Once again, slashcode blows goats. Instead of Beta, how about we get the ability to edit posts?
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
The most stable isotope of americium (243) has a half-life of 7370 years, so barely radioactive (not sure what they use in smoke detectors, but even 242 has a half-life of 141 years and thus isn't exactly hot.
Uranium 238, which is the vast majority of natural uranium (and basically all of "depleted" uranium) has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. No one rational is afraid of it's radioactivity - it's entirely scare-mongering. This is why no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops. Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
4.47 billion years. No one rational is afraid of it's radioactivity - it's entirely scare-mongering. This is why no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops. Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
SharePoint is the worst possible answer (without extensive user training). It proves it's physically possible to suck and blow at the same time.
The problem is, while there is built-in change tracking for editing a document, it's easier for the user to just upload a new version of the doc, instead of editing the existing doc, which ruins everything - it relaces the existing doc and all editing history.
Maybe it's possible to configure SharePoint to make the wrong thing impossible, but I've sure never seen in so configured. All I ever see are people clobbering one another''s changes and then the yelling starts.
Office365 forces you to the right approach, if you're comfortable with the cloud, and just transparently solves all the problems (or as close as version control ever manages), but lots of people just don't like the cloud.
Sword of Truth started well - I can't fathom why they veered off-story into a bunch of episodic drivel with no overarching plot. Did they only have the rights to the first book?
As 2-ton, 400+ HP sedans go, "25-40" is pretty darn good. Of course, it all depends on what your priorities are - you might be surprised how many Tesla owners rank CO2 fairly low on the list.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics.
Meh, it's more efficient than my 420hp, 3950lb sedan. I think mine has more luxury features, and it was considerably cheaper, but 19MPH is plenty brown (not that I care about this eco-shit, but relative to that you can't really fault the Model S).
Each of those words makes sense by itself, but they don't parse in that order. Surely it installs DRM that breaks your DVD drive, requires an Origin account with credit card number, and burns out your CPU mining bitcoins while you play?
Which is usually indicative of poor design, less than thread-safe code, some sort of infrastructure flaw and/or lack of proper errorhandling.
Right: every real-world large system ever.
Which is why I abandonded developing code for corporations and institutions altogether.
I prefer the "getting paid a lot to put up with that shit" path, but to each his own.
Anyways, what we don't need is more *coders*. We need people taking ownership and taking the effort of understanding the solution rationally, as opposed to delegating responsibility and trusting their "gut feelings".
Only by teaching that logic works, that it's more trustworthy and accurate than gut feelings, will we get there. And coding is a great teaching tool for that because you can see the logic working.
Only because the OS abdicated the role. There's nothing fundamental stopping the phone OS from patching itself across any network, except possibly carriers' desire to be dicks for no reason (a nearly infinite desire).
Printing money like crazy is just a different kind of robbing. But the Fed actually was more clever than that. They printed $2 Trillion while incenting banks to deposit $2 Trillion in reserves with the Fed, thus enabling the government's spending addiction without expanding the money supply. That part was clever. What happens once banks decide to start investing that money they have parked with the Fed is anyone's guess.
Did the Fed invent a new way to support deficit spending in a downturn, or a new way to destroy a currency through hyperinflation? Only time will tell, but kudos for at least trying something new.
(BTW, the Fed didn't buy so much in the way of direct mortgage debt as it did complicated mortgage-backed securities of dubious value. The Fed shouldn't have bailed out anyone. Every single bank involved in those securities should have been allowed to collapse (nothing of value would have been lost), and everyone who signed for a mortgage they couldn't possibly pay deserves bankruptcy. It's not like we have debtors prison: you're clear of bankruptcy after a few years, and maybe learn a thing or two about living within your means in the widow when you can't borrow money.
Thing is, when you run out of money, you cut where you can easily cut to survive, not where it's the best trade-off. That's why a sane approach is to start making budget cuts before it's a crisis, where you can have some sort of rational discussion about the trade-offs. But we don't have that sort of society or government, sadly: anyone who suggests cutting anything before it's a crisis is demagogued as a heartless greedy bastard who just wants to hurt people for no reason at all.
That's all the same skill as coding: the ability to reason out basic stuff for yourself. What we certainly don't need is people treating science like the new religion, after memorizing it wholesale.
What we need is to teach people to ask some very simple questions of themselves when confronted with life's choices, small and large: * What am I trying to achieve? * What are the most likely outcomes of this choice? * Am I therefore a fucking idiot if I do this?
I look at the twisted society that the government and the corporations have created
Back in the 60's and the 70's, I and my peers fought our battles
Back in they day, youth staged protests that actively turned people against the causes they claimed to support. No one cared, or course, because no one cared about results, only intentions, and getting laid and or high, which the protests were the best social scene for. That hasn't changed at all.
The lawmakers are nearly 100% in thrall to the rich and powerful;
Just like though all of history, good times and bad. The good times come when those lawmakers have limited power, the bad when they have near-absolute power. In no case do the lawmakers hurt those who are really in charge.
Anything, and I do mean anything, that would help these people to think and in any amount reduce their proclivity to swallow the agitprop whole while begging for another, sir, would be of some kind of service to us all.
Finally, something we agree on. Funny how we came to opposite conclusions on everything else. All that logic and reason becoming common will change is that the propaganda won't insult our intelligence so much, but I'll take any sort of improvement.
Far too many people have built-in barriers to performing these steps
Belief in magical entities that change the world at will, or belief in absolute rules have to be the biggest barriers.
Coding is world built entirely from absolute rules and that's why people can't do it. They can't actually say what they mean, they just grunt a bit and expect you to have "common sense". The compiler has absolute rules, however.
And if you don't believe in magical entities that change the world at will, you haven't debugged a sufficiently complex system. "Follow these exact steps and the problem will reproduce about 1 in 5 times, more or less."
If the language is Turing complete, someone will port Quake to it, eventually. Still waiting for Quake ported to C++ template expansion, some I/O challenges there.
You obviously do not understand encryption. Unless a weakness in the underlying algorithms is found, "a faster computer" will never be sufficient to break modern encryption.
"You can't hide secrets from the future with math." - MC Frontalot
Just this week I ran a Commodore 64 emulator inside a Win95 emulator inside Windows server inside a VM. And it was still blazingly fast compared to the old C64 floppy drive!
We're getting to the point now where the exponential increase in speed that made emulation so easy has slacked off, but we're also taking more care to properly document formats and archive software, so that less emulation is needed. I'm sure in 20 years I'll still be able to run that C64 software somewhere.
People are used to MS Office. Have the Office apps on your mobile will be easier for most - and frankly, a huge improvement over the crap most phones come with. All of my older relatives use Skype, so presumably that will be welcome as well. Perhaps all the MS apps appeal more to an older crowd?
There's no way I'm going to increase the risk of exploits on my phone with software from a vendor with such a poor security record as Microsoft
Microsoft's record post-XP is way the hell better than the vast sea of exploits that is Android apps! I have an old Android phone with years-old vulnerabilities that no one has any interest in patching. At least with MS you get a company that understands the need for an update infrastructure.
I have only your post to go on. Which is why I ask something more specific in an interview. When you ask a very general question, you get people who interpret it differently than you intended and don't answer the question you had in mind.
Filesystems are not OS-specific and they don't need drivers. They're bits on disk (or any other storage mechanism). Or blocks on disk, if you prefer.
Sure that's half of what a file system is. But you seem to be missing the fundamental point that a file system is an interface or contract: store stuff like this, read it back like that, with a ton of details for all the corner cases. File systems very often just sit on top of other file systems, and "disk" is itself just an interface or contract, often many layers of abstraction away from physical media.
Hell, my first coding project in my first dev job was to rip out the last vestiges of code that actually knew where on physical disk stuff was stored, code that was written in the late 60s or early 70s, and become dead code in the late 80s.
I didn't see the work "lock" in your summary, nor any mention of crash consistency, which are important topics to at least handwave in any summary (really, where file system developers tend to spend most of their time).
I find too few candidates can even describe to me why doing file access in 2 threads helps.
Maybe so, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with how a filesystem works.
Oh? Well, sure, if you ignore all the actual details, then there's no reason to believe that using multiple threads to read data from the same file system would be any faster. But in practice it is. To explain why, you have to be able to explain the details of at least one of the many layers between the file system interface and physical media: you know, the bit about how file systems work (or perhaps how raid controllers or disk controllers or bus controllers work, though very few candidates know those details without knowing enough about file systems too).
No, the file servers with such small limits are modern, and very high end in some cases, like WORM storage (10x the usual 10x markup for big-big storage: eye-watering prices). Just abusing victims of archiving regulations mercilessly, but for some reason some people prefer them to tape. Gigantic pain in the ass to actually use, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, slashcode blows goats. Instead of Beta, how about we get the ability to edit posts?
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
The most stable isotope of americium (243) has a half-life of 7370 years, so barely radioactive (not sure what they use in smoke detectors, but even 242 has a half-life of 141 years and thus isn't exactly hot.
Uranium 238, which is the vast majority of natural uranium (and basically all of "depleted" uranium) has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. No one rational is afraid of it's radioactivity - it's entirely scare-mongering. This is why no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops. Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
4.47 billion years. No one rational is afraid of it's radioactivity - it's entirely scare-mongering. This is why no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops. Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
SharePoint is the worst possible answer (without extensive user training). It proves it's physically possible to suck and blow at the same time.
The problem is, while there is built-in change tracking for editing a document, it's easier for the user to just upload a new version of the doc, instead of editing the existing doc, which ruins everything - it relaces the existing doc and all editing history.
Maybe it's possible to configure SharePoint to make the wrong thing impossible, but I've sure never seen in so configured. All I ever see are people clobbering one another''s changes and then the yelling starts.
Office365 forces you to the right approach, if you're comfortable with the cloud, and just transparently solves all the problems (or as close as version control ever manages), but lots of people just don't like the cloud.
Ah, so screenwriters who thought they were better than the successful author. Figures.
Sword of Truth started well - I can't fathom why they veered off-story into a bunch of episodic drivel with no overarching plot. Did they only have the rights to the first book?
As 2-ton, 400+ HP sedans go, "25-40" is pretty darn good. Of course, it all depends on what your priorities are - you might be surprised how many Tesla owners rank CO2 fairly low on the list.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics.
Meh, it's more efficient than my 420hp, 3950lb sedan. I think mine has more luxury features, and it was considerably cheaper, but 19MPH is plenty brown (not that I care about this eco-shit, but relative to that you can't really fault the Model S).
provided for free by EA.
Each of those words makes sense by itself, but they don't parse in that order. Surely it installs DRM that breaks your DVD drive, requires an Origin account with credit card number, and burns out your CPU mining bitcoins while you play?
Which is usually indicative of poor design, less than thread-safe code, some sort of infrastructure flaw and/or lack of proper errorhandling.
Right: every real-world large system ever.
Which is why I abandonded developing code for corporations and institutions altogether.
I prefer the "getting paid a lot to put up with that shit" path, but to each his own.
Anyways, what we don't need is more *coders*. We need people taking ownership and taking the effort of understanding the solution rationally, as opposed to delegating responsibility and trusting their "gut feelings".
Only by teaching that logic works, that it's more trustworthy and accurate than gut feelings, will we get there. And coding is a great teaching tool for that because you can see the logic working.
Only because the OS abdicated the role. There's nothing fundamental stopping the phone OS from patching itself across any network, except possibly carriers' desire to be dicks for no reason (a nearly infinite desire).
Printing money like crazy is just a different kind of robbing. But the Fed actually was more clever than that. They printed $2 Trillion while incenting banks to deposit $2 Trillion in reserves with the Fed, thus enabling the government's spending addiction without expanding the money supply. That part was clever. What happens once banks decide to start investing that money they have parked with the Fed is anyone's guess.
Did the Fed invent a new way to support deficit spending in a downturn, or a new way to destroy a currency through hyperinflation? Only time will tell, but kudos for at least trying something new.
(BTW, the Fed didn't buy so much in the way of direct mortgage debt as it did complicated mortgage-backed securities of dubious value. The Fed shouldn't have bailed out anyone. Every single bank involved in those securities should have been allowed to collapse (nothing of value would have been lost), and everyone who signed for a mortgage they couldn't possibly pay deserves bankruptcy. It's not like we have debtors prison: you're clear of bankruptcy after a few years, and maybe learn a thing or two about living within your means in the widow when you can't borrow money.
Thing is, when you run out of money, you cut where you can easily cut to survive, not where it's the best trade-off. That's why a sane approach is to start making budget cuts before it's a crisis, where you can have some sort of rational discussion about the trade-offs. But we don't have that sort of society or government, sadly: anyone who suggests cutting anything before it's a crisis is demagogued as a heartless greedy bastard who just wants to hurt people for no reason at all.
That's all the same skill as coding: the ability to reason out basic stuff for yourself. What we certainly don't need is people treating science like the new religion, after memorizing it wholesale.
What we need is to teach people to ask some very simple questions of themselves when confronted with life's choices, small and large:
* What am I trying to achieve?
* What are the most likely outcomes of this choice?
* Am I therefore a fucking idiot if I do this?
That would go a long, long way.
Fucking slashcode. Certainly Dice will never change anything for the better. Here's the uneaten beginning to my post.
I look at the twisted society that the government and the corporations have created
Society creates corporations and governments, not the other way around.
Back in the 60's and the 70's, I and my peers fought our battles
I look at the twisted society that the government and the corporations have created
Back in the 60's and the 70's, I and my peers fought our battles
Back in they day, youth staged protests that actively turned people against the causes they claimed to support. No one cared, or course, because no one cared about results, only intentions, and getting laid and or high, which the protests were the best social scene for. That hasn't changed at all.
The lawmakers are nearly 100% in thrall to the rich and powerful;
Just like though all of history, good times and bad. The good times come when those lawmakers have limited power, the bad when they have near-absolute power. In no case do the lawmakers hurt those who are really in charge.
Anything, and I do mean anything, that would help these people to think and in any amount reduce their proclivity to swallow the agitprop whole while begging for another, sir, would be of some kind of service to us all.
Finally, something we agree on. Funny how we came to opposite conclusions on everything else. All that logic and reason becoming common will change is that the propaganda won't insult our intelligence so much, but I'll take any sort of improvement.
Far too many people have built-in barriers to performing these steps
Belief in magical entities that change the world at will, or belief in absolute rules have to be the biggest barriers.
Coding is world built entirely from absolute rules and that's why people can't do it. They can't actually say what they mean, they just grunt a bit and expect you to have "common sense". The compiler has absolute rules, however.
And if you don't believe in magical entities that change the world at will, you haven't debugged a sufficiently complex system. "Follow these exact steps and the problem will reproduce about 1 in 5 times, more or less."
If the language is Turing complete, someone will port Quake to it, eventually. Still waiting for Quake ported to C++ template expansion, some I/O challenges there.
I've never had a phone on contract. WTF does my carrier have to do with patching in any damn way?
You obviously do not understand encryption. Unless a weakness in the underlying algorithms is found, "a faster computer" will never be sufficient to break modern encryption.
"You can't hide secrets from the future with math." - MC Frontalot
Good luck on reading that VM image in 15 years.
Just this week I ran a Commodore 64 emulator inside a Win95 emulator inside Windows server inside a VM. And it was still blazingly fast compared to the old C64 floppy drive!
We're getting to the point now where the exponential increase in speed that made emulation so easy has slacked off, but we're also taking more care to properly document formats and archive software, so that less emulation is needed. I'm sure in 20 years I'll still be able to run that C64 software somewhere.
Nah, it's from The Odd Couple, that show about the NASA Astronaut and Russian Cosmonaut who were totally-not-gay roommates. "I'll be your cosmonaut".
People are used to MS Office. Have the Office apps on your mobile will be easier for most - and frankly, a huge improvement over the crap most phones come with. All of my older relatives use Skype, so presumably that will be welcome as well. Perhaps all the MS apps appeal more to an older crowd?
There's no way I'm going to increase the risk of exploits on my phone with software from a vendor with such a poor security record as Microsoft
Microsoft's record post-XP is way the hell better than the vast sea of exploits that is Android apps! I have an old Android phone with years-old vulnerabilities that no one has any interest in patching. At least with MS you get a company that understands the need for an update infrastructure.
Says you, sans evidence.
I have only your post to go on. Which is why I ask something more specific in an interview. When you ask a very general question, you get people who interpret it differently than you intended and don't answer the question you had in mind.
Filesystems are not OS-specific and they don't need drivers. They're bits on disk (or any other storage mechanism). Or blocks on disk, if you prefer.
Sure that's half of what a file system is. But you seem to be missing the fundamental point that a file system is an interface or contract: store stuff like this, read it back like that, with a ton of details for all the corner cases. File systems very often just sit on top of other file systems, and "disk" is itself just an interface or contract, often many layers of abstraction away from physical media.
Hell, my first coding project in my first dev job was to rip out the last vestiges of code that actually knew where on physical disk stuff was stored, code that was written in the late 60s or early 70s, and become dead code in the late 80s.
I didn't see the work "lock" in your summary, nor any mention of crash consistency, which are important topics to at least handwave in any summary (really, where file system developers tend to spend most of their time).
I find too few candidates can even describe to me why doing file access in 2 threads helps.
Maybe so, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with how a filesystem works.
Oh? Well, sure, if you ignore all the actual details, then there's no reason to believe that using multiple threads to read data from the same file system would be any faster. But in practice it is. To explain why, you have to be able to explain the details of at least one of the many layers between the file system interface and physical media: you know, the bit about how file systems work (or perhaps how raid controllers or disk controllers or bus controllers work, though very few candidates know those details without knowing enough about file systems too).
No, the file servers with such small limits are modern, and very high end in some cases, like WORM storage (10x the usual 10x markup for big-big storage: eye-watering prices). Just abusing victims of archiving regulations mercilessly, but for some reason some people prefer them to tape. Gigantic pain in the ass to actually use, that's for sure.