Maybe they meant "jaw-dropping slow"? Even for a rotary drive, that doesn't strike me as terribly impressive.
As far as latency vs. throughput, which is more important varies by your usage.
With RAID setups, you'll want lower latency drives, as throughput can be increased with more drives. For you OS/application disks, you'll want lower latency, since you are usually dealing with smaller data files. For "pure data" disks, throughput may be better, unless you have a lot of simultaneous reads/writes, in which case latency can be more important (or equally important).
It really varies on the use, and there is no universal "best" between the two (although latency needs a lot more respect than it'http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/18/1333230# Previews given).
I think you said it best - not sure about the invisible menu part, the constantly changing makes me think of the apple standards, the globally placed which counters it, also makes me think of the apple standard.
I'll take a menu that hangs out in the same portion of my screen as the application I'm running, thanks.
maybe, but the kids printing it aren't the problem, they probably won't be printing it on school printers - it's the teachers printing & handing out.
Also, you can mark up your own print outs just as easily as a computer screen (or easier, depending on what you are trying to mark, and your skill set).
Finally the group of people that finds electronic documents great for reference (searchable) but lousy for through-reading is still a sizable minority.
It might save money, but I'm rather suspicious, that's all, especially if you add in costs for think like ink, printer maintenance, etc, you are probably limited to printing out under 10% of the book per year to keep it cost-effective.
But, I think this is at the grade school level, not the college level. Which means, a new copy will be printed, at minimum, once a year. At that point, it becomes a question of how many years the books are expected to last, at somewhere between 5 and 10 years average life expectancy of the books, it'll be cheaper to print than buy (I'm taking that $150 estimate as WAY too high for a grade school book - college text books, except in a few 'high end' fields - specialties in some of the harder sciences and medicines, don't even cost that much.
If that is accurate, and we assume 1/3 ream of paper ($15 ream / $5 book?) per book, no ink costs, no printer maintenance, no licensing fees, then we get the same cost in 4-5 years from printing as we do from standard text books over their lifetimes. Given a standard textbook as 4-5 times that in lifetime from the article... This will SIGNIFICANTLY increase costs.
Actually, I am. Admittedly, I don't deal much with XML. Still, if I don't know what data is, do I want it floating around? It could be valid, or it could be malicious, designed to target some platform. Either keeping it or dropping it will cause people to complain. But keeping it requires adding extra "what to do with data I don't understand" logic. Now that I think about it, it could probably just be handled with an XML read/write engine the can can tell where to put something based on the tag names, and the XML scheme (assuming there is only one place it can be put, isn't that the problem with ODF right now - this can go to multiple places?), but as soon as there is ambiguity, you need extra logic. It's easier just to add a couple of lines to say "I don't know what the hell this is", and decide to fail gracefully (just drop it and continue), or non-gracefully (halt the opening of the document).
Given Microsoft's record with security issues in bad data, I'm not surprised they'd dump something they don't recognize.
It depends. If it is a gene you yourself designed, then it is a reasonable target for a patent (or, more likely, copyright). However, if it's a gene that occurs in nature, then it makes no more sense to patent that gene than a species of plant or animal, a rock you found walking into work in the morning, an ocean or a star (stellar, not media - actually, maybe both would make sense, thought the latter isn't natural).
I'm not sure giving it to AMD would be right in this situation, but at the same time, it is a rather small slap in the wrist. A better spending would be to look at all of Intels competitors in all segments, and possibly do some name-recognition PR (not designed to make the competitor look good or bad, just simply to put the name in the playing field).
I think the difference here is that Office Max can't give you a bulk discount contingent on you not buy from staples.
Ex (ok): Office Max: Pens are $1/ea, but if you buy 100,000+, they are $0.75/ea Ex (not ok): Office Max: Pens are $1/ea, but if you buy 100,000+ AND no more than 10% of your purchased inventory comes from our competators, they are $0.75/ea
And if they DO collect any money, that is also great because as the wise man said, "It is immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
He wasn't a wise man, he was a greedy man. Everyone who cons people, could instead be doing something productive an making the world a better place for all. Everything is interrelated, and directly or indirectly, things will come back to bite the stammers in the butt (legal issues, worsened economy if there are enough scammers, etc.) the overall pain caused by these things is usually in excess of the overall benefit to the one or few receiving from the scam. Also, people hit by such scams rarely learn. So, no, getting scammed now, is unlikely to prevent it later.
And, of course, the previous reply to your post made a good point too.
Well, if you need to run a computer at lower resolution to conveniently enlarge things, it takes up too much real-estate when it's open to see what your formatting is doing to the page. The little buttons at the bottom right corner of each ribbon section, are still tiny and hard to find - the ones that open the font or paragraph properties modification windows, for example. Not with the ribbon itself, but if you want to change some of the general settings, you click the office logo, and you get something akin to the file menu - with many task options on the left, and on the right a bunch of recent documents, below the documents (not the task options) is the office settings button. If you are severely nearsighted or have a lot of nerve damage in the eye, that damn thing is hard to find without good directions.
In TFS it says the box is "in line", not a popup. My guess with a description like that is it will take the page real estate that the ad would normally take, and not interfere (provided it doesn't get the ability to act like a pop-under, and I doubt it will).
What's the problem with this? If you don't like it, don't click the button. It gives you an option to support the sites you like by displaying their ads, and ignore ads on the remaining sites you don't find worth it.
Don't forget to make sure it's difficult for the visually impaired to use, and impossible for those relying on screen readers to explore the interface as a sighted person could do! You're 99% of the way there already, I'm sure you can come up with the remaining 1%
BSD is one of those things that I've been interested in doing, especially early on. It is arguably more secure than Linux, is definitely older and potentially more secure.
In general, BSDs do have a longer lineage than Linux, and they seem to have better security as well. However OpenBSD is the only one the is exceptionally notable in the security standpoint.
1) At the time, getting stuff installed was more of a chore.
I don't know, I've not used NetBSD. Install from packages on FreeBSD is fairly trivial. As long as you don't go crazy with your make.conf, install from source is pretty reliable and trivial as well.
2) Although they had similar backgrounds and technologies, the differences were enough that it was almost a complete re-learn. RPM didn't work. Init was totally different. Commands such as ps, at, etc. had different options.
Their backgrounds aren't really similar. I wouldn't expect RPM to work any more on *BSD than I would expect it to work on Windows or Mac. Well, maybe a bit more than on Windows. It doesn't even work across all Linux distros (and in my experience, I had better luck with apt on RH, than RPM. The exception being for the Linux Compatibility Layer, I would expect RPM to properly install stuff there (and it does!)
As for init, yes, it is rather different, but there are several different init systems out there for *nix and *nix-like operating systems. You can get two or three of them on Linux.
3) Didn't have support for multi-core systems. (at the time, I believe that's long under the bridge now)
I've had SMP on FreeBSD for a long time, I expect OpenBSD was the same way. However, prior to FBSD7, you had to change some kernel options to get SMP. I'm guessing OpenBSD was the same way.
Bottom line? I'd started to build a business that continues to this day using Linux as my architecture. In order to move over, I'd have to port over all my administration scripts, and much of my software to an environment that was just different enough to make me *think* I knew the answer when I didn't. Porting would have been somewhat expensive, and the case to make for the switch was marginal.
True, but no one is asking you to switch. Keep with Linux, if it works for you, stick with it.
In my experience, I spend less time in a year doing administrative tasks on a FreeBSD box, than I do in a month on a Linux box. But it's a mindset thing. FreeBSD is better designed for my mindset. There are people for whom the Linux mindset is better, or the Windows, or the Mac. It's good we have options so more people can have computers they can use.
Long live BSD!
And Linux, Windows, MacOS as well. May BeOS and Amiga be raised from the dead in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they meant "jaw-dropping slow"? Even for a rotary drive, that doesn't strike me as terribly impressive.
As far as latency vs. throughput, which is more important varies by your usage.
With RAID setups, you'll want lower latency drives, as throughput can be increased with more drives.
For you OS/application disks, you'll want lower latency, since you are usually dealing with smaller data files.
For "pure data" disks, throughput may be better, unless you have a lot of simultaneous reads/writes, in which case latency can be more important (or equally important).
It really varies on the use, and there is no universal "best" between the two (although latency needs a lot more respect than it'http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/18/1333230#
Previews given).
Metal free production is nice, but in the end, it's not just what is used in production, but how you take out the undesirable things.
Benzene and many derivatives, are just as toxic (if not more so) than a lot of metals.
Please tell me you are joking. The moon is *NOT* a light object in any scale NASA can significantly affect.
I think you said it best - not sure about the invisible menu part, the constantly changing makes me think of the apple standards, the globally placed which counters it, also makes me think of the apple standard.
I'll take a menu that hangs out in the same portion of my screen as the application I'm running, thanks.
maybe, but the kids printing it aren't the problem, they probably won't be printing it on school printers - it's the teachers printing & handing out.
Also, you can mark up your own print outs just as easily as a computer screen (or easier, depending on what you are trying to mark, and your skill set).
Finally the group of people that finds electronic documents great for reference (searchable) but lousy for through-reading is still a sizable minority.
It might save money, but I'm rather suspicious, that's all, especially if you add in costs for think like ink, printer maintenance, etc, you are probably limited to printing out under 10% of the book per year to keep it cost-effective.
But, I think this is at the grade school level, not the college level. Which means, a new copy will be printed, at minimum, once a year. At that point, it becomes a question of how many years the books are expected to last, at somewhere between 5 and 10 years average life expectancy of the books, it'll be cheaper to print than buy (I'm taking that $150 estimate as WAY too high for a grade school book - college text books, except in a few 'high end' fields - specialties in some of the harder sciences and medicines, don't even cost that much.
http://www.nyla.org/index.php?page_id=1520
If that is accurate, and we assume 1/3 ream of paper ($15 ream / $5 book?) per book, no ink costs, no printer maintenance, no licensing fees, then we get the same cost in 4-5 years from printing as we do from standard text books over their lifetimes. Given a standard textbook as 4-5 times that in lifetime from the article... This will SIGNIFICANTLY increase costs.
Actually, I am. Admittedly, I don't deal much with XML. Still, if I don't know what data is, do I want it floating around? It could be valid, or it could be malicious, designed to target some platform. Either keeping it or dropping it will cause people to complain. But keeping it requires adding extra "what to do with data I don't understand" logic. Now that I think about it, it could probably just be handled with an XML read/write engine the can can tell where to put something based on the tag names, and the XML scheme (assuming there is only one place it can be put, isn't that the problem with ODF right now - this can go to multiple places?), but as soon as there is ambiguity, you need extra logic. It's easier just to add a couple of lines to say "I don't know what the hell this is", and decide to fail gracefully (just drop it and continue), or non-gracefully (halt the opening of the document).
Given Microsoft's record with security issues in bad data, I'm not surprised they'd dump something they don't recognize.
So, it's lazier to load up & store something you don't recognize, than to ignore it?
Gotcha.
Personally, I'm waiting for Like-Like on my two-wheel transportation device.
I'm just worried it'll eat my shield.
That's Gollum, not goblin!
That's why I like copyright. Meiosis fits quite well into fair use.
Then everyone harmed by the gene would have the right to a lawsuit.
It depends. If it is a gene you yourself designed, then it is a reasonable target for a patent (or, more likely, copyright). However, if it's a gene that occurs in nature, then it makes no more sense to patent that gene than a species of plant or animal, a rock you found walking into work in the morning, an ocean or a star (stellar, not media - actually, maybe both would make sense, thought the latter isn't natural).
I'm not sure giving it to AMD would be right in this situation, but at the same time, it is a rather small slap in the wrist. A better spending would be to look at all of Intels competitors in all segments, and possibly do some name-recognition PR (not designed to make the competitor look good or bad, just simply to put the name in the playing field).
I think the difference here is that Office Max can't give you a bulk discount contingent on you not buy from staples.
Ex (ok):
Office Max: Pens are $1/ea, but if you buy 100,000+, they are $0.75/ea
Ex (not ok):
Office Max: Pens are $1/ea, but if you buy 100,000+ AND no more than 10% of your purchased inventory comes from our competators, they are $0.75/ea
And if they DO collect any money, that is also great because as the wise man said, "It is immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
He wasn't a wise man, he was a greedy man. Everyone who cons people, could instead be doing something productive an making the world a better place for all. Everything is interrelated, and directly or indirectly, things will come back to bite the stammers in the butt (legal issues, worsened economy if there are enough scammers, etc.) the overall pain caused by these things is usually in excess of the overall benefit to the one or few receiving from the scam. Also, people hit by such scams rarely learn. So, no, getting scammed now, is unlikely to prevent it later.
And, of course, the previous reply to your post made a good point too.
The problem with the snake oil salesmen, is they make the honest people with similar appearing ideas look bad when they finally show up.
Well, if you need to run a computer at lower resolution to conveniently enlarge things, it takes up too much real-estate when it's open to see what your formatting is doing to the page. The little buttons at the bottom right corner of each ribbon section, are still tiny and hard to find - the ones that open the font or paragraph properties modification windows, for example. Not with the ribbon itself, but if you want to change some of the general settings, you click the office logo, and you get something akin to the file menu - with many task options on the left, and on the right a bunch of recent documents, below the documents (not the task options) is the office settings button. If you are severely nearsighted or have a lot of nerve damage in the eye, that damn thing is hard to find without good directions.
Actually, they are used interchangeably. Vision impaired is sometimes used, but visually impaired is used more often.
In TFS it says the box is "in line", not a popup. My guess with a description like that is it will take the page real estate that the ad would normally take, and not interfere (provided it doesn't get the ability to act like a pop-under, and I doubt it will).
What's the problem with this? If you don't like it, don't click the button. It gives you an option to support the sites you like by displaying their ads, and ignore ads on the remaining sites you don't find worth it.
Don't forget to make sure it's difficult for the visually impaired to use, and impossible for those relying on screen readers to explore the interface as a sighted person could do! You're 99% of the way there already, I'm sure you can come up with the remaining 1%
Actually, what's really sad, I've seen the use of "fishes" a LOT in technical writing in the environmental/ecological sciences.
It makes me cry.
So do I. My ex girlfriends best friend.
You'd look at this woman and not have interest in anything for a month.
But, a month after seeing here, and all of a sudden, cute gals are once again cute.
Actually, if I remember correctly, excess testosterone gets converted into estrogen doesn't it?
I suspect those that stopped... Didn't like man boobs.
BSD is one of those things that I've been interested in doing, especially early on. It is arguably more secure than Linux, is definitely older and potentially more secure.
In general, BSDs do have a longer lineage than Linux, and they seem to have better security as well. However OpenBSD is the only one the is exceptionally notable in the security standpoint.
1) At the time, getting stuff installed was more of a chore.
I don't know, I've not used NetBSD. Install from packages on FreeBSD is fairly trivial. As long as you don't go crazy with your make.conf, install from source is pretty reliable and trivial as well.
2) Although they had similar backgrounds and technologies, the differences were enough that it was almost a complete re-learn. RPM didn't work. Init was totally different. Commands such as ps, at, etc. had different options.
Their backgrounds aren't really similar. I wouldn't expect RPM to work any more on *BSD than I would expect it to work on Windows or Mac. Well, maybe a bit more than on Windows. It doesn't even work across all Linux distros (and in my experience, I had better luck with apt on RH, than RPM. The exception being for the Linux Compatibility Layer, I would expect RPM to properly install stuff there (and it does!)
As for init, yes, it is rather different, but there are several different init systems out there for *nix and *nix-like operating systems. You can get two or three of them on Linux.
3) Didn't have support for multi-core systems. (at the time, I believe that's long under the bridge now)
I've had SMP on FreeBSD for a long time, I expect OpenBSD was the same way. However, prior to FBSD7, you had to change some kernel options to get SMP. I'm guessing OpenBSD was the same way.
Bottom line? I'd started to build a business that continues to this day using Linux as my architecture. In order to move over, I'd have to port over all my administration scripts, and much of my software to an environment that was just different enough to make me *think* I knew the answer when I didn't. Porting would have been somewhat expensive, and the case to make for the switch was marginal.
True, but no one is asking you to switch. Keep with Linux, if it works for you, stick with it.
In my experience, I spend less time in a year doing administrative tasks on a FreeBSD box, than I do in a month on a Linux box. But it's a mindset thing. FreeBSD is better designed for my mindset. There are people for whom the Linux mindset is better, or the Windows, or the Mac. It's good we have options so more people can have computers they can use.
Long live BSD!
And Linux, Windows, MacOS as well. May BeOS and Amiga be raised from the dead in the process.