Re:Structural engineering welcomes this.
on
Larrabee ISA Revealed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's a problem with the animator. You don't need complicated software to make good animation--Toy Story should be sufficient evidence of that. You just need talent. Less and less talent these days, actually: if you're playing a game where the avatars are floating, it's because the designers don't give a^H^H^H^H^H^H^H care enough to simulate motion properly.
As an aside, realism is frequently not a goal in animation. You tend to run up against the uncanny valley: all the characters look like zombies. Realism is what made "A Scanner Darkly" so painful to watch, especially as contrasted to "Waking life".
I think Larrabee has somewhat more potential to improve ray tracing. Lighting in games these days seems like layers of, well, kludges. The code works, and it's fast, but it's an ugly, ugly solution.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
Windows devices have one driver available, generally speaking. One hopes that that driver is for the version of windows you currently have. If not, you're generally SOL. Most older hardware cannot be upgraded to the latest version of windows because the drivers are not available.
Linux systems may not have drivers immediately for new hardware, but once a driver is written, it generally stays around for a long time.
Generally speaking, I prefer the latter situation.
What a strange argument. The majority of apps are not "useful", yet your example app is a game? What an odd definition of "useful". The majority of apps in a typical linux repository are extremely useful---for a specific task.
Your argument that commercial apps pay attention to small details is anti-Unix. That may be a cop-out argument, but it's true nonetheless. Unix programs should be large and monolithic only if absolutely necessary. Your "small details" is either something handled by my window manager, or program bloat, depending on whether you're talking about features or glitz.
You're only telling a partial truth when you talk about linux lacking a 'rich commercial ecosystem'. Decades of applied programming philosophy resulted in the app repositories; never has it been shown so conclusively that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The principles driving the open-source ecosystem are also its greatest weakness: there's never going to be a 'rich commercial ecosystem' on linux, and consequently it may never see widespread adoption.
The Unix philosophy is enforced by the GPL. The GPL explicitly does not disallow you from charging money for your software, which can only be construed as proof that RMS has a sense of humor. If you want to have commercial software on a GPL OS, you can't use any GPL'd libraries for your application--which sort of obviates the point of the OS. Because of that, I think it's safe to say that Linux will never be a target platform for games. There may be a market for cross-platform games, but not games that are exclusively for linux. The GPL and games simply do not mix well.
(In my ideal world, the Source engine would use OpenGL, and Steam would be cross-platform. Luckily there has been some effort to that effect.)
It should be clear that neither the lack of a rich commercial ecosystem nor the wonderful 'consistency' of the open source model are causative factors, especially not of each other. They are related results of a programming philosophy.
In a similar vein, Macs are also the result of a specific design philosophy.
Now if only there were a similar excuse for any and all HP software...
Underrated? A whole five words, that nonetheless manages to be inane and pointless? I disagree vehemently.
Your comment about smiting mods is rather non sequitur; as of now there has not been any moderation on that comment. Also, there's nothing 'meta' about the moderation these days: a lamentable change in policy.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
That would be a US Supreme Court ruling; they have consistently upheld the right to anonymous free speech. In an ideal world, it may not be necessary. We don't live in an ideal world. Free speech needs to be protected, and anonymous free speech as part of that.
The question is "do you have a right to anonymity when making political editorials?" That's a different question than "do you have the right to make anonymous political editorials?" The answer to the latter question is "of course". The answer to the former question is "of course not".
Horseshit. The Bill of Rights exists because of anonymous free speech. Also, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting anonymous free speech. Youareentirelywrong in everypoint you make.
The right to anonymous speech is enshrined in the highest law of the land. Whether or not the statements are hurtful is irrelevant. Your political example is particularly clueless.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The parent poster is correct in framing this as a possible abuse of power. It is probably not illegal to reveal someone's identity. It can be illegal to use political power to discover someone's identity.
Your homework assignment (i.e. if you want to debate this without looking like a total idiot) is to prepare an argument against internet anonymity with reference to libel and slander. The links I provided should give you plenty of ammunition. Also, if you dig back through slashdot, there was a recent case in the maryland supreme court (IIRC) involving a fast food franchise trying to subpoena the identities of some critics on the internet, which may or may not have been covered in one of my links. Do note that such an argument is not relevant to the facts of TFA.
Of course there is, but it's not often applied to such circumstances. That's much more likely to be treated as harassment, and handled with a restraint order.
I am not certain, but I believe a private investigator is defined as someone working for hire, e.g. MediaSentry. Private investigators must be licensed the state they are in, and generally there are educational requirements.
I've really been considering making something furry with ears for me Eee, like a felt cover or something, with some velcro to hold it on, perhaps. Vanilla white is terribly boring, it would be girlbait, removable, theoretically washable, and provide some amount of protection for the lappy.
Tests with a messenger bag indicate that heat dispersal is not a big issue.
I can't imagine why someone would want a "manly" netbook. It's just not going to happen. The Eee is pretty damn ugly, the "cute" factor is just a size thing.
There are conflicting reports on that, apparently. This page gives a good overview of the subject, and has links to several scientific studies on the matter.
It also gives, if I read it correctly, an error rate of one bit flip per 14-142 years, varying with a number of factors including height above sea level and the specifics of the memory cell construction. Probably the error rate is towards the high end of that estimate. At the very least it can be said for certain that neither alpha particles nor cosmic rays are likely to be crashing your computer every week.
Yeah, I've noticed that. I think it has more to do with your perceived attitude than the veracity of your statements.
Dyson is also speaking completely out of his field of expertise, without any data in particular to back his statements, against a great number of people who have considerably greater expertise and data. I would humbly suggest that if you are feeling the ire of the community here, it may be helpful to avoid similar behavior.
The article you are linking to is a collection of opinions, some of which are related to the article in question. Most of them seem to have been taken entirely out of context. It presents a one-sided explanation of the results and significance of the study. It does not discuss methodology at all. The quality of the information presented is absolutely terrible, in point of fact, and given the source, it is extremely questionable whether this represents the current scientific consensus on the matter.
Why is it so important for you to push an agenda rather than hard data and unbiased critical analysis? What good does that do?
Please don't talk about Einstein and Jared Diamond in the same context. Jared Diamond and Dyson have not been publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals, they're just assholes with opinions. They have some interesting ideas, but their contributions to climatology and political science are pretty negligible. Especially compared to Einstein, good grief!
Is it really so hard to understand that your position of authority in one field is irrelevant to another, completely unrelated field? You wouldn't take into serious consideration a plumber's opinion on a medical study, why is a physicist qualified to speak about climatology? It's the same damn thing that we keep seeing with the Creationists, where they get professors of geology to decry evolution. It doesn't work that way.
They're not exactly unbiased sources. They are starting from the assumption the global warming isn't real. Skepticism is to be encouraged, and I would certainly champion Dyson over Gore, but you should be out there to find out the facts, to do the best science, not to prove a point one way or the other.
I realize that Science and New Scientist both require paid subscriptions, but you would have done much better to link to those source articles rather than a group of blatant propagandists. If this was good and useful science, I'm sure that it was widely reported by others.
That was obviously a typo, your post obviously a joke, but it's rather ironic that the parent poster's use of the word 'apology' was not actually incorrect, merely archaic.
An apology is a defense or justification of something. Probably the most notable example would be Plato's Apology for Socrates.
I can guarantee you that life exists elsewhere in the universe. The universe is incomprehensibly vast, and it's likely that most of it does not lie within our light cone. If the same laws of physics hold throughout, it is a certainty that the same conditions leading to life on Earth are present elsewhere.
The question is whether life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, since we are basically stuck here. The Milky Way is 100 kly across, IIRC, which may be eventually crossable (say, in the next million years or so), but the nearest galaxies are an order of magnitude further from us. If we are alone in our galaxy, then we will almost certainly never discover any indication of life elsewhere.
Yes, it is entirely a question of odds. Meteor showers happen on a regular--one might even say constant--basis. We have one data point for these damaging solar flares. You cannot draw meaningful conclusions of frequency from one event.
I can't imagine the cost of replacing or modifying every transformer in the grid would be remotely bearable. If it is possible to add this feature to upcoming installations at a marginal increase in cost, that would be prudent.
Unless it can be proven (unlikely) that these events will be regular enough to warrant replacing existing infrastructure, it should not be done. If this hasn't happened for more than 100 years, we can probably get away with fixing things if and when they break.
As useless as your post was, that was exactly my thought. We don't spend much time worrying about asteroid impacts, either, even though those have a greater potential for harm. There's just not enough that we can do about it.
Same thing goes for local supernovae or gamma ray bursts. We could also be living in a false vacuum. At any moment all life on Earth could be wiped out entirely; If broken transformers are all we have to worry about from solar flares, I for one am not going to lose much sleep over it.
Clearly proving that you know nothing of what you speak.
There are competing theories to dark matter, notably MOND, which posits that gravity behaves differently on large scales than on local ones. You trolling, arrogant, ignorant asswipe.
Relativity isn't just an idea that someone thought of that hasn't been tested. It's the groundwork for modern physics, and it has been exactingly tested over the last century. Probably it is the single most tested theory in the history of science. It's not going to be proved wrong, only refined. There are no other interpretations for the vast majority of observed phenomena.
What you're saying is that scientists must be wrong because their theories don't make sense to you. The universe is not required to make sense, to you or anyone else. Get over it. Or at least take some comfort in your ignorance: not only is understanding these observations beyond yo^H^H^H^H^H^H not your problem, but you don't even have to deal with the *really* weird stuff, like quantum physics.
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- J.B.S. Haldane
I read your post in its entirety. It is uninformed on several levels, and a completely inappropriate solution to any given problem.
Do note that this device already exists in a couple different forms, and is selling extremely poorly.
This device would be horribly expensive. In essence, you are paying for the same amount of storage twice, plus a bunch of specialized electronics. The base cost for the device would be about $250. Flash memory costs dollars per gigabyte, DRAM costs tens of dollars per gigabyte. A capacitor or battery on top of that would make this device ridiculously expensive compared to any other solution.
Generally speaking, there is no call for a hybrid ram/storage solution. There would be no point in putting a system partition on it, everything would have to be copied from the SSD to the RAMdisk on startup. With the cost per GB being so high, it's unlikely that you would have much room to put applications on it. That leaves temporary file storage. Your alternative is to use system memory, possibly as a ramdisk. Why on earth you would want to move data storage off of the highest-bandwidth pipe on the system is beyond me. Also, your computer is much better at memory management than you apparently have any idea. In most cases, setting up a RAMdisk provides little benefit over simply letting the OS use the extra memory.
You're incorporating all of the disadvantages of volatile memory with no additional benefit over having a couple megabytes of HDD cache. Yes, a battery helps to alleviate the problems of this technological clusterfuck, but it does not eliminate them.
Any other solution would be cheaper. You can do RAID in software under Windows. You can do alternate filesystems under Windows. You can do ramdisks in software under Windows.
You can add a significant amount of memory to a system for the cost of this device. As previously stated, this is often the best solution. Not that you have any idea what the problem is.
You can add a UPS to a system for the cost of this device. This ensures that *all* of your data is preserved, and allows your computer to be shut down cleanly, or hibernated.
SSDs draw low power while idle, not during writes.
Twenty minutes worth of research would have been enough to tell you how stupid this idea is. Next time, JFGI.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a problem with the animator. You don't need complicated software to make good animation--Toy Story should be sufficient evidence of that. You just need talent. Less and less talent these days, actually: if you're playing a game where the avatars are floating, it's because the designers don't give a^H^H^H^H^H^H^H care enough to simulate motion properly.
As an aside, realism is frequently not a goal in animation. You tend to run up against the uncanny valley: all the characters look like zombies. Realism is what made "A Scanner Darkly" so painful to watch, especially as contrasted to "Waking life".
I think Larrabee has somewhat more potential to improve ray tracing. Lighting in games these days seems like layers of, well, kludges. The code works, and it's fast, but it's an ugly, ugly solution.
There's some other version of the kernel that includes modesetting?
Also, 1and1 are inexpensive and loathsome. They do not have a good reputation.
Windows devices have one driver available, generally speaking. One hopes that that driver is for the version of windows you currently have. If not, you're generally SOL. Most older hardware cannot be upgraded to the latest version of windows because the drivers are not available.
Linux systems may not have drivers immediately for new hardware, but once a driver is written, it generally stays around for a long time.
Generally speaking, I prefer the latter situation.
What a strange argument. The majority of apps are not "useful", yet your example app is a game? What an odd definition of "useful". The majority of apps in a typical linux repository are extremely useful---for a specific task.
Your argument that commercial apps pay attention to small details is anti-Unix. That may be a cop-out argument, but it's true nonetheless. Unix programs should be large and monolithic only if absolutely necessary. Your "small details" is either something handled by my window manager, or program bloat, depending on whether you're talking about features or glitz.
You're only telling a partial truth when you talk about linux lacking a 'rich commercial ecosystem'. Decades of applied programming philosophy resulted in the app repositories; never has it been shown so conclusively that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The principles driving the open-source ecosystem are also its greatest weakness: there's never going to be a 'rich commercial ecosystem' on linux, and consequently it may never see widespread adoption.
The Unix philosophy is enforced by the GPL. The GPL explicitly does not disallow you from charging money for your software, which can only be construed as proof that RMS has a sense of humor. If you want to have commercial software on a GPL OS, you can't use any GPL'd libraries for your application--which sort of obviates the point of the OS. Because of that, I think it's safe to say that Linux will never be a target platform for games. There may be a market for cross-platform games, but not games that are exclusively for linux. The GPL and games simply do not mix well.
(In my ideal world, the Source engine would use OpenGL, and Steam would be cross-platform. Luckily there has been some effort to that effect.)
It should be clear that neither the lack of a rich commercial ecosystem nor the wonderful 'consistency' of the open source model are causative factors, especially not of each other. They are related results of a programming philosophy.
In a similar vein, Macs are also the result of a specific design philosophy.
Now if only there were a similar excuse for any and all HP software...
In both cases, the monies involved are not actually bonuses. They're salary.
The corporate executives take their paycheck as a 'bonus' for tax reasons. The motivations of the congressmen should not need explanation.
Underrated? A whole five words, that nonetheless manages to be inane and pointless? I disagree vehemently.
Your comment about smiting mods is rather non sequitur; as of now there has not been any moderation on that comment. Also, there's nothing 'meta' about the moderation these days: a lamentable change in policy.
You must have failed your US History courses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
That would be a US Supreme Court ruling; they have consistently upheld the right to anonymous free speech. In an ideal world, it may not be necessary. We don't live in an ideal world. Free speech needs to be protected, and anonymous free speech as part of that.
The question is "do you have a right to anonymity when making political editorials?" That's a different question than "do you have the right to make anonymous political editorials?" The answer to the latter question is "of course". The answer to the former question is "of course not".
Horseshit. The Bill of Rights exists because of anonymous free speech. Also, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting anonymous free speech. You are entirely wrong in every point you make.
The right to anonymous speech is enshrined in the highest law of the land. Whether or not the statements are hurtful is irrelevant. Your political example is particularly clueless.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The parent poster is correct in framing this as a possible abuse of power. It is probably not illegal to reveal someone's identity. It can be illegal to use political power to discover someone's identity.
Your homework assignment (i.e. if you want to debate this without looking like a total idiot) is to prepare an argument against internet anonymity with reference to libel and slander. The links I provided should give you plenty of ammunition. Also, if you dig back through slashdot, there was a recent case in the maryland supreme court (IIRC) involving a fast food franchise trying to subpoena the identities of some critics on the internet, which may or may not have been covered in one of my links. Do note that such an argument is not relevant to the facts of TFA.
Of course there is, but it's not often applied to such circumstances. That's much more likely to be treated as harassment, and handled with a restraint order.
I am not certain, but I believe a private investigator is defined as someone working for hire, e.g. MediaSentry. Private investigators must be licensed the state they are in, and generally there are educational requirements.
That is a damn good idea.
I've really been considering making something furry with ears for me Eee, like a felt cover or something, with some velcro to hold it on, perhaps. Vanilla white is terribly boring, it would be girlbait, removable, theoretically washable, and provide some amount of protection for the lappy.
Tests with a messenger bag indicate that heat dispersal is not a big issue.
I can't imagine why someone would want a "manly" netbook. It's just not going to happen. The Eee is pretty damn ugly, the "cute" factor is just a size thing.
There are conflicting reports on that, apparently. This page gives a good overview of the subject, and has links to several scientific studies on the matter.
It also gives, if I read it correctly, an error rate of one bit flip per 14-142 years, varying with a number of factors including height above sea level and the specifics of the memory cell construction. Probably the error rate is towards the high end of that estimate. At the very least it can be said for certain that neither alpha particles nor cosmic rays are likely to be crashing your computer every week.
Whoops. Doesn't look like it.
What, you mean the fine publication responsible for journalism like this?
I think they're just upset at not having a wikipedia page of their own.
But hey! They're hiring! And their help wanted page mentions Slashdot--how can you go wrong?
Yeah, I've noticed that. I think it has more to do with your perceived attitude than the veracity of your statements.
Dyson is also speaking completely out of his field of expertise, without any data in particular to back his statements, against a great number of people who have considerably greater expertise and data. I would humbly suggest that if you are feeling the ire of the community here, it may be helpful to avoid similar behavior.
The article you are linking to is a collection of opinions, some of which are related to the article in question. Most of them seem to have been taken entirely out of context. It presents a one-sided explanation of the results and significance of the study. It does not discuss methodology at all. The quality of the information presented is absolutely terrible, in point of fact, and given the source, it is extremely questionable whether this represents the current scientific consensus on the matter.
Why is it so important for you to push an agenda rather than hard data and unbiased critical analysis? What good does that do?
Please don't talk about Einstein and Jared Diamond in the same context. Jared Diamond and Dyson have not been publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals, they're just assholes with opinions. They have some interesting ideas, but their contributions to climatology and political science are pretty negligible. Especially compared to Einstein, good grief!
Is it really so hard to understand that your position of authority in one field is irrelevant to another, completely unrelated field? You wouldn't take into serious consideration a plumber's opinion on a medical study, why is a physicist qualified to speak about climatology? It's the same damn thing that we keep seeing with the Creationists, where they get professors of geology to decry evolution. It doesn't work that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
They're not exactly unbiased sources. They are starting from the assumption the global warming isn't real. Skepticism is to be encouraged, and I would certainly champion Dyson over Gore, but you should be out there to find out the facts, to do the best science, not to prove a point one way or the other.
I realize that Science and New Scientist both require paid subscriptions, but you would have done much better to link to those source articles rather than a group of blatant propagandists. If this was good and useful science, I'm sure that it was widely reported by others.
That was obviously a typo, your post obviously a joke, but it's rather ironic that the parent poster's use of the word 'apology' was not actually incorrect, merely archaic.
An apology is a defense or justification of something. Probably the most notable example would be Plato's Apology for Socrates.
I can guarantee you that life exists elsewhere in the universe. The universe is incomprehensibly vast, and it's likely that most of it does not lie within our light cone. If the same laws of physics hold throughout, it is a certainty that the same conditions leading to life on Earth are present elsewhere.
The question is whether life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, since we are basically stuck here. The Milky Way is 100 kly across, IIRC, which may be eventually crossable (say, in the next million years or so), but the nearest galaxies are an order of magnitude further from us. If we are alone in our galaxy, then we will almost certainly never discover any indication of life elsewhere.
Yes, it is entirely a question of odds. Meteor showers happen on a regular--one might even say constant--basis. We have one data point for these damaging solar flares. You cannot draw meaningful conclusions of frequency from one event.
I can't imagine the cost of replacing or modifying every transformer in the grid would be remotely bearable. If it is possible to add this feature to upcoming installations at a marginal increase in cost, that would be prudent.
Unless it can be proven (unlikely) that these events will be regular enough to warrant replacing existing infrastructure, it should not be done. If this hasn't happened for more than 100 years, we can probably get away with fixing things if and when they break.
I live in Alaska, in point of fact.
You were saying? :)
As useless as your post was, that was exactly my thought. We don't spend much time worrying about asteroid impacts, either, even though those have a greater potential for harm. There's just not enough that we can do about it.
Same thing goes for local supernovae or gamma ray bursts. We could also be living in a false vacuum. At any moment all life on Earth could be wiped out entirely; If broken transformers are all we have to worry about from solar flares, I for one am not going to lose much sleep over it.
Clearly proving that you know nothing of what you speak.
There are competing theories to dark matter, notably MOND, which posits that gravity behaves differently on large scales than on local ones. You trolling, arrogant, ignorant asswipe.
Relativity isn't just an idea that someone thought of that hasn't been tested. It's the groundwork for modern physics, and it has been exactingly tested over the last century. Probably it is the single most tested theory in the history of science. It's not going to be proved wrong, only refined. There are no other interpretations for the vast majority of observed phenomena.
What you're saying is that scientists must be wrong because their theories don't make sense to you. The universe is not required to make sense, to you or anyone else. Get over it. Or at least take some comfort in your ignorance: not only is understanding these observations beyond yo^H^H^H^H^H^H not your problem, but you don't even have to deal with the *really* weird stuff, like quantum physics.
"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
-- J.B.S. Haldane
I read your post in its entirety. It is uninformed on several levels, and a completely inappropriate solution to any given problem.
Do note that this device already exists in a couple different forms, and is selling extremely poorly.
This device would be horribly expensive. In essence, you are paying for the same amount of storage twice, plus a bunch of specialized electronics. The base cost for the device would be about $250. Flash memory costs dollars per gigabyte, DRAM costs tens of dollars per gigabyte. A capacitor or battery on top of that would make this device ridiculously expensive compared to any other solution.
Generally speaking, there is no call for a hybrid ram/storage solution. There would be no point in putting a system partition on it, everything would have to be copied from the SSD to the RAMdisk on startup. With the cost per GB being so high, it's unlikely that you would have much room to put applications on it. That leaves temporary file storage. Your alternative is to use system memory, possibly as a ramdisk. Why on earth you would want to move data storage off of the highest-bandwidth pipe on the system is beyond me. Also, your computer is much better at memory management than you apparently have any idea. In most cases, setting up a RAMdisk provides little benefit over simply letting the OS use the extra memory.
You're incorporating all of the disadvantages of volatile memory with no additional benefit over having a couple megabytes of HDD cache. Yes, a battery helps to alleviate the problems of this technological clusterfuck, but it does not eliminate them.
Any other solution would be cheaper.
You can do RAID in software under Windows.
You can do alternate filesystems under Windows.
You can do ramdisks in software under Windows.
You can add a significant amount of memory to a system for the cost of this device. As previously stated, this is often the best solution. Not that you have any idea what the problem is.
You can add a UPS to a system for the cost of this device. This ensures that *all* of your data is preserved, and allows your computer to be shut down cleanly, or hibernated.
SSDs draw low power while idle, not during writes.
Twenty minutes worth of research would have been enough to tell you how stupid this idea is. Next time, JFGI.