Most of them are pretty damn well off. Also, if you look at it, they are in a relatively low-risk setup. Other people are paying for their risks (running), and they don't have a huge cost of losing, while they have a great gain for winning.
GP was probably sarcasm, since the teabaggers are pretty much entrenched in the same dishonest political status quo as the rest of the political parties/groups.
OK, there may be assumptions, for the past year, but given the difference we saw switching from IIS to Apache, EVEN ON WINDOWS, I doubt that they changed that much in one year.
Oh, you are now assuming I'm using out of the box Apache? or that we didn't tweak IIS to turn off the features we didn't need? Or that, even if you don't need them you should have all those features you don't need/want available? Get your head out of your ass because all you can come up with are bad ASSumptions.
Tweaked to similar feature availability, we still had better performance on Apache. Admittedly we didn't need ASP or Java serlets on either, but turning them off, or not adding the components, as appropriate, was not that difficult.
I will grant IIS, I'd rather go in and configure it than apache. The Metabase is fairly simple/clean, and one of the few good XML implementations I've seen, where Apache seems to be a hodgepodge of some SGML derivative mated with a classic config file, saved only be decent comments and documentation. However, for performance, once each is tweaked to suit the needs of an app, Apache so far has run better. Maybe if we needed *everything* IIS does, it would be a good web server, but that's a pretty narrow niche.
I can't see a good reason, other than ASP to run IIS. And while I'd rather code in C# than Java, I would take a Java servlet on a decent engine over IIS + ASP, and I would take a Python or C module in Apache to a.NET application server backend over either.
Both of these time frames have something else in common though.
People are out in the open less, and in closed areas more, to avoid the weather - touching more of the same things more often, and breathing more recirculated air with micro water droplets form coughs and sneezes.
There are a lot of factors for the flu, it's not a one-cause-fits-all thing.
You harp on about "everyone knows IIS is slow", "it was a decade ago" or whatever. What, you think software never ever improves?
You are good at bad assumptions aren't you? Did it require training.
Several alternative theories: (1) IIS has improved, but not enough to catch up with a stagnant Tomcat. (2) IIS has improved, but so has Tomcat.
Should I make a bad assumption to, and say "Why do you think only IIS has improved?"
Werecently (~a year ago) switched from IIS to Apache where, and got a better performance (still on Windows). With the hardware upgrades we did end up moving to Linux.
Rather than doing it right, within the scope of his rules, he switch to 'cheating' like moving over to Linux, even though he said his tests would be Windows.
There are a few tricks and techniques he could use to speed up.NET sockets - I wonder if he actually used them? i.e. it has the ability to create a socket with a callback, so it automatically spawns incoming requests on a new thread. Did he do that, or did he use a similarly naive approach as he did on Java?
(I didn't notice links to the source code when I read it, so it's possible I missed useful info)
Overall, I'd say the test showed that the author doesn't know how to benchmark.
IIS sucks pure and simple. Even on Windows I use Apache. It's just better.
But I also noticed, he spent a lot of time and effort 'breaking the rules' to make Java better, and working to make it more efficient, but he didn't do that for C#.
So we have... Java's raw implementation is slower than C#s But when combined with a server, Java Tomcat (still Linux? Or is it back to Windows) is faster than C# on IIS/Windows.
No shit shirlock, really? Might as well add Python and ModWSGI on Apache then. Have, what is usually regarded as the performance king, in the comparison.
I think just about everyone knows, performance wise with the same hardware, a server will be faster on about any *NIX but MacOS (and probably even that) than Windows.
I think just about everyone ALSO knows that IIS is a steaming pile, and Apache is pretty damn good (IIRC TomCat is built on Apache).
Now, if we compare the raw tests (C# vs Java) C# is faster, but when we move to the web servers, suddenly Java is better. That tells me... IIS is significantly (orders of magnitude) worse than Tomcat/Apache. That wasn't news a decade ago. And this is article longer a comparison of Java/C#
Not disagreeing with the access point, but I've seen people making more of an issue on the fact that the employee was making the profit. Yeah, the token issue was bad, and has serious legal, ethical and security repercussions.
My argument is that the employer and employee should be considered on equal terms (though I can think of good arguments for favoring the employee, from a pure economic standpoint).
Sorry, typos happen. Get over it. The ability to type perfectly does not imply knowledge of a subject, nor does the inability to type perfectly imply lack of knowledge of a subject.
Oh, I see, you didn't have a good argument, so you were going for a straw man. Nice. How can you be expected to be taken seriously when all you can argue with is logical fallacies while avoiding the topic at hand?
Note: that was sarcasm - there should have been a question mark at the end. They should be put on equal footing, or because the employees are more likely to spend the money (i.e. not invest which aggregates more money to them), and therefore keep a pool of money that will help draw and encourage investors, even in a stagnate economy... I can even seen putting some favoritism towards the employee doing it.
Light would impact the bubble across the front 'face'. Depending on how distorted, you could see everything that hit and would be directed towards your position on anywhere from all or none of that front 'face'.
Now, if you didn't have a warp bubble around you, and traveled at the speed of light, it would probably appear solid field, since light would be heading straight in to every point of your eye, with the field being cut off more by how you turn your head or eye.
You would see light from the outside, but consider
(1) warped space bends light - this will distort it (2) The faster you go, the more light will hit the front (including what you catch up to), less will hit the back (when your bubble of space time is moving faster than the speed of light, you'll be outrunning it), and the less time something coming in from the side will have to actually cross the threshold...
Meaning, more light in front, less from the sides/back.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, dumbfuck.
Provided you are cruising (i.e. not accelerating), you are not moving to the space around you. There are no fixed reference frames, that's one of the key points about physics.
The earth? It's moving/accelerating around the sun. The sun? it's moving/accelerating around the galactic center. The galactic center (or galaxy for that matter, for this calc. they are the same) is moving relative to all of the other galaxies, nearby or anywhere, and it's doubtful any two are moving at the same speed.
Oh, how about the universal center of mass? Good luck with that can of worms.
Yeah, but without these regulations, crap designed to be cheap rather than attempted as a design to work would get pushed through, and people would die, while the con artist who did it would funnel the money away and find ways to hide behind the legal system.
At least there is some competition, even if it is slowed down, there are multiple companies in the market, and each will still try to get sales from the other guy.
Does security need improved? Yes. Will it happend? Eventually, when enough people are hurt from the lack of security. Deregulation will just spur a whole new slew of issues. Maybe something should instead be done to streamline the regulations.
Windows will just give you a hex string for a memory location that will disappear and try to reboot the patient before you can record it or make sense of it.
Don't think it has squat to do with either. It just means people are getting used to absurd things that we would have previously wrote off as urban legends.
I doubt anyone is going to see God, Mohammed, Buddha or Jesus on youtube without it being an obvious mockup or hoax, regardless of whether or not any of the do/did exist.
As for sci-fi... Youtube isn't going to change the fact that the hands that guide that station are a bunch of retards that like to pump out and/or watch cheap overly-formulaic "sci-fi" and "gorror" (not horror, gorror - the subset of horror focused more on gore than suspense)
But then again, when ever I hear someone say, "that couldn't happen, the odds are a [insert large order of magnitude number here] to one!" I tend to respond to, how many events with such odds are there, and how often do they have a chance of occurring? At that point, a life where you don't run into or truthfully hear of at least a few of the really oddball things happening, is the really unlikely event
It's been a long time since I've seen a browser WITHOUT a shitty interface:-(
That includes Chrome (probably the worst IMO), Opera and Firefox. A few years ago, I liked IE and Firefox, but they are trying too hard to mimic Chrome and Opera.
It's pretty bad what you start to think the browser with the best interface is lynx... At least it gets minimalist right.
Also, there's the consideration of failure raite in RAID-0 agains 1) a single independant drive that does the work of those n drives in RAID-0 and 2) Haveing the same n drives do that work.
Finally, lifespan, which is what I was thinking of - If one drive has a life expectancy of an average of 5 years, given the failure distribution average over time, does a second drive in the array take it down to 2.5 years, 4, years, or something else?
You also have to consider the likelihood of a drive failing at all (there's the possibility that you will cease needing them before they fail). Add to that the likelihood of failure during a given time frame - Drives done have an even percent failure rate every month of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily.
Most of them are pretty damn well off. Also, if you look at it, they are in a relatively low-risk setup. Other people are paying for their risks (running), and they don't have a huge cost of losing, while they have a great gain for winning.
GP was probably sarcasm, since the teabaggers are pretty much entrenched in the same dishonest political status quo as the rest of the political parties/groups.
HP...
Never again. Their business end stuff may be good, but their consumer grade stuff is cheap low grade crashy garbage.
Where did I assume linearity?
OK, there may be assumptions, for the past year, but given the difference we saw switching from IIS to Apache, EVEN ON WINDOWS, I doubt that they changed that much in one year.
Oh, you are now assuming I'm using out of the box Apache? or that we didn't tweak IIS to turn off the features we didn't need? Or that, even if you don't need them you should have all those features you don't need/want available?
Get your head out of your ass because all you can come up with are bad ASSumptions.
Tweaked to similar feature availability, we still had better performance on Apache. Admittedly we didn't need ASP or Java serlets on either, but turning them off, or not adding the components, as appropriate, was not that difficult.
I will grant IIS, I'd rather go in and configure it than apache. The Metabase is fairly simple/clean, and one of the few good XML implementations I've seen, where Apache seems to be a hodgepodge of some SGML derivative mated with a classic config file, saved only be decent comments and documentation. However, for performance, once each is tweaked to suit the needs of an app, Apache so far has run better. Maybe if we needed *everything* IIS does, it would be a good web server, but that's a pretty narrow niche.
I can't see a good reason, other than ASP to run IIS. And while I'd rather code in C# than Java, I would take a Java servlet on a decent engine over IIS + ASP, and I would take a Python or C module in Apache to a .NET application server backend over either.
Both of these time frames have something else in common though.
People are out in the open less, and in closed areas more, to avoid the weather - touching more of the same things more often, and breathing more recirculated air with micro water droplets form coughs and sneezes.
There are a lot of factors for the flu, it's not a one-cause-fits-all thing.
You are good at bad assumptions aren't you? Did it require training.
Several alternative theories:
(1) IIS has improved, but not enough to catch up with a stagnant Tomcat.
(2) IIS has improved, but so has Tomcat.
Should I make a bad assumption to, and say "Why do you think only IIS has improved?"
Werecently (~a year ago) switched from IIS to Apache where, and got a better performance (still on Windows). With the hardware upgrades we did end up moving to Linux.
So, he did the first test wrong.
Rather than doing it right, within the scope of his rules, he switch to 'cheating' like moving over to Linux, even though he said his tests would be Windows.
There are a few tricks and techniques he could use to speed up .NET sockets - I wonder if he actually used them? i.e. it has the ability to create a socket with a callback, so it automatically spawns incoming requests on a new thread. Did he do that, or did he use a similarly naive approach as he did on Java?
(I didn't notice links to the source code when I read it, so it's possible I missed useful info)
Overall, I'd say the test showed that the author doesn't know how to benchmark.
IIS sucks pure and simple. Even on Windows I use Apache. It's just better.
But I also noticed, he spent a lot of time and effort 'breaking the rules' to make Java better, and working to make it more efficient, but he didn't do that for C#.
So we have... Java's raw implementation is slower than C#s
But when combined with a server, Java Tomcat (still Linux? Or is it back to Windows) is faster than C# on IIS/Windows.
No shit shirlock, really? Might as well add Python and ModWSGI on Apache then. Have, what is usually regarded as the performance king, in the comparison.
I think just about everyone knows, performance wise with the same hardware, a server will be faster on about any *NIX but MacOS (and probably even that) than Windows.
I think just about everyone ALSO knows that IIS is a steaming pile, and Apache is pretty damn good (IIRC TomCat is built on Apache).
Now, if we compare the raw tests (C# vs Java) C# is faster, but when we move to the web servers, suddenly Java is better. That tells me... IIS is significantly (orders of magnitude) worse than Tomcat/Apache.
That wasn't news a decade ago.
And this is article longer a comparison of Java/C#
Not disagreeing with the access point, but I've seen people making more of an issue on the fact that the employee was making the profit. Yeah, the token issue was bad, and has serious legal, ethical and security repercussions.
It isn't.
My argument is that the employer and employee should be considered on equal terms (though I can think of good arguments for favoring the employee, from a pure economic standpoint).
Actually, I've seen them with USB connections so you don't have to type in the code.
Sorry, typos happen. Get over it. The ability to type perfectly does not imply knowledge of a subject, nor does the inability to type perfectly imply lack of knowledge of a subject.
Oh, I see, you didn't have a good argument, so you were going for a straw man. Nice. How can you be expected to be taken seriously when all you can argue with is logical fallacies while avoiding the topic at hand?
Note: that was sarcasm - there should have been a question mark at the end. They should be put on equal footing, or because the employees are more likely to spend the money (i.e. not invest which aggregates more money to them), and therefore keep a pool of money that will help draw and encourage investors, even in a stagnate economy... I can even seen putting some favoritism towards the employee doing it.
Not if you are in a warp bubble.
Light would impact the bubble across the front 'face'. Depending on how distorted, you could see everything that hit and would be directed towards your position on anywhere from all or none of that front 'face'.
Now, if you didn't have a warp bubble around you, and traveled at the speed of light, it would probably appear solid field, since light would be heading straight in to every point of your eye, with the field being cut off more by how you turn your head or eye.
So, less than ~37 years...?
You would see light from the outside, but consider
(1) warped space bends light - this will distort it
(2) The faster you go, the more light will hit the front (including what you catch up to), less will hit the back (when your bubble of space time is moving faster than the speed of light, you'll be outrunning it), and the less time something coming in from the side will have to actually cross the threshold...
Meaning, more light in front, less from the sides/back.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, dumbfuck.
Provided you are cruising (i.e. not accelerating), you are not moving to the space around you. There are no fixed reference frames, that's one of the key points about physics.
The earth? It's moving/accelerating around the sun. The sun? it's moving/accelerating around the galactic center. The galactic center (or galaxy for that matter, for this calc. they are the same) is moving relative to all of the other galaxies, nearby or anywhere, and it's doubtful any two are moving at the same speed.
Oh, how about the universal center of mass? Good luck with that can of worms.
Yes, it's bad if the employee has 400% markup, but good business if the company does it.
I agree, however, I suspect you'd get a lot more issues from the con/fly-by-night groups.
Yeah, but without these regulations, crap designed to be cheap rather than attempted as a design to work would get pushed through, and people would die, while the con artist who did it would funnel the money away and find ways to hide behind the legal system.
At least there is some competition, even if it is slowed down, there are multiple companies in the market, and each will still try to get sales from the other guy.
Does security need improved? Yes. Will it happend? Eventually, when enough people are hurt from the lack of security. Deregulation will just spur a whole new slew of issues. Maybe something should instead be done to streamline the regulations.
No silly, Macs give you the frowny face.
Windows will just give you a hex string for a memory location that will disappear and try to reboot the patient before you can record it or make sense of it.
Don't think it has squat to do with either. It just means people are getting used to absurd things that we would have previously wrote off as urban legends.
I doubt anyone is going to see God, Mohammed, Buddha or Jesus on youtube without it being an obvious mockup or hoax, regardless of whether or not any of the do/did exist.
As for sci-fi... Youtube isn't going to change the fact that the hands that guide that station are a bunch of retards that like to pump out and/or watch cheap overly-formulaic "sci-fi" and "gorror" (not horror, gorror - the subset of horror focused more on gore than suspense)
But then again, when ever I hear someone say, "that couldn't happen, the odds are a [insert large order of magnitude number here] to one!" I tend to respond to, how many events with such odds are there, and how often do they have a chance of occurring? At that point, a life where you don't run into or truthfully hear of at least a few of the really oddball things happening, is the really unlikely event
It's been a long time since I've seen a browser WITHOUT a shitty interface :-(
That includes Chrome (probably the worst IMO), Opera and Firefox. A few years ago, I liked IE and Firefox, but they are trying too hard to mimic Chrome and Opera.
It's pretty bad what you start to think the browser with the best interface is lynx... At least it gets minimalist right.
Also, there's the consideration of failure raite in RAID-0 agains
1) a single independant drive that does the work of those n drives in RAID-0
and
2) Haveing the same n drives do that work.
Finally, lifespan, which is what I was thinking of -
If one drive has a life expectancy of an average of 5 years, given the failure distribution average over time, does a second drive in the array take it down to 2.5 years, 4, years, or something else?
You also have to consider the likelihood of a drive failing at all (there's the possibility that you will cease needing them before they fail). Add to that the likelihood of failure during a given time frame - Drives done have an even percent failure rate every month of life.