there is no penalty for using virtual memory, all translation from virtual to physical address space is done internal to the processor and you won't notice the difference.
Nope. Virtual memory is (almost) always associated with paging files on a hard disk drive (and hence thrashing issues may occur). In fact you can't have paging without virtual memory. These things are not mutually exclusive. You actually contradict yourself further down, "Virtual memory only starts impacting performance when pages are being swapped in and out, because all your processes need more resident memory than you actually have." The author should look at Paged Virtual (in Sysinternals' System Explorer) to see the actual paging use.
So you may want to change the title of your post to: "why use physical memory in modern systems?".
I would suggest that the author probably meant to state his question as "Why use paging files in modern systems?"
Unfortunately it appears that many politicians have been reared incorrectly, and they are taking their bad moral upbringing and imposing it on everybody else.
These concerns will be carefully considered during a 'live' pilot of ISP filtering which will test a range of content filtering solutions in a real world environment, with the cooperation of ISPs (including mobile telephone operators) and their customers.
What "customer" would willingly go to an illegal Web site in order to test a government filtering system. Unless the government is giving them a list of banned URLs and an amnesty from prosecution then this testing will largely be bogus. Though I don't know how they define "cooperation".
You can't convince people who have already made up their minds. I could presume these tests are more of a walk-through for how much can be done and how effectively, rather than a feasibility test on the whole issue of government censorship.
In the latter part of the 20th century we willingly gave up (en masse) our desire to think
Speak for yourself. Censorship only helps fulfill the needs of those who already decide that they don't want to think. The rest of us will continue in silence. Thought is one thing that cannot (yet) be wholly censored, though people try their darnedest.
By the time you hiot that age you don't need "teachers" any more... you just need an environment with resources and intresting people
Well I think I've reached that age (without meaning to sound arrogant). Formal schooling (I've found through hindsight) is more of a guide than a method.
The bonus is that somtimes you come accross very inspirig people.
Yes, but they do seem to be two few and far between.
I will stress that I am not putting down higher education (in my various posts), but merely emphasizing the fact that it does not have the ideals that many people attribute to it.
In Canada kids can bring swords to school if there is some religious significance to them (Sikhs with kirpans).
However they cannot bring them on airplanes because, "With respect to the airplane case, the Court noted that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had found that aircraft were a unique environment, in which groups of strangers were brought together in confined spaces for periods of time without access to emergency medical or police assistance."
I would presume a similar line of reasoning may apply in the USA with regards to hand guns.
Then they should make their choice instead of just letting the public system waste away through neglect. It's only in America (of the wealthy democracies) where the public schools are so bad. It seems to be more of an attitude problem than anything else. Put some good money in their and you don't need bad money following it (i.e. get rid of the politics of education like the No Child Left Behind hypocrisy). Do this or just privatize everything and stop complaining.
If Americans want public education with any degree of quality then they should be willing to fund it appropriately. Otherwise this whole Cable in the Classroom and No Child Left Behind lameness is just a sneaky way of encouraging privatization and school vouchers.
Your Trolling is useless. I've read less than half-way through and didn't want to waste anymore time. You sound like a Manager. I'll separate the wheat from the chaff and say goodbye.
There are various things a university degree provides: 1) Complete knowledge.
LOL. Again people are talking about ideals. If people would fully comprehend over 10% of what they are taught then I would be impressed. If people would remember 10% of what they comprehend after they finish the semester I would also be impressed. If people would remember 10% of the 10% they learned just 1 year after graduating then I would be impressed. Otherwise, like one person told me; you don't have to remember anything because you can always look it up. Yep that's fine, but people can look things up in a reference manual without going into massive debt. In the real world (most) people actually apply very little of what they have learned. Some people aren't intelligent or logical enough to realize how much time they've wasted.
2. Thinking. You can't make a person smarter but you can teach them to think in a logical manner
I need proof of that. I've argued with mathematicians and math fanboys about this issue. Their logic involved a lot of Flaimbait and Trolling and a lot of dubious and laughable arguments. Just because you believe in the religion doesn't mean that it has any reality to it. I've seen far too many stupid and illogical people graduate; which indicates to me that your statement is nothing more than an arrogant and unfounded opinion.
Peers. It's amazing how much better and how much more you can learn when everyone around you isn't an idiot.
You aren't making any sense here. People who don't go to university are not idiots. However every time I talk to somebody with your caliber of opinion it makes me have even more doubt about the educational systems throughout the world.
I'm guessing you're one of those idiots who thinks comparing a "brilliant self-taught person" to an "average university taught person" somehow makes a valid argument.
I did not make any comparisons. I merely stated the facts. People can choose to believe in their religion if they wish.
I may be an idiot. Many people in real life as well as here on Slashdot think so. It's ironic because I always spend so much time educating myself (I've probably spent more time in school than most people here on Slashdot), and outside of school I spend much of my time educating myself. I always try to improve myself, but for some reason people still think I'm an idiot. I've always wondered whether it was worth it giving up time and money to educate myself. The more I think about it and talk to people like you (you are in the majority opinion) the more I realize that I should have just signed up with an industrial employment agency when I was young and made some money instead of going into massive amounts of debt.
Read just about any scientific study on Management practices; A-class managers are the exception and not the rule.
If you are good, you will achieve in life.
You should qualify that with "marketing", and "networking". People rarely achieve success through ability. Again read some Management studies or study up on sociology. Just because you believe something is true does not make it true. But like the Mathematicians I argued with on a similar issue, it seems like university has dulled their intelligence and increased their sense of folklore.
Uni is a good place to hone your skills and rise to your potential.
Wrong. University does not make you hone your skills than any other endeavor. In fact universities are not good places to learn. They need to change their practices and teaching methods substantially in order to be good. University professors aren't even taught how to teach; they merely lecture, and have grad students do most of the more intimate teaching.
Torvalds, Gates, Cohen, Mitnick... they're one in a million examples.
Yes they are one-in-a-million. That wasn't my point. They were lucky in time and environment. Aside from that nearly anybody could succeed (technically) on their level. It's 99% perspiration after all. Having some marketing savvy will certainly help a lot (as was the case with Gates and Jobs, but that too was besides the point).
Einstein never did create his most famous inspirations from school (which was actually a drag on him). He learned it from his uncles machine shop. Einstein himself said that he wasn't any different from other people (and I don't think he was using false humility when he stated that). He got lucky after school when a journal decided to post an article he wrote up while working at a lame-ass job as a clerk. I also remember far less famous people who became quite successful without education; I remember one high school teacher telling me that a successful entrepreneur came to him one day showing off his wares and stating (IIRC) that he is richer than him (the teacher) and yet he still can't read.
The concept of bittorent (a lot of the basic ideas) was actually developed by me long before Bram Cohen spent three months pounding out his program in python. I'm sure a lot of other people came up with similar ideas, the only difference is that he took the time and effort to do it. If more HR managers could actually "think-outside-of-the-box" instead of preaching sophism then there would be far more innovative people being hired by companies. I wonder how many Einsteins end up never succeeding in life because they never lucked out.
There is a myth that formal education (certs or degrees) somehow makes people smarter or more knowledgeable than people without them. At the most there may be a correlation (people with a formal education certainly know more than people with no education). As for smarts, it's difficult if not impossible to learn. I do have a strong deductive feeling that people who have university degrees have been moderating this thread.
University degrees generally go far beyond mere syntactical and grammatical knowledge of a computer language or system. They generally try to instill in you, the capacity to learn.... [etc]
I've heard it all before. Those ideas are themselves ideals that have little to do with reality (for most people who end up going to university. That has been my experience at least).
Linus Torvald didn't learn about designing an operating system by taking certification courses, after all.
He learned (and did) much of this in his free time. Torvald's never needed to go to University. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never wanted to or needed to (they were autodidacts, and compulsive about it). Many a famous (and rich) geek are; Brahm Cohen, Kevin Mitnick, etc. These people would find school highly wasteful. Bram Cohen himself couldn't keep a job during the dot.com boom. I doubt if most of these people could have gotten decent jobs if they hadn't have started their own businesses. HR (the front line of the job market) seeks out the status quo which often doesn't accomplish much but mediocrity.
But that just proves that the way you are taught in a university is actually important.
I've argued this point in other discussions. I don't believe that "the way you are taught" in (most/all?) universities is good. I'm certainly not hyping certifications either (I've met many cert-qualified people who are also incompetent, or at least barely competent).
Knowledge and education (for me) are important, they are however not often directly related to either ability or aptitude.
On the other hand, certifications *with* experience *prove* that you have a certain level of mastery with the specific programming language, while also having the on-the-job experience.
Having certifications only proves that you qualified for a certification. Having on-the-job experience only proves that you have had a job.
I've had a DBA professor who had a Masters degree and on-the-job experience working for a bank. He couldn't answer simple questions regarding SQL without referencing a manual. In the end our class signed a petition to have him fired. After the dean sat in on a few classes he agreed with our class's assessment. Resumes and pieces of paper and on-the-job-experience have little to do with experience. Ask any customer who buys buggy software or has to deal with an incompetent sysadmin.
There are more practical ways of proving ability (like by demonstrating ability). Asking a comprehensive list of good quality questions will certainly do more IMHO than References, etc in deciding a good job candidate.
So one would think that (university) degrees are even more worthless than certifications since they are based more on theory than real world experience, as well as a lot less relevant but required elective courses. The cramming phenomena that schools (especially universities) impose by the workload certainly doesn't help.
Hiring a job candidate on ability instead of pieces of paper or networking ability (I'm talking references and schmoozing here) sounds like something that companies who post listings on Job Boards aren't very interested in.
Doctorow says he is a law prof who writes like a comedian (is this a good thing?)
Yes. Comedians are more thoughtful than is often apparent. They are logical and intelligent and perceptive. You can't be dumb and (deliberately) funny. It actually takes intelligence and a great deal of work to be as (deliberately) funny as Dan Quayle for example. Comedians often derive their humour from pointing out the incongruities that most other people overlook. If all of us could be comedians then the world would be a far more intelligent (and funnier) place to live.
Slashdot Mirror
there is no penalty for using virtual memory, all translation from virtual to physical address space is done internal to the processor and you won't notice the difference.
Nope. Virtual memory is (almost) always associated with paging files on a hard disk drive (and hence thrashing issues may occur). In fact you can't have paging without virtual memory. These things are not mutually exclusive. You actually contradict yourself further down, "Virtual memory only starts impacting performance when pages are being swapped in and out, because all your processes need more resident memory than you actually have." The author should look at Paged Virtual (in Sysinternals' System Explorer) to see the actual paging use.
So you may want to change the title of your post to: "why use physical memory in modern systems?".
I would suggest that the author probably meant to state his question as "Why use paging files in modern systems?"
Unfortunately it appears that many politicians have been reared incorrectly, and they are taking their bad moral upbringing and imposing it on everybody else.
Where do I send that cheque?
These concerns will be carefully considered during a 'live' pilot of ISP filtering which will test a range of content filtering solutions in a real world environment, with the cooperation of ISPs (including mobile telephone operators) and their customers.
- Ref, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot
What "customer" would willingly go to an illegal Web site in order to test a government filtering system. Unless the government is giving them a list of banned URLs and an amnesty from prosecution then this testing will largely be bogus. Though I don't know how they define "cooperation".
I have emailed Rudd and told him that
You can't convince people who have already made up their minds. I could presume these tests are more of a walk-through for how much can be done and how effectively, rather than a feasibility test on the whole issue of government censorship.
iiNet, one of the ISPs who has agreed to test out the filter, but only to show how worthless it is.
I've always found the reasoning bizarre. It's like saying I'll do murder and rape just to show how horrible it is.
In the latter part of the 20th century we willingly gave up (en masse) our desire to think
Speak for yourself. Censorship only helps fulfill the needs of those who already decide that they don't want to think. The rest of us will continue in silence. Thought is one thing that cannot (yet) be wholly censored, though people try their darnedest.
By the time you hiot that age you don't need "teachers" any more ... you just need an environment with resources and intresting people
Well I think I've reached that age (without meaning to sound arrogant). Formal schooling (I've found through hindsight) is more of a guide than a method.
The bonus is that somtimes you come accross very inspirig people.
Yes, but they do seem to be two few and far between.
I will stress that I am not putting down higher education (in my various posts), but merely emphasizing the fact that it does not have the ideals that many people attribute to it.
Best regards,
UTW
In Canada kids can bring swords to school if there is some religious significance to them (Sikhs with kirpans).
However they cannot bring them on airplanes because, "With respect to the airplane case, the Court noted that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had found that aircraft were a unique environment, in which groups of strangers were brought together in confined spaces for periods of time without access to emergency medical or police assistance."
I would presume a similar line of reasoning may apply in the USA with regards to hand guns.
- Ref. http://www.emondharnden.com/whatsnew/may06/Multani.shtml
This probably has more to do with "conservative" lobby groups than the "socialism" of medical insurance.
Then they should make their choice instead of just letting the public system waste away through neglect. It's only in America (of the wealthy democracies) where the public schools are so bad. It seems to be more of an attitude problem than anything else. Put some good money in their and you don't need bad money following it (i.e. get rid of the politics of education like the No Child Left Behind hypocrisy). Do this or just privatize everything and stop complaining.
If Americans want public education with any degree of quality then they should be willing to fund it appropriately. Otherwise this whole Cable in the Classroom and No Child Left Behind lameness is just a sneaky way of encouraging privatization and school vouchers.
Your Trolling is useless. I've read less than half-way through and didn't want to waste anymore time. You sound like a Manager. I'll separate the wheat from the chaff and say goodbye.
There are various things a university degree provides:
1) Complete knowledge.
LOL. Again people are talking about ideals. If people would fully comprehend over 10% of what they are taught then I would be impressed. If people would remember 10% of what they comprehend after they finish the semester I would also be impressed. If people would remember 10% of the 10% they learned just 1 year after graduating then I would be impressed. Otherwise, like one person told me; you don't have to remember anything because you can always look it up. Yep that's fine, but people can look things up in a reference manual without going into massive debt. In the real world (most) people actually apply very little of what they have learned. Some people aren't intelligent or logical enough to realize how much time they've wasted.
2. Thinking. You can't make a person smarter but you can teach them to think in a logical manner
I need proof of that. I've argued with mathematicians and math fanboys about this issue. Their logic involved a lot of Flaimbait and Trolling and a lot of dubious and laughable arguments. Just because you believe in the religion doesn't mean that it has any reality to it. I've seen far too many stupid and illogical people graduate; which indicates to me that your statement is nothing more than an arrogant and unfounded opinion.
Peers. It's amazing how much better and how much more you can learn when everyone around you isn't an idiot.
You aren't making any sense here. People who don't go to university are not idiots. However every time I talk to somebody with your caliber of opinion it makes me have even more doubt about the educational systems throughout the world.
I'm guessing you're one of those idiots who thinks comparing a "brilliant self-taught person" to an "average university taught person" somehow makes a valid argument.
I did not make any comparisons. I merely stated the facts. People can choose to believe in their religion if they wish.
I may be an idiot. Many people in real life as well as here on Slashdot think so. It's ironic because I always spend so much time educating myself (I've probably spent more time in school than most people here on Slashdot), and outside of school I spend much of my time educating myself. I always try to improve myself, but for some reason people still think I'm an idiot. I've always wondered whether it was worth it giving up time and money to educate myself. The more I think about it and talk to people like you (you are in the majority opinion) the more I realize that I should have just signed up with an industrial employment agency when I was young and made some money instead of going into massive amounts of debt.
A class managers employ A class staff
Read just about any scientific study on Management practices; A-class managers are the exception and not the rule.
If you are good, you will achieve in life.
You should qualify that with "marketing", and "networking". People rarely achieve success through ability. Again read some Management studies or study up on sociology. Just because you believe something is true does not make it true. But like the Mathematicians I argued with on a similar issue, it seems like university has dulled their intelligence and increased their sense of folklore.
Uni is a good place to hone your skills and rise to your potential.
Wrong. University does not make you hone your skills than any other endeavor. In fact universities are not good places to learn. They need to change their practices and teaching methods substantially in order to be good. University professors aren't even taught how to teach; they merely lecture, and have grad students do most of the more intimate teaching.
What you said is true. I will emphasize what I said:
"He couldn't answer simple questions regarding SQL without referencing a manual."
BTW, the HR people who generally don't hire those people are generally university educated.
Torvalds, Gates, Cohen, Mitnick... they're one in a million examples.
Yes they are one-in-a-million. That wasn't my point. They were lucky in time and environment. Aside from that nearly anybody could succeed (technically) on their level. It's 99% perspiration after all. Having some marketing savvy will certainly help a lot (as was the case with Gates and Jobs, but that too was besides the point).
Einstein never did create his most famous inspirations from school (which was actually a drag on him). He learned it from his uncles machine shop. Einstein himself said that he wasn't any different from other people (and I don't think he was using false humility when he stated that). He got lucky after school when a journal decided to post an article he wrote up while working at a lame-ass job as a clerk. I also remember far less famous people who became quite successful without education; I remember one high school teacher telling me that a successful entrepreneur came to him one day showing off his wares and stating (IIRC) that he is richer than him (the teacher) and yet he still can't read.
The concept of bittorent (a lot of the basic ideas) was actually developed by me long before Bram Cohen spent three months pounding out his program in python. I'm sure a lot of other people came up with similar ideas, the only difference is that he took the time and effort to do it. If more HR managers could actually "think-outside-of-the-box" instead of preaching sophism then there would be far more innovative people being hired by companies. I wonder how many Einsteins end up never succeeding in life because they never lucked out.
One might think that but you'd be wrong.
But I'm not wrong -:)
You are of course correct.
There is a myth that formal education (certs or degrees) somehow makes people smarter or more knowledgeable than people without them. At the most there may be a correlation (people with a formal education certainly know more than people with no education). As for smarts, it's difficult if not impossible to learn. I do have a strong deductive feeling that people who have university degrees have been moderating this thread.
Best regards,
UTW
University degrees generally go far beyond mere syntactical and grammatical knowledge of a computer language or system. They generally try to instill in you, the capacity to learn.... [etc]
I've heard it all before. Those ideas are themselves ideals that have little to do with reality (for most people who end up going to university. That has been my experience at least).
Linus Torvald didn't learn about designing an operating system by taking certification courses, after all.
He learned (and did) much of this in his free time. Torvald's never needed to go to University. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never wanted to or needed to (they were autodidacts, and compulsive about it). Many a famous (and rich) geek are; Brahm Cohen, Kevin Mitnick, etc. These people would find school highly wasteful. Bram Cohen himself couldn't keep a job during the dot.com boom. I doubt if most of these people could have gotten decent jobs if they hadn't have started their own businesses. HR (the front line of the job market) seeks out the status quo which often doesn't accomplish much but mediocrity.
But that just proves that the way you are taught in a university is actually important.
I've argued this point in other discussions. I don't believe that "the way you are taught" in (most/all?) universities is good. I'm certainly not hyping certifications either (I've met many cert-qualified people who are also incompetent, or at least barely competent).
Knowledge and education (for me) are important, they are however not often directly related to either ability or aptitude.
Best regards,
UTW
On the other hand, certifications *with* experience *prove* that you have a certain level of mastery with the specific programming language, while also having the on-the-job experience.
Having certifications only proves that you qualified for a certification. Having on-the-job experience only proves that you have had a job.
I've had a DBA professor who had a Masters degree and on-the-job experience working for a bank. He couldn't answer simple questions regarding SQL without referencing a manual. In the end our class signed a petition to have him fired. After the dean sat in on a few classes he agreed with our class's assessment. Resumes and pieces of paper and on-the-job-experience have little to do with experience. Ask any customer who buys buggy software or has to deal with an incompetent sysadmin.
There are more practical ways of proving ability (like by demonstrating ability). Asking a comprehensive list of good quality questions will certainly do more IMHO than References, etc in deciding a good job candidate.
So one would think that (university) degrees are even more worthless than certifications since they are based more on theory than real world experience, as well as a lot less relevant but required elective courses. The cramming phenomena that schools (especially universities) impose by the workload certainly doesn't help.
Hiring a job candidate on ability instead of pieces of paper or networking ability (I'm talking references and schmoozing here) sounds like something that companies who post listings on Job Boards aren't very interested in.
Doctorow says he is a law prof who writes like a comedian (is this a good thing?)
Yes. Comedians are more thoughtful than is often apparent. They are logical and intelligent and perceptive. You can't be dumb and (deliberately) funny. It actually takes intelligence and a great deal of work to be as (deliberately) funny as Dan Quayle for example. Comedians often derive their humour from pointing out the incongruities that most other people overlook. If all of us could be comedians then the world would be a far more intelligent (and funnier) place to live.
I've had similar jobs with other companies. In many cases the front-line employees are willing but the Management is weak.
Recourse For Poor Customer Service?
Homeland Security. I've had the impression long before 9/11 that Al-Qaeda has infiltrated Dell customer service.