That's a snag I've found in the past. So much hardware is consumer grade so that the datasheets are rubbish. You think that your write has succeeded but it's still got data stuck in the cache, and the "flush, dammit" command is actually a no-op. So a never-fails file system I used in the past was getting corrupted, and the developers of it were baffled because they never saw a failure like that before.
So let's say your super reliable file system is mathematically proven, but the axioms are false, what then? Consider a flash drive. Inside it has all of its own logic; when to copy from RAM into the actual flash chips, when to copy and erase sectors behind the scenes invisibly to the user, and so forth. There's a lot of state machine activity going on that the mathematically proven file system knows nothing about. If the synchronize-cache command doesn't quite do what expected then things can break. Write operations can happen out of order also (the real reason for synchronize-cache, which is why you should specify the entire device and not just the most recent block). What if power is killed in the middle of an internal copy-erase-compact cycle, which leaves you at the mercy of whoever designed your device?
There are too many technical people in IT departments that basically only care about what's cool. "Cool" should probably not be part of a business infrastructure decision.
Disagree. Proprietary software is just as buggy and sometimes extremely buggy. There may even be NDA agreements that forbid revealing any bugs to third parties.
You can't be a fan of genres when they're so badly defined. Ie, RPG games which somehow links in utter dreck like Japanese RPG games. Saw a youtube of top ten RPGs of past 10 years, and only 2 of them I would even call RPGs and only 4 I ever heard of.
FPS games, that includes so much stuff it's not even reasonable to use that term any more; do they mean twitch gaming shooters, or open world sandbox shooters, player vs player shooters, hunting simulations, the glut of zombie games, MMO shooters, etc. You can't put Borderlands and Doom in the same category, or Doom and Far Cry, etc.
MMOs - I know that there are players that will try every single one of them but seriously, almost no one has time for more than one of these at a time. Trying to market to an MMO player by saying "it's just like the one your'e addicted to but different and without any of your friends" is doomed to fail, the most you can distinguish is "generic MMO set in an existing IP you might like" vs "generic MMO in a custom IP with a vaguely anime feel" vs "MMO designed by seriously disgruntled hardcore devs and intended only for the ten hardcore players that they like" vs "we want to be WoW and are giving it a shot".
Then there are the games which tried to be different and not fit a niche, so there's no category for them. The Thief series, it's about sneaking but people try to call it an FPS because people want categories. And the Thief wannabes which don't measure up but which possibly could be called sneaking games. Then there are hybrid Action/RPG, some of which I like but they can't realy decide if they want to disappoint RPG players or disappoint FPS players, or designed for one crowd but mis-marketed to the other crowd. Or a game that's entirely story and you just follow along and every 10 minutes you have to do a quick-time event. Games that are RTS with RPG elements, or RPGs with RTS elements. And utterly unique things like Katamari Damashi.
Partisanship helps in the misunderstanding too. If you rephrase it however... Ask a Republican if they want to see a Clinton administration with control over encryption of all phones and computers. They'd be horrified. Ask if they want a Bush administration that can monitor terrorist communications and they'll be all for it.
For a partisan, if our side has control of encryption then that's good, but if the other side has control of encryption then that's bad. And these people rarely think ahead 4 or 8 years to what will happen when control of government switches parties again.
Comapre this to Ross Perot. People flock to him as a none-of-the-above choice. Perot failed in the long run because he never set up any long term ideals or goals for a Reform Party, so it got hijacked by lots of opportunists and populated by nut cases. Many of those people I believe were early founders in the Tea Party movement.
For Trump I see something similar, an uneducated buffoon Perot, and people will flock to him not because he has good ideas but because he's none-of-the-above. And again it won't be people seeking a well defined political party but just a big clump of populism by people who think a president is 100% of the government and the most important vote they'll be casting on election day.
The names of the parties are irrelevant. They were invented over a hundred years ago but the parties themselves change their faces every decade. The first major parties were the Federalist Party and the Democrat-Republican Party.
In reality there have been only a few major political splits. Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, which could roughly be defined as strong central government, fiscally at least, versus reduced federal power and a looser coalition of states. There was another divide, the slave states versus non slave states. Over time these two divides aligned themselves a bit, as slave states became worried about excessive federal power. A third divide arose over time, present all over the world too, was industry versus agriculture, or cities versus rural. This also aligned with agrarian slave states versus more industrialized northern states. Politics meant this all aligned into a big north versus south, with strange bedfellows all over.
We desparately need multiple parties in which there is a struggle to find a government coalition. What we have instead is each party is composed of multiple factions who then struggle to lay out their platform during the party primaries, but that leaves no room for anyone who isn't really behind either platform. You can't be pro-gun and pro-union at the same time in the US and find a welcoming political party.
Today's Republicans are heavily influenced by the southern Democrats from 50 years ago, who up and swapped parties over night once the Democratic Party decided to be against segregation.
But that's politics when it's treated as a sports contest. Yankees in bed with Confederates to create a voting bloc stopping the other side. The point is no longer to stake out a consistent and well defined political stance, the point isn't even to try to improve the country and provide good governance. Instead the goal has become to divide every single issue into one of two camps, Us versus Them. If a new issue arises then it is split between the parties and every politician is told how they will think about the issue and what the talking points will be. If you want to know if you are pro-Mars-Colonizaton or anti-Mars-Colonization then you have to ask your politial party how to think. If one side or the other starts to gain the upper hand then the battle lines are redrawn to maintain the 50/50 split.
There really isn't anything like a "real" Republican or Democrat anymore.
But Chrome is just as bizarre though. Both have utterly insane rapid fire update schedules designed to put features that benefit developers or developers' whims and not that of the customers. If I ditch Firefox it most definitely will never be for Chrome.
Alternatives? Chrome is even worse regarding it's update schedules. Anything from Microsoft is just right out and is unportable. Safari just feels wrong to me. The question is rhetorical though, I don't need to hear from the opera fans and advocates of something goofy. Firefox does the job, allows plugins to increase security and decrease malware, and is open source (but using idiot management, but that's true for all other browsers on the planet).
I never understood the whole concept of Pocket. It's still baffling. I suspect the biggest security hole comes from the fact that it's being marketed to people who just don't care about security anyway and use it because it's new rather than applying any critical thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a snag I've found in the past. So much hardware is consumer grade so that the datasheets are rubbish. You think that your write has succeeded but it's still got data stuck in the cache, and the "flush, dammit" command is actually a no-op. So a never-fails file system I used in the past was getting corrupted, and the developers of it were baffled because they never saw a failure like that before.
So let's say your super reliable file system is mathematically proven, but the axioms are false, what then? Consider a flash drive. Inside it has all of its own logic; when to copy from RAM into the actual flash chips, when to copy and erase sectors behind the scenes invisibly to the user, and so forth. There's a lot of state machine activity going on that the mathematically proven file system knows nothing about. If the synchronize-cache command doesn't quite do what expected then things can break. Write operations can happen out of order also (the real reason for synchronize-cache, which is why you should specify the entire device and not just the most recent block). What if power is killed in the middle of an internal copy-erase-compact cycle, which leaves you at the mercy of whoever designed your device?
There are too many technical people in IT departments that basically only care about what's cool. "Cool" should probably not be part of a business infrastructure decision.
In some places, more diesel is used for electricity than is used for vehicles.
Disagree. Proprietary software is just as buggy and sometimes extremely buggy. There may even be NDA agreements that forbid revealing any bugs to third parties.
You can't be a fan of genres when they're so badly defined. Ie, RPG games which somehow links in utter dreck like Japanese RPG games. Saw a youtube of top ten RPGs of past 10 years, and only 2 of them I would even call RPGs and only 4 I ever heard of.
FPS games, that includes so much stuff it's not even reasonable to use that term any more; do they mean twitch gaming shooters, or open world sandbox shooters, player vs player shooters, hunting simulations, the glut of zombie games, MMO shooters, etc. You can't put Borderlands and Doom in the same category, or Doom and Far Cry, etc.
MMOs - I know that there are players that will try every single one of them but seriously, almost no one has time for more than one of these at a time. Trying to market to an MMO player by saying "it's just like the one your'e addicted to but different and without any of your friends" is doomed to fail, the most you can distinguish is "generic MMO set in an existing IP you might like" vs "generic MMO in a custom IP with a vaguely anime feel" vs "MMO designed by seriously disgruntled hardcore devs and intended only for the ten hardcore players that they like" vs "we want to be WoW and are giving it a shot".
Then there are the games which tried to be different and not fit a niche, so there's no category for them. The Thief series, it's about sneaking but people try to call it an FPS because people want categories. And the Thief wannabes which don't measure up but which possibly could be called sneaking games. Then there are hybrid Action/RPG, some of which I like but they can't realy decide if they want to disappoint RPG players or disappoint FPS players, or designed for one crowd but mis-marketed to the other crowd. Or a game that's entirely story and you just follow along and every 10 minutes you have to do a quick-time event. Games that are RTS with RPG elements, or RPGs with RTS elements. And utterly unique things like Katamari Damashi.
I would think that the inconvience of having a password for pinterest is a good thing if it keeps people away from pinterest.
Then it becomes a parody work. Any post of "look how awful this food is!" has to be marked clearly as "parody" to avoid a lawsuit.
Partisanship helps in the misunderstanding too. If you rephrase it however... Ask a Republican if they want to see a Clinton administration with control over encryption of all phones and computers. They'd be horrified. Ask if they want a Bush administration that can monitor terrorist communications and they'll be all for it.
For a partisan, if our side has control of encryption then that's good, but if the other side has control of encryption then that's bad. And these people rarely think ahead 4 or 8 years to what will happen when control of government switches parties again.
Comapre this to Ross Perot. People flock to him as a none-of-the-above choice. Perot failed in the long run because he never set up any long term ideals or goals for a Reform Party, so it got hijacked by lots of opportunists and populated by nut cases. Many of those people I believe were early founders in the Tea Party movement.
For Trump I see something similar, an uneducated buffoon Perot, and people will flock to him not because he has good ideas but because he's none-of-the-above. And again it won't be people seeking a well defined political party but just a big clump of populism by people who think a president is 100% of the government and the most important vote they'll be casting on election day.
The names of the parties are irrelevant. They were invented over a hundred years ago but the parties themselves change their faces every decade.
The first major parties were the Federalist Party and the Democrat-Republican Party.
In reality there have been only a few major political splits. Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, which could roughly be defined as strong central government, fiscally at least, versus reduced federal power and a looser coalition of states. There was another divide, the slave states versus non slave states. Over time these two divides aligned themselves a bit, as slave states became worried about excessive federal power. A third divide arose over time, present all over the world too, was industry versus agriculture, or cities versus rural. This also aligned with agrarian slave states versus more industrialized northern states. Politics meant this all aligned into a big north versus south, with strange bedfellows all over.
We desparately need multiple parties in which there is a struggle to find a government coalition. What we have instead is each party is composed of multiple factions who then struggle to lay out their platform during the party primaries, but that leaves no room for anyone who isn't really behind either platform. You can't be pro-gun and pro-union at the same time in the US and find a welcoming political party.
Today's Republicans are heavily influenced by the southern Democrats from 50 years ago, who up and swapped parties over night once the Democratic Party decided to be against segregation.
But that's politics when it's treated as a sports contest. Yankees in bed with Confederates to create a voting bloc stopping the other side. The point is no longer to stake out a consistent and well defined political stance, the point isn't even to try to improve the country and provide good governance. Instead the goal has become to divide every single issue into one of two camps, Us versus Them. If a new issue arises then it is split between the parties and every politician is told how they will think about the issue and what the talking points will be. If you want to know if you are pro-Mars-Colonizaton or anti-Mars-Colonization then you have to ask your politial party how to think. If one side or the other starts to gain the upper hand then the battle lines are redrawn to maintain the 50/50 split.
There really isn't anything like a "real" Republican or Democrat anymore.
"RINO" is a code word that means the user is incapable of independent thought and is just another partisan hack.
Storing your passwords in the browser is always a bad idea.
But Chrome is just as bizarre though. Both have utterly insane rapid fire update schedules designed to put features that benefit developers or developers' whims and not that of the customers. If I ditch Firefox it most definitely will never be for Chrome.
What about wits? America is sorely lacking in this department, being at a disadvantage in any upcoming battle of the wits.
Are we even sure that "skilled workers" and "H1-B" has significant overlap?
It's a good thing that users routinely make local backups before uploading to the cloud.
I thought the grammar Allies won that war? Though it did seem like a losing cause until the American grammar rules entered the fight.
So it's like 80 cigarrettes a day?
So not showering and being fat makes them criminals?
I'd still rather ride with them than the hipster uber drivers. Though to be honest, I'd rather ride with neither.
This does not sound like a response to the issues raised by the parent poster though.
Alternatives? Chrome is even worse regarding it's update schedules. Anything from Microsoft is just right out and is unportable. Safari just feels wrong to me. The question is rhetorical though, I don't need to hear from the opera fans and advocates of something goofy. Firefox does the job, allows plugins to increase security and decrease malware, and is open source (but using idiot management, but that's true for all other browsers on the planet).
The real excuse: "it would cut into our profits!"
I never understood the whole concept of Pocket. It's still baffling. I suspect the biggest security hole comes from the fact that it's being marketed to people who just don't care about security anyway and use it because it's new rather than applying any critical thinking.
Wait, Doctor Who loves marshmallows...