2). But they do have one competitor, though it's about a quarter the size of Google: Microsoft. That doesn't sit well with a large portion of slashdotters either so there's really no remaining alternative.
What's supposed to be illegal is offering H1-B workers less money than they would offer American workers. Offering H1-B workers more money than locals isn't supposed to be illegal; it's just completely illogical. Economics is supposed to take care of that.
No, the claim is that it can go downwind faster than the prevailing wind, which is completely different in that it's not impossible. Nobody said it could go anywhere with no wind, or even essentially no wind -- it has to be decidedly downwind. Let's try this gedankenexperiment:
Even without any mechanism, a cart will tend to accelerate to almost the same velocity of the wind, accounting for wheel friction. At that point of steady-state, shift your frame of reference to an inertial frame where the cart is entirely still. It's still an inertial frame so Newton's laws still apply and we're all happy.
Now the wind is almost gone, the cart is still, but the wheels are spinning like mad again an Earth that's moving like crazy. Those wheels are your turbines, and this "free" rotation is where you pick up the energy to drive a propeller, in the same direction as soft remnants of the wind, to push yourself forward.
There's something of a similarity with the old riddle about airplanes taking off of a conveyer belt: the cart isn't driving itself forward by its wheels, so it doesn't matter a whole lot how fast they spin, they're just a low-friction point of contact.
Basically, you're going at the speed of the wind, and then you're skimming energy off of the difference between the speed of the wind and the speed of the earth to go faster. That's the same method stationary land-based windmills generate energy, except they are going at the speed of the earth instead of the speed of the wind to start with, and they don't generally apply their speed to propulsion.
In the windless scenario, there's no difference between airspeed and land speed, so there's no energy to skim.
Yeah, I see it on Chrome, for quite a while now. Occasionally I can paste for some reason, but it locks up the browser for a while before it either does or does not. Only on slashdot though, or I'd have switched browsers long ago.
True. Microsoft gets the half hour hate. Google gets the five minutes of wishy-washy expressions of discomfort followed by a competition on which country's position on the sliding scale of Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Privacy is the best ever.
Just checked now; it's 5-7% depending on who you ask. Maybe as high as ~10% if you restrict yourself US, which the GP didn't and I wouldn't tend to do either (not being American).
Saying it costs $29 is kind of missing the point, because you can't legally install it for that $29 package without also paying Apple for a computer. It's effectively an update price for an OS you're supposed to already own the previous version of from a bundle purchase. If they drop that restriction and allow install on arbitrary hardware, or even just one other vendor, then the price of the OS is relevant.
The market cap of Apple (I wouldn't call Apple a "bigger" company than Microsoft; it has higher market cap and one quarter of higher revenue, but is smaller on just about every count -- and that's okay because being smaller doesn't mean being worse!) isn't really germane to the discussion, in part because both companies make most of their money selling things other than their respective OS.
I think there's a lot of disagreement on what "common" means. I don't think one in twenty is common, I would describe it as uncommon or not rare.
That's fair to a point, but really all the browser vendors should be submitting a lot more testcases if we ever hope to have an interoperable standard (even if the underlying intent is mass puppycide).
Randomness doesn't mean you have free will. The dice you roll don't have free will just because they come to a random result. Likewise, our inability to predict human actions does not mean they have free will. Unless you redefine free will to actually mean results that are not 100% predictable, which has a couple of consequences:
1. Radioactive decay has free will 2. You still have to prove that the brain cannot be reduced to deterministic "hidden variables" which are just obfuscated by the complexity of the brain.
I don't think acting randomly is what most people mean when they say free will. Then again, I have a hard time grasping exactly what people mean by this. One thing's clear to me: it doesn't mean the same thing to everybody, which always muddies these debates.
We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
That does not follow even if I were to grant your premise.
I don't understand what you're saying. Utilitarianism isn't like capitalism or communism, in that the latter two are prescriptive systems which predict a result, whereas the former is just a method of evaluating the results.
You're doing the same thing you accuse of others, reducing a very complex situation to a choice between participating in a (presumably violent) uprising and being totally unable to think for yourself.
I've never given blood in a building that is not a church. And I'm an atheist.
Churches are large buildings designed to seat many people all at once which are empty most of the time. They're perfect for blood drives and other such things.
Let's rephrase the question to make it conceptually simpler.
You point at a door. Then you get to choose either what's behind that door, or what's behind all other doors.
Monty Hall goes and shows you that all but one of the other doors (n-2 doors) are loser doors. But you already knew that at least n-2 of the doors you didn't select are loser doors, so you didn't really learn anything.
Do you agree that switching to that one other unopened door is equivalent to switching to the best of all other doors that you didn't select? Because then I think it's easy. The door you pointed at has a 1/3 chance of being right. All other doors combined have a 2/3 chance of being right. Monty opens some of them to trick you, but it really only serves to make selecting one other door equivalent to selecting all other doors.
From a quick look, I can see a news article from mid-2007 (so about 6 months after release) that claimed a 1% failure rate for Wii and PS3, which as far as I can see comes from district of EB game stores counting their returns, and who also reported a failure rate of the early 360's (the much worse ones) at between 25% and 33%, from an interview with "ripten", which I had never heard of before.
If that's your source -- and it shouldn't be, since it's not recent and is comparing ~8 months at most to years, and is not really well-substantiated, but let's give it to you -- then it's intellectually dishonest to give 65% as the failure rate to the 360.
A quick search shows the only source that gives a failure rate as bad as 65% for the 360 is one showing that that's basically the *pre-production factory reject rate*, which is not related to the retail failure rate (http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/09/06/in-depth-expos-reveals-microsofts-xbox-360-failure-rate-was-68/).
Anecdote time!
My grandma bought xboxes for me and two cousins shortly after they came out. One cousin's xbox failed; the replacement did not fail, and the other xboxes haven't failed. Odds of that are about 7% assuming a 65% failure rate. Maybe we're just lucky.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. It's generally JIT-compiled, and for some applications the installers run ngen against important startup libraries to statically compile them at install-time. That's not at all the same thing, and while it does have tradeoffs, they are tradeoffs, not always-wrongs. You'll note the OP listed a bunch of languages that are almost always interpreted as ones he's considering moving too.
Even JVMs are JIT-ted and have been for a very long time, though old JVMs used to be interpreted.
A browser bug is a bug in a web browser, which is far more confusing still than web bug. We might just need a third word to clarify this, like Web Application Bug.
A quick search shows that Slashdot headlines aren't the only things referring to these as web bugs.
They also don't get their free phones for another week, so there won't be any in there.
And they don't get a free phone plan and have to start a contract afresh, so they probably won't all get one.
No, Kin was a completely different thing built on the old Windows CE platform, not based on the rewrite at all.
From what I've read there was basically a big executive grudge-match with Kin sidelined in favour of Windows Phone 7 when Kin's supporter "left to spend more time with his family" or something long before either was released, and a hobbled version was eventually completed, marketed, and dropped to fulfill the terms of a contract with one of the carriers. Not sure how accurate or one-sided that is but there has to be some kind of a story behind the weird forking of the phone software followed by summary execution.
I've not had any crashes in New Vegas over a similar timeline.
However, I have had probably ~8 hangs where I eventually killed the process, which is even worse. Maybe the hangs would eventually have cleared, but they went beyond my patience threshold. They included the last second or so of audio looping.
Other than that, no major bugs. Clipping issue once let me walk into a mountain, and in the sewers I didn't realize my +1 rad / second was because I was standing in radioactive sludge until much later when I looked back from higher ground and noted that depending on the camera angle, the bottom had either sewer water or ground with a very sharp border.
Plus there's all the weird engine quirks that also existed in Fallout 3 and many of which are also in Oblivion, like the weird object physics (especially when you pick something up nearby), none of which are even close to gamebreaking.
Despite that, it was the best game I've played all year (and I was disappointed in Fallout 3 -- it was fun, but not all I'd hoped).
Winkey+"path"+
Scroll down to path, click edit, then edit it.
Works in Win7. If you can't figure that one out, I'm pretty sure you won't need to change the path variable.
Umm, no: porn very much includes the written word. I checked a couple dictionaries just now and it actually lists the written form of porn *first*.
The difference between erotica and pornography is that erotica is thought to have more artistic merit.
It's not for free -- they have to include Google content and follow rules about how it displays, and now the terms seem to be changing out from under them to also have to hide their own content behind an annoying, user-unfriendly click-through.
Basically the problem is that Google is wielding an advertising monopoly to dictate the business terms of its suppliers (supplying eyeballs and data). That tends to be controversial -- sure, we're mostly okay if they refuse to do business with explicitly pro-slavery organizations, but as you back off into grey areas more and more people's hackles start to rise. This particular case smells like a light form of censorship, which is particularly unpopular on slashdot.
I don't think this incident is a huge deal, though I do find it frustrating that TV Tropes will be a little harder to use the next time I decide to lose myself in its pages for a while. And to be clear, I don't think Sergei Brin is sitting atop a dark tower laughing maniacally and screaming "by the power of this monopoly SOON ALL WILL BE UNDER MY CONTROL". It's merely that relatively innocent actions, when backed up by an effective monopoly, have profound effects.
That suggests a question -- does Google have an advertising monopoly? It's a tough question. French courts have ruled that they are (I'd paste a link but Chrome has had problems pasting into slashdot these days -- use Google :) to find a court ruling from France on July 2). But they do have one competitor, though it's about a quarter the size of Google: Microsoft. That doesn't sit well with a large portion of slashdotters either so there's really no remaining alternative.
What's supposed to be illegal is offering H1-B workers less money than they would offer American workers. Offering H1-B workers more money than locals isn't supposed to be illegal; it's just completely illogical. Economics is supposed to take care of that.
No, the claim is that it can go downwind faster than the prevailing wind, which is completely different in that it's not impossible. Nobody said it could go anywhere with no wind, or even essentially no wind -- it has to be decidedly downwind. Let's try this gedankenexperiment:
Even without any mechanism, a cart will tend to accelerate to almost the same velocity of the wind, accounting for wheel friction. At that point of steady-state, shift your frame of reference to an inertial frame where the cart is entirely still. It's still an inertial frame so Newton's laws still apply and we're all happy.
Now the wind is almost gone, the cart is still, but the wheels are spinning like mad again an Earth that's moving like crazy. Those wheels are your turbines, and this "free" rotation is where you pick up the energy to drive a propeller, in the same direction as soft remnants of the wind, to push yourself forward.
There's something of a similarity with the old riddle about airplanes taking off of a conveyer belt: the cart isn't driving itself forward by its wheels, so it doesn't matter a whole lot how fast they spin, they're just a low-friction point of contact.
Basically, you're going at the speed of the wind, and then you're skimming energy off of the difference between the speed of the wind and the speed of the earth to go faster. That's the same method stationary land-based windmills generate energy, except they are going at the speed of the earth instead of the speed of the wind to start with, and they don't generally apply their speed to propulsion.
In the windless scenario, there's no difference between airspeed and land speed, so there's no energy to skim.
Yeah, I see it on Chrome, for quite a while now. Occasionally I can paste for some reason, but it locks up the browser for a while before it either does or does not. Only on slashdot though, or I'd have switched browsers long ago.
True. Microsoft gets the half hour hate. Google gets the five minutes of wishy-washy expressions of discomfort followed by a competition on which country's position on the sliding scale of Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Privacy is the best ever.
Just checked now; it's 5-7% depending on who you ask. Maybe as high as ~10% if you restrict yourself US, which the GP didn't and I wouldn't tend to do either (not being American).
Saying it costs $29 is kind of missing the point, because you can't legally install it for that $29 package without also paying Apple for a computer. It's effectively an update price for an OS you're supposed to already own the previous version of from a bundle purchase. If they drop that restriction and allow install on arbitrary hardware, or even just one other vendor, then the price of the OS is relevant.
The market cap of Apple (I wouldn't call Apple a "bigger" company than Microsoft; it has higher market cap and one quarter of higher revenue, but is smaller on just about every count -- and that's okay because being smaller doesn't mean being worse!) isn't really germane to the discussion, in part because both companies make most of their money selling things other than their respective OS.
I think there's a lot of disagreement on what "common" means. I don't think one in twenty is common, I would describe it as uncommon or not rare.
That's fair to a point, but really all the browser vendors should be submitting a lot more testcases if we ever hope to have an interoperable standard (even if the underlying intent is mass puppycide).
That argument would work better if IE8 didn't have sandboxing and process security months before Chrome was announced.
Randomness doesn't mean you have free will. The dice you roll don't have free will just because they come to a random result. Likewise, our inability to predict human actions does not mean they have free will. Unless you redefine free will to actually mean results that are not 100% predictable, which has a couple of consequences:
1. Radioactive decay has free will
2. You still have to prove that the brain cannot be reduced to deterministic "hidden variables" which are just obfuscated by the complexity of the brain.
I don't think acting randomly is what most people mean when they say free will. Then again, I have a hard time grasping exactly what people mean by this. One thing's clear to me: it doesn't mean the same thing to everybody, which always muddies these debates.
We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
That does not follow even if I were to grant your premise.
I don't understand what you're saying. Utilitarianism isn't like capitalism or communism, in that the latter two are prescriptive systems which predict a result, whereas the former is just a method of evaluating the results.
You're doing the same thing you accuse of others, reducing a very complex situation to a choice between participating in a (presumably violent) uprising and being totally unable to think for yourself.
It's kind of poetic.
I've never given blood in a building that is not a church. And I'm an atheist.
Churches are large buildings designed to seat many people all at once which are empty most of the time. They're perfect for blood drives and other such things.
Not losing money. And this is losing money.
Getting a $200 tax deduction *hurts* when it costs $1000.
Assuming perfectly rational actors (an incredibly naive assumption), they must be getting at least $800 out of the donation in some other fashion.
No, he was responding to MichaelKristopeit_19, and one time to MichaelKristopeit_22. You're MichaelKristopeit105. It's TOTALLY different.
No, the GP was right. You're missing that we specifically don't want to kill the Alzheimer's patients. Because we have concern for them.
Just because you want them to not be a great burden if you can help it doesn't mean you'll do anything to eliminate any burden.
Law is designed in an attempt to be fair, not in an attempt to be self-justifying.
The attempt often fails, but that's the noble purpose.
Let's rephrase the question to make it conceptually simpler.
You point at a door. Then you get to choose either what's behind that door, or what's behind all other doors.
Monty Hall goes and shows you that all but one of the other doors (n-2 doors) are loser doors. But you already knew that at least n-2 of the doors you didn't select are loser doors, so you didn't really learn anything.
Do you agree that switching to that one other unopened door is equivalent to switching to the best of all other doors that you didn't select? Because then I think it's easy. The door you pointed at has a 1/3 chance of being right. All other doors combined have a 2/3 chance of being right. Monty opens some of them to trick you, but it really only serves to make selecting one other door equivalent to selecting all other doors.
Here's some hard data, best I can find in 5 minutes, on the relative failure rates, which are much less drastic than you propose:
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_Xbox360_PS3_Wii_Reliability_0809.pdf
From a quick look, I can see a news article from mid-2007 (so about 6 months after release) that claimed a 1% failure rate for Wii and PS3, which as far as I can see comes from district of EB game stores counting their returns, and who also reported a failure rate of the early 360's (the much worse ones) at between 25% and 33%, from an interview with "ripten", which I had never heard of before.
If that's your source -- and it shouldn't be, since it's not recent and is comparing ~8 months at most to years, and is not really well-substantiated, but let's give it to you -- then it's intellectually dishonest to give 65% as the failure rate to the 360.
A quick search shows the only source that gives a failure rate as bad as 65% for the 360 is one showing that that's basically the *pre-production factory reject rate*, which is not related to the retail failure rate (http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/09/06/in-depth-expos-reveals-microsofts-xbox-360-failure-rate-was-68/).
Anecdote time!
My grandma bought xboxes for me and two cousins shortly after they came out. One cousin's xbox failed; the replacement did not fail, and the other xboxes haven't failed. Odds of that are about 7% assuming a 65% failure rate. Maybe we're just lucky.