This is the sort of BS one expects from Sony or MS, but Nintendo never used to attack its own customer base. Sad how the last great player-focused games company has fallen.
A far better system: loser pays his opponent the lesser of the two side's legal costs. This way, the little guy can still sue the mega-corp, as he's never on the hook for more than double his own legal costs.
I've never seen a problem with the profit motive. I want doctors to make a lot of money, so that smart people choose to become doctors. However, the details matter.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. For some specialist workloads, GPUs are amazingly fast. But if you still need a GUI, why not use the built-in graphics processing from the CPU, to avoid any load on the GPU doing the real work?
Very true. But Bush isn't currently in office. Obama can still affect future legislation in a meaningful way, and those congresscritters can still effect meaningful legislation. Let's keep the focus on those actually in office, and drop the partisan BS. Neither party is on our side here, but politicians still care if enough of a stink is raised among voters (the geek voice doesn't matter, but when they start getting calls from friends and family asking about stuff, you bet it matters). I think most people actually care about being spied on--it's programmed into us, as with most mammals, at a pretty fundamental level to treat strangers watching us as hostile--but most people don't yet realize the extent. There's also still hope for the courts.
I believe the German high court recently ruled as unconstitutional the cooperation between their own intel agency and the NSA, on the basis that the NSA does not comply with German law when spying on German citizens. Perhaps we can manage the same?
No, it was a fully mature "line editor", designed to the constraints of punchcards, coupled to a DB of sorts that held all source files. There was no change tracking in the usual sense, but it would show who last changed each line, and preserve that meta-data across renames.
You're not arguing against "cost-effective", you're arguing against incompetence. There's also a real problem in the medical industry today with piling on 6 tests when 1-2 will do, either as a CYA or simply to ramp up costs - which is terrible, as it really inflates the cost of getting e.g. an MRI far beyond what it would cost without needless testing.
I've found it helps to actually talk through the "trouble-shooting process" if the first thing the doc shoves you out the door with doesn't work. If you come in with a set of symptoms, the doc is going to treat the most likely cause of those symptoms (assuming that treatment doesn't have significant side-effects), and likely won't want to spend much time on that first visit. Mostly, that actually works. But when it doesn't, it's important to follow up, and actually hold him to some diagnostic process
Side note - if "cost-effectiveness" is the most important part of medical science to you, I pray you're not a big player in that industry
"Medical care" isn't something there's an infinite supply for. Demand in fact exceeds supply. Shouldn't the industry try to help as many people as efficiently as possible with the available resources? Or, in fewer words: cost-effectiveness.
We only built a handful of modern fighters and B2s. If that handful gives us air supremacy, the B52s work just find for the heavy lifting. Since the military actually tries to save money these days, and budgets only shrink, a cost-effective bomber that's already built and flying certainly has its place.
Utterly control? There's more than one way to buy a book. Since when has (less that total) censorship resulted in fewer books sales? TFA should really be tagged "Streisand Effect", as I'd never heard of this book before.
You're still thinking the old way. The bad way. The CVS way. Where "commit" means "check into a shared place". That's wrong.
Commit just means "to that developer's private branch". Nothing more, Nothing interesting. It's only when changes are later merged into some common place that everything you're thinking of comes into play.
Are you using some outdated version control system where branching or merging takes more than 2 seconds? Sure, then what you said above makes sense - party like it's 1999!
It remains one of the stupidest ideas in computing history: making delete permission different from modify permission. It solves no problem, creates many problems, and PHBs think it's clever.
Meanwhile, no one ever bothers to turn off "execute" permission by default in NTFS, despite it being such a good and common best practice in the Unix world.
Version control is not meant to be used as a backup, every commit should be deliberate, reviewed and well explained in the comments. Vide the post mortem of the heartbleed bug (or many other similar ones).
Only if you have the ancient, outdated, bad, deprecated, idiotic, CVS view of version control. To quote Linus "if you still use CVS, you're stupid, and probably ugly". Hopefully no one still does, but that "branching is expensive" mindset persists.
A commit is precisely a backup, nothing more. A way to make you your work survive dropping your laptop. A merge back into a real branch should be the point of careful review.
When I started in the industry, I used an ancient mainframe code editor, and it "committed" after every line and it had no undo. Uphill through the snow, both ways, I tell ya! At least now as we come back around the wheel to auto-save, we have the chance to do it better.
This is a solved problem: Office e.g. does a merry dance when saving files (save, then rename) to avoid exactly this problem, since it used to be such a big issue around 2000.
You can protect against user error; you can protect against Acts of God; but I remain unconvinced you can protect against Acts of Cat.
The concept actually makes sense, when you remember that the bombers for a time had a longer range than the fighters, and would have to fend for themselves over Germany with no fighter escort - so carrying the fighters inside the bombers, hey, it was worth a try.
I think the idea made more sense when Zepplins were still being pondered by the military, but I'm not sure anyone ever had a good plan for actually recovering the fighters after launching them.
No, you can't just take a Windows app and "compile for ARM". That used to be the way for win32 code - if you actually followed the spec, you'd work just fine on e.g. Dec Alpha. And that should be the way for C#, but for whatever reason the full.NET library just isn't there on RT.
If the majority of existing Windows code could be brought to RT cheaply and easily, it wouldn't be joining the Kin and the Zune! (And MS is giving Windows away for free now for smaller form factors, if you missed that announcement.)
Anybody remember the series The Day the Universe Changed? It was mostly about history, but at the end of the run James Burke made one prediction of his own about the future, about a technology that would change the world yet again: GPS.
What he demo'd was what we'd call today 4U of rack-mount gear, not including the generator. It took about 15 years to be just a component of a phone.
Sure, all MHz are not created equal, but still, there's plenty of Windows software that was written in the 200MHz days that's still in use that I suspect would run just fine on my phone. Win32 is reasonably fast and lightweight by modern standards, when compared to the CLR and JVM.
It still amazes me that you can't just run normal Windows on the ARM-based surface. The Windows kernel has always (well, the NT fork that is modern Windows) been built for multiple processor architectures. The whol C# infrastructure is as cross-platform in architecture as Java is (if not in CLR implementation availability). Ballmer must have really been off his meds when they didn't leverage those advantages to have "real Windows software" on the ARM.
But of course Ballmer's MS was all about ignoring the fact that legacy apps are all Windows has ever had going for it. People wrote for it because people already ran it for their legacy apps, and the cycle continued. Now what?
Slashdot Mirror
And you blame that on the profit motive because? The VA hospital system does so much better? Have you read about the follies of the NHS?
Nintendo has been about controlling devs for the benefit of the player, vice versa is new-ish.
This is the sort of BS one expects from Sony or MS, but Nintendo never used to attack its own customer base. Sad how the last great player-focused games company has fallen.
I like the way he contrasts "Republicans" with "normal people". Should we wear gold stars now, so the normal people can know an keep their distance?
Republicans are about half the country, and not especially the richer half. It's about values, not about net worth.
A far better system: loser pays his opponent the lesser of the two side's legal costs. This way, the little guy can still sue the mega-corp, as he's never on the hook for more than double his own legal costs.
I've never seen a problem with the profit motive. I want doctors to make a lot of money, so that smart people choose to become doctors. However, the details matter.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. For some specialist workloads, GPUs are amazingly fast. But if you still need a GUI, why not use the built-in graphics processing from the CPU, to avoid any load on the GPU doing the real work?
Very true. But Bush isn't currently in office. Obama can still affect future legislation in a meaningful way, and those congresscritters can still effect meaningful legislation. Let's keep the focus on those actually in office, and drop the partisan BS. Neither party is on our side here, but politicians still care if enough of a stink is raised among voters (the geek voice doesn't matter, but when they start getting calls from friends and family asking about stuff, you bet it matters). I think most people actually care about being spied on--it's programmed into us, as with most mammals, at a pretty fundamental level to treat strangers watching us as hostile--but most people don't yet realize the extent. There's also still hope for the courts.
I believe the German high court recently ruled as unconstitutional the cooperation between their own intel agency and the NSA, on the basis that the NSA does not comply with German law when spying on German citizens. Perhaps we can manage the same?
No, it was a fully mature "line editor", designed to the constraints of punchcards, coupled to a DB of sorts that held all source files. There was no change tracking in the usual sense, but it would show who last changed each line, and preserve that meta-data across renames.
You're not arguing against "cost-effective", you're arguing against incompetence. There's also a real problem in the medical industry today with piling on 6 tests when 1-2 will do, either as a CYA or simply to ramp up costs - which is terrible, as it really inflates the cost of getting e.g. an MRI far beyond what it would cost without needless testing.
I've found it helps to actually talk through the "trouble-shooting process" if the first thing the doc shoves you out the door with doesn't work. If you come in with a set of symptoms, the doc is going to treat the most likely cause of those symptoms (assuming that treatment doesn't have significant side-effects), and likely won't want to spend much time on that first visit. Mostly, that actually works. But when it doesn't, it's important to follow up, and actually hold him to some diagnostic process
Side note - if "cost-effectiveness" is the most important part of medical science to you, I pray you're not a big player in that industry
"Medical care" isn't something there's an infinite supply for. Demand in fact exceeds supply. Shouldn't the industry try to help as many people as efficiently as possible with the available resources? Or, in fewer words: cost-effectiveness.
Not if you count "war spending" together with the rest of the military budget (and why wouldn't you?). The peak was in 2010.
We only built a handful of modern fighters and B2s. If that handful gives us air supremacy, the B52s work just find for the heavy lifting. Since the military actually tries to save money these days, and budgets only shrink, a cost-effective bomber that's already built and flying certainly has its place.
Goddess, surely. Repent ye sins of carbon emission lest she beat thee with a hockey stick!
Utterly control? There's more than one way to buy a book. Since when has (less that total) censorship resulted in fewer books sales? TFA should really be tagged "Streisand Effect", as I'd never heard of this book before.
You're still thinking the old way. The bad way. The CVS way. Where "commit" means "check into a shared place". That's wrong.
Commit just means "to that developer's private branch". Nothing more, Nothing interesting. It's only when changes are later merged into some common place that everything you're thinking of comes into play.
Are you using some outdated version control system where branching or merging takes more than 2 seconds? Sure, then what you said above makes sense - party like it's 1999!
It remains one of the stupidest ideas in computing history: making delete permission different from modify permission. It solves no problem, creates many problems, and PHBs think it's clever.
Meanwhile, no one ever bothers to turn off "execute" permission by default in NTFS, despite it being such a good and common best practice in the Unix world.
Version control is not meant to be used as a backup, every commit should be deliberate, reviewed and well explained in the comments. Vide the post mortem of the heartbleed bug (or many other similar ones).
Only if you have the ancient, outdated, bad, deprecated, idiotic, CVS view of version control. To quote Linus "if you still use CVS, you're stupid, and probably ugly". Hopefully no one still does, but that "branching is expensive" mindset persists.
A commit is precisely a backup, nothing more. A way to make you your work survive dropping your laptop. A merge back into a real branch should be the point of careful review.
When I started in the industry, I used an ancient mainframe code editor, and it "committed" after every line and it had no undo. Uphill through the snow, both ways, I tell ya! At least now as we come back around the wheel to auto-save, we have the chance to do it better.
This is a solved problem: Office e.g. does a merry dance when saving files (save, then rename) to avoid exactly this problem, since it used to be such a big issue around 2000.
You can protect against user error; you can protect against Acts of God; but I remain unconvinced you can protect against Acts of Cat.
The concept actually makes sense, when you remember that the bombers for a time had a longer range than the fighters, and would have to fend for themselves over Germany with no fighter escort - so carrying the fighters inside the bombers, hey, it was worth a try.
I think the idea made more sense when Zepplins were still being pondered by the military, but I'm not sure anyone ever had a good plan for actually recovering the fighters after launching them.
No, you can't just take a Windows app and "compile for ARM". That used to be the way for win32 code - if you actually followed the spec, you'd work just fine on e.g. Dec Alpha. And that should be the way for C#, but for whatever reason the full .NET library just isn't there on RT.
If the majority of existing Windows code could be brought to RT cheaply and easily, it wouldn't be joining the Kin and the Zune! (And MS is giving Windows away for free now for smaller form factors, if you missed that announcement.)
Anybody remember the series The Day the Universe Changed? It was mostly about history, but at the end of the run
James Burke made one prediction of his own about the future, about a technology that would change the world yet again: GPS.
What he demo'd was what we'd call today 4U of rack-mount gear, not including the generator. It took about 15 years to be just a component of a phone.
Sure, all MHz are not created equal, but still, there's plenty of Windows software that was written in the 200MHz days that's still in use that I suspect would run just fine on my phone. Win32 is reasonably fast and lightweight by modern standards, when compared to the CLR and JVM.
It still amazes me that you can't just run normal Windows on the ARM-based surface. The Windows kernel has always (well, the NT fork that is modern Windows) been built for multiple processor architectures. The whol C# infrastructure is as cross-platform in architecture as Java is (if not in CLR implementation availability). Ballmer must have really been off his meds when they didn't leverage those advantages to have "real Windows software" on the ARM.
But of course Ballmer's MS was all about ignoring the fact that legacy apps are all Windows has ever had going for it. People wrote for it because people already ran it for their legacy apps, and the cycle continued. Now what?