The videos are down, I only managed to get the first one. Not impressed at all unless there are actual significant real improvements to functionality and usability that's not shown in the first video.
Having animations and other silly stuff (like _pauses_ before actions)just adds latency, and wastes CPU.
If I could choose a "low latency/delay" theme or option then that would be great.
I would have thought that most experienced users would know where their gui stuff (windows, dialog boxes, menus etc) went without needing any animations to give them a clue- progress/status indicators excluded of course.
All this waiting half a second or so before actually doing the stuff is ridiculous. Like requiring pauses before opening submenus. I can understand that immediately opening and drawing large submenus in the days of MHz processors and slow 2D cards can slow down your computer to unproductive levels. But the last I checked my PC was running significantly faster than 1.5GHz.
If there's going to be any time wasting or procrastination done, it should NOT be by the computer.
Leave the time wasting to the humans. Human time is more important than computer time. And like most people, I've only got a finite time left on this world and if I'm going to waste it (like most people here;) ), I sure won't want to waste it waiting for inane animations by silly developers trying to show how clever they think they are.
I remember recently people here were complaining about annoying cut scenes in games.
Well those animations are just like those cut scenes in games. Sure if you can interrupt the animations on-the-fly then it's not so terrible, but uh, it's still going to get quite old after the nth time...
That sort of thing mostly belongs in some "Pimp My GUI" TV show, or fan-boy/"ricer" gatherings.
It's like having your car engine spin some colourful nonfunctional propeller just because it looks cool. Or having your expensive semi-automatic car's UI make cute noises and flash pastel numbers before shifting to the appropriate gear. If I'm going to have my car engine spin something it's got to be something useful like a supercharger or aircond compresser. If my car is going to flash something on my windscreen it should flash an extrapolated icon of a toddler hidden _behind_ a parked car, based on the legs it spotted under that parked car, especially if the toddler is moving towards my path (I don't think very highly of cars that drive themselves - given the sort of "geniuses" around, it's not going to happen within a decade or maybe even two, but there are so many ways that cars could help drivers drive better).
Let's see some real progress OK?
Most of the stuff we currently have on our computers is not really that advanced _conceptually_ from what Douglas Englebart demonstrated nearly 30 years ago.
So it's very disappointing to see the proclaimed "state of the art" in GUIs seems to be the equivalent of blue LEDs on cooling fans.
Apple is currently doing quite well without Woz (I suspect he's still part of Apple, but not an active part).
Woz got kinda sidelined once Apple went for the Mac. Apple did ok back when that happened too.
I am fairly aware of what he did with the Apple II - the cool hacks with the drive, graphics, "paddle/joystick". I used to do 6502 and 65c816 machine code stuff on the Apple IIs.
Sure his contributions were necessary, but face it, his amazing talents in creatively squeezing the most out of electronics are no longer as important nowadays. There are plenty of people in Taiwan etc who can do at least half as well, and that's good enough these days.
Whereas Steve Job's talents in squeezing the most out of people were very useful, are still very useful and will continue to be very useful for a long time to come. Same for his talent for figuring out or even influencing what sells.
I'm currently a dev, I do recognize the importance of devs. If you have bosses who are devs hey that's fine - keep in mind though that doesn't make devs more important than bosses. It just means you have people taking on two roles/jobs.
Because whatever it is, the bosses are in charge (and are responsible for whatever happens), even if they don't actually take charge (and use their powers) they are in charge and responsible.
And guess who is ultimately in charge of hiring more devs? Whether devs are given say or not on new recruits, is up to the Boss. Guess who is in charge of allocating resources to projects/tasks/departments/people?
If the bosses can't tell a competent person from an incompetent one, or a trustworthy person from a crook, the company will risk going down the tubes (while it's hard to always figure it out immediately, they better be able to do it before the damage spreads).
Once you get one of those parasites in, they'll bring in the rest of their parasite friends.
Bear with me and look at a slightly bigger picture.
Go look at the major advancements in the 50s and 60s in nuclear power, aerospace etc. U2, SR71, satellites, probes to Mars, Concorde, Jumbo Jet, Man on the Moon, nuclear power, the invention of the mouse, implementation of hyperlinks, interactive and collaborative multimedia computing over networks (see Douglas Engelbart), plastics, transistors.
And look what has happened in the past 20 or so years. Nasa can't even keep the crappy space shuttle running safely- an expensive spacecraft that can barely reach geostationary orbit. Nasa is just doing probes to Mars again. And idiots are talking about sending people to the moon again. Deja Vu.
On the computing side, Linux is just reimplementing Unix (which isn't that great anyway).
Oh sure, we've got the Internet and the WWW. That's nice. Anything else? Forgive me if I'm rather underwhelmed by the "progress" we've made in the past two decades.
You think the devs now are dumber than the ones in the past? I doubt it.
I think the management in the past was just better.
Not saying the bosses now are dumber. They may actually be very smart but just in it for themselves.
Resources are limited. No matter how brilliant an idea, it is nothing if not implemented. It takes resources to implement something, and the Bosses decide what gets the resources. If the Bosses decide to implement stuff with reasonably correct priorities you get good progress.
BUT if the Bosses keep deciding _they_ get most of the resources, guess what happens.
A company can survive longer with zero devs, than with zero sales/revenue. Sure zero devs could mean no future - company eventually will die. Still, how many people look long term anyway?
But really the devs etc don't matter that much - what matters most is top management. Go see the difference of Apple with and without Steve Jobs.
You could have a good dev team that can take the company anywhere and has great ideas of where to go, but the Bosses are still in charge. If they choose to have the company just sit around or jump off a cliff, there's not so much the devs can do.
If the CxOs are just the "slash-and-burn" types, they don't give a damn about making anything new, or about the company. In large companies (usually a target for such parasites) they can just slash most stuff to cut costs and things will keep going for a few quarters on sheer inertia. There will be increased profits. So they pay themselves and the board a big fat bonus, then they slash some more, get more bonuses, then head to some other company to repeat the same thing after getting a golden handshake.
The shareholders might not even care if they can find suckers who believe the bullshit.
After all she publicly said: "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them".
Now if she said she disagreed with the law, and wished to change it using proper or reasonable processes[1], that's a whole different thing.
I'm sure there are many laws lawyers disagree with, but to go about _publicly_[2] talking about breaking laws especially laws in the field your law firm specializes in, is:
a) Stupid b) Lacking in discretion and good judgement c) Unprofessional
I bet discretion is quite important to law firms.
Given the way she has handled the situation and her statements I don't see why any reputable law firm should hire her.
Sure looks like she is better off working in some other line. Perhaps she should focus on working work for activist organisations.
[1] Sure, breaking the laws is one of the potential options for changing laws, but hey leave that in fine print or something. Don't understand "fine print"? You're fired.
[2] Privately behind closed doors with full confidentiality is obviously another matter...;)
War so far has never been cool. Necessary maybe. But cool no.
Things would be so much better IF leaders of any country calling for war actually had to risk their own lives significantly to call for a war.
e.g. if the "Attack Country X" referendum fails, the leaders involved get put on Death Row awaiting individual appeals on the "Don't want him dead though" referendum. We'll give them "purple hearts" if it turns out it was a good idea posthumously.
I'm not a soldier and never intend to be one (coward I guess), but I think that's fair.
And good for morale for soldiers on both sides of the war.
The Attackers: your leaders believe in the war enough to risk their own lives, and most of your citizens believed in the war.
The Defenders: most of the civilians wanted to attack you, so it's fine to attack all of them in defense.
Even if you kill all of them, if the referendum was 75%, then hey 25% collateral damage (assuming nobody against the war actually left the country) isn't so bad. It would be a vast improvement over the past (and present) where people were killing people who they really had nothing against, only because their leaders thought it was a good idea.
I suggest my proposal would result in fewer wars, and any wars would be vastly more "cool" than other major wars in history.
"Any way you slice it though, he still pays more in taxes each year than I am going to make in my lifetime at my current salary. Very depressing "
Huh? Why should that depress you? Just because someone makes a lot more than you?
If everyone thought like you, all but the richest would be depressed - or perhaps all would be depressed if there was a tie and the richest didn't like being tied for first place.
You make 42K a year, thats a lot more than I earn (I live in a 3rd world country). Does that make you feel a lot happier now?
If it's not enough because you don't have enough for necessities (food, clothing, shelter, overheads[1], plus some fun[2]) then that's understandable.
But if it's not enough just because it's not more than most other people, than that's foolishness.
If you believe that a human life is more precious[3] than any amount of money (which a lot of people _say_ they believe), then having more genuine friends should be worth more to you than having more money.
If you were able to get USD40 billion if your friend sacrificed his life, would you go for the money, even assuming your friend would willingly sacrifice his life so that you could have the money? This assuming you already have enough to survive.
If you do believe that money is more precious to you, then you better really be sure that will be the case forever.
Because if some of us are right (and not totally deluded), forever could be a very long time to count your billions alone without any friends.
[1] In this world you need to spend money to make money - no car = no job for many people.
[2] Unlike others I count fun as a necessity, because otherwise you might as well be a machine. Note: if your fun makes up a substantial part of your total bill then you better be having a lot of fun and not depressed.
[3] I used the word _precious_. Sure the economists will be able to give you an estimated economic value for the average human life, that's all well and good since we have limited resources - we do need to figure out how much compensation for a life.
But to say that's all there is to it is like saying the first taste of ice-cream was worth only the cost of buying it. Even economists know that the ice cream should be worth more to the person than the money the person is paying for it - otherwise that person is stupid.
People value people. Circular perhaps, but without people money is also worthless.
BTW what's the economic value of the Universe anyway?
If that's true then that's stupid reasoning. The Museum Director is full of it. The whale vomit ball is not part of a whale anymore than her excrement is part of her once it leaves her body AND her private property and floats around for years.
Of course, if the whale claimed it as its work of art, then that's different (I think the whale has more important things to worry about than its old vomit).
Or if there was a law which allows the Gov to have claim to whales AND their byproducts.
If you were indeed about to steal/burgle/etc and not totally stupid you would have headed elsewhere.
He's just trying to do his job.
The issue is the "rules of engagement" aren't that clear to most people, and the stakes have been raised very recently (see below).
Sure there are all these written rules. But the problem is:
1) Not everyone knows them (sometimes not even the cops). 2) They probably don't cover implementation in practical specific cases.
Now if it there was a well thought out and publicly known "Standard Operating Procedure" for interaction between citizens and cops, things could go much smoother.
I think the cop was well within his rights to just stop you "just in case".
However, if they regularly go further than that with no provocation then they themselves could become yet another danger to the public.
It'll be pretty pathetic if it gets to the state where you're actually safer with the Organized Crime (after paying them their "insurance premiums") than with the cops.
Since with Organized Crime, you know that if you piss them off, you should just keep running and not stop.
Whereas with the cops nowadays, it's getting uncertain whether you're safer running or stopping. After all there are these undercover cops/forces. Look what happened to the poor Brazilian guy in London.
Nowadays if you're in any of those riskier cities in USA/UK, if a big intimidating guy 50 metres away from you, yells at you to stop and claims he's a cop or one of the special forces, what are you going to do?
Stop and get killed/robbed by a mugger? Run and get killed by cops?
But does your country's law make that distinction? I know that in many countries the line is drawn based on an absolute number - 16 or 18. Only in some countries the line is drawn based on the onset of puberty.
The proposal in my post should address your concerns anyway - since such actions would only be allowed if both parties were licensed and thus educated and counselled accordingly.
If such acts have such serious ramifications then perhaps we should treat them more seriously.
After all before you are allowed to drive you have to get a driving license, and there are different types of licenses - trucks, cars, bikes etc.
So maybe before you are allowed to have sex you have to get a license. And maybe there could be different types of licenses - partner-specific lifelong monogamy, polysexual polyamory etc.;).
"A child doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to that sort of thing, as they don't understand the actions and the rammifications of said actions."
Child is an ambiguous term. In the USA "child porn" includes visual depictions of 17 year olds. Also not everyone is the same - many children have mental capacities and maturity levels surpassing most slashdotters[1] or adults.
Many (most?) adults don't appear to understand the actions and ramifications of "said actions" too. I'm sure you yourself would know examples.
Thus to address your concerns, should we require people to obtain licenses and relevant counselling/education before they are allowed to perform said actions? And prohibit such actions if done by unlicensed practitioners?
After all, in many places sexual acts by couples who are not married to each other is prohibited by law.
Just extend and modify that concept and things would be a bit better eh?
[1] That said, it seems common perception that most slashdotters have yet to perform "said actions".
"I see tons of pro-Christian conversations and Guild named all night long when I play. Blizzard never shuts them the hell up or takes action to remove these offensive-to-me names. "
What are the names that are offensive to you?
Should Blizzard also take action on people who use offensive (to Christians) words and phrases like God/Jesus (as an expletive), or Jesus-f'ing-Christ?
How about if people did the same thing to the name of Muhammad whom the Muslims revere? Should Blizzard take similar action too?
I don't see how that's relevant to the restriction.
But if you think that's relevant, how about pedophiles - should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?
Why don't you put the external ssh and external firewall stuff in a separate VM?
That way if you get hacked, you can easily pause the VM, make a copy for investigation, then revert to a pristine state and make the necessary changes so you won't get hacked again.
The ssh and firewall stuff won't require that much CPU so running them in a VM won't be a big prob.
If you're paranoid you could put the apache in the VM, but leave your files in the host, and then use a "read-only" share to access them.
Lastly is there a way to get a discount for VMWare GSX? Find it kinda pricey...
Do you know nowadays there are tons of people using displays with different width screens? Even many notebooks have widescreens nowadays with high resolutions that would make 800x600 look weird or require users to tweak their displays and sizes.
By the way, can you please explain why so many "web designers" like to use javascript for _links_, when they could just use normal HTML links? y'know <a href="....">link</a>
Just curious, assuming it was consensual, wouldn't the victims be rather traumatized when they are told that what they and you were doing was so very very wrong, and you were going to be punished severely for it?
I've seen kids fall down, and it seems they don't know whether they are severely hurt or not - they look to their parents, and if their parents kick a huge fuss, then it becomes a big issue. In contrast if the parents notice but don't look fussed, they just pick themselves up and carry on merrily.
Now, I'm not saying that one should say "it was ok" to stuff like this. But there was someone who was molested, and her parents made it clear to her that it wasn't her fault, and that the guy had something wrong with him. So in the end she grew up pretty well adjusted, no trauma. A bad memory perhaps, but not one that overshadows her life.
I feel if the system hypes things up and treats it like some unspeakable horror, it risks making things a lot worse for the victims.
That may be even more so, if it was consensual. They'd probably be burdened with guilt, shame, and they might feel great resentment at having such a terrible thing being done to them (perhaps also at being tricked etc). All this at an age where they are considered not old enough.
"The primary issue with Per, Python, and Ruby is that they use interpreters, instead of native-code compilers"
Perl compiles to bytecode. Python also has Psyco which is a "specializing compiler". Ruby is slightly different.
The Pysco bunch appear to be working towards making "High-level languages are faster than low-level ones!" true. Which I thought may be of interest to you.
So what if the core is small. How well does the Itanium 2 perform without all that cache?
Sounds like a whole load of rubbish to me. Unless the anandtech article author provides some facts I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You say the Itanium 2 architecture needs lots of cache, so sharing it with other Itanium 2 cores with some fancy tech is going to make things so much better?
The most recent Itanium 2 chip uses 410 million transistors (and the associated die area) and its current performance is crap compared to a dual core POWER5 with 276 million transistors, and a dual core Opteron with 233 million transistors.
It takes 1640 million transistors for an Itanium 2 system to be slightly faster than a Opteron system with 466 million transistors. And it's a lot slower than a POWER5 system with 552 million transistors.
There is a correlation between transistor count and CPU cost and price.
"perfect for multicore apps"? That's only if you can show me that an Itanium with 100M transistors or less will perform much faster than one core of an Opteron or POWER5.
If you are going to have multi core CPUs with a budget of 1640 million transistors, which would be better?
4 x Itanium cores, or 6 x POWER5 cores or 7 x Opteron cores?
Lastly, if you are doing most real-world stuff, you need enough throughput to feed all those cores. Even if load up your FPU density so high that it theoretically does teraflops on the die, that's only useful if your data set fits within the die or the fast caches. Otherwise the chip will be spending more time waiting than anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The videos are down, I only managed to get the first one. Not impressed at all unless there are actual significant real improvements to functionality and usability that's not shown in the first video.
;) ), I sure won't want to waste it waiting for inane animations by silly developers trying to show how clever they think they are.
Having animations and other silly stuff (like _pauses_ before actions)just adds latency, and wastes CPU.
If I could choose a "low latency/delay" theme or option then that would be great.
I would have thought that most experienced users would know where their gui stuff (windows, dialog boxes, menus etc) went without needing any animations to give them a clue- progress/status indicators excluded of course.
All this waiting half a second or so before actually doing the stuff is ridiculous. Like requiring pauses before opening submenus. I can understand that immediately opening and drawing large submenus in the days of MHz processors and slow 2D cards can slow down your computer to unproductive levels. But the last I checked my PC was running significantly faster than 1.5GHz.
If there's going to be any time wasting or procrastination done, it should NOT be by the computer.
Leave the time wasting to the humans. Human time is more important than computer time. And like most people, I've only got a finite time left on this world and if I'm going to waste it (like most people here
I remember recently people here were complaining about annoying cut scenes in games.
Well those animations are just like those cut scenes in games. Sure if you can interrupt the animations on-the-fly then it's not so terrible, but uh, it's still going to get quite old after the nth time...
That sort of thing mostly belongs in some "Pimp My GUI" TV show, or fan-boy/"ricer" gatherings.
It's like having your car engine spin some colourful nonfunctional propeller just because it looks cool. Or having your expensive semi-automatic car's UI make cute noises and flash pastel numbers before shifting to the appropriate gear. If I'm going to have my car engine spin something it's got to be something useful like a supercharger or aircond compresser. If my car is going to flash something on my windscreen it should flash an extrapolated icon of a toddler hidden _behind_ a parked car, based on the legs it spotted under that parked car, especially if the toddler is moving towards my path (I don't think very highly of cars that drive themselves - given the sort of "geniuses" around, it's not going to happen within a decade or maybe even two, but there are so many ways that cars could help drivers drive better).
Let's see some real progress OK?
Most of the stuff we currently have on our computers is not really that advanced _conceptually_ from what Douglas Englebart demonstrated nearly 30 years ago.
So it's very disappointing to see the proclaimed "state of the art" in GUIs seems to be the equivalent of blue LEDs on cooling fans.
But a typical user buying a typical notebook will get Windows XP on it.
That user is unlikely to change the O/S on that notebook in the next 2-3 years.
Users who change O/Ses on notebooks are more likely to be tech literate and unlikely to pick Vista to run on an old notebook.
If you do that you become a boss yourself ;).
Apple is currently doing quite well without Woz (I suspect he's still part of Apple, but not an active part).
Woz got kinda sidelined once Apple went for the Mac. Apple did ok back when that happened too.
I am fairly aware of what he did with the Apple II - the cool hacks with the drive, graphics, "paddle/joystick". I used to do 6502 and 65c816 machine code stuff on the Apple IIs.
Sure his contributions were necessary, but face it, his amazing talents in creatively squeezing the most out of electronics are no longer as important nowadays. There are plenty of people in Taiwan etc who can do at least half as well, and that's good enough these days.
Whereas Steve Job's talents in squeezing the most out of people were very useful, are still very useful and will continue to be very useful for a long time to come. Same for his talent for figuring out or even influencing what sells.
I'm currently a dev, I do recognize the importance of devs. If you have bosses who are devs hey that's fine - keep in mind though that doesn't make devs more important than bosses. It just means you have people taking on two roles/jobs.
Because whatever it is, the bosses are in charge (and are responsible for whatever happens), even if they don't actually take charge (and use their powers) they are in charge and responsible.
And guess who is ultimately in charge of hiring more devs? Whether devs are given say or not on new recruits, is up to the Boss. Guess who is in charge of allocating resources to projects/tasks/departments/people?
If the bosses can't tell a competent person from an incompetent one, or a trustworthy person from a crook, the company will risk going down the tubes (while it's hard to always figure it out immediately, they better be able to do it before the damage spreads).
Once you get one of those parasites in, they'll bring in the rest of their parasite friends.
Bear with me and look at a slightly bigger picture.
Go look at the major advancements in the 50s and 60s in nuclear power, aerospace etc. U2, SR71, satellites, probes to Mars, Concorde, Jumbo Jet, Man on the Moon, nuclear power, the invention of the mouse, implementation of hyperlinks, interactive and collaborative multimedia computing over networks (see Douglas Engelbart), plastics, transistors.
And look what has happened in the past 20 or so years. Nasa can't even keep the crappy space shuttle running safely- an expensive spacecraft that can barely reach geostationary orbit. Nasa is just doing probes to Mars again. And idiots are talking about sending people to the moon again. Deja Vu.
On the computing side, Linux is just reimplementing Unix (which isn't that great anyway).
Oh sure, we've got the Internet and the WWW. That's nice. Anything else? Forgive me if I'm rather underwhelmed by the "progress" we've made in the past two decades.
You think the devs now are dumber than the ones in the past? I doubt it.
I think the management in the past was just better.
Not saying the bosses now are dumber. They may actually be very smart but just in it for themselves.
Resources are limited. No matter how brilliant an idea, it is nothing if not implemented. It takes resources to implement something, and the Bosses decide what gets the resources. If the Bosses decide to implement stuff with reasonably correct priorities you get good progress.
BUT if the Bosses keep deciding _they_ get most of the resources, guess what happens.
So, I don't believe that Devs are so important.
And things are quite disappointing eh?
A company can survive longer with zero devs, than with zero sales/revenue.
Sure zero devs could mean no future - company eventually will die. Still, how many people look long term anyway?
But really the devs etc don't matter that much - what matters most is top management. Go see the difference of Apple with and without Steve Jobs.
You could have a good dev team that can take the company anywhere and has great ideas of where to go, but the Bosses are still in charge. If they choose to have the company just sit around or jump off a cliff, there's not so much the devs can do.
If the CxOs are just the "slash-and-burn" types, they don't give a damn about making anything new, or about the company. In large companies (usually a target for such parasites) they can just slash most stuff to cut costs and things will keep going for a few quarters on sheer inertia. There will be increased profits. So they pay themselves and the board a big fat bonus, then they slash some more, get more bonuses, then head to some other company to repeat the same thing after getting a golden handshake.
The shareholders might not even care if they can find suckers who believe the bullshit.
The last bit on "How to Track a Black Bird" doesn't seem to say anything about making sure to avoid looking at the sun especially with binoculars.
After all she publicly said: "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them".
;)
Now if she said she disagreed with the law, and wished to change it using proper or reasonable processes[1], that's a whole different thing.
I'm sure there are many laws lawyers disagree with, but to go about _publicly_[2] talking about breaking laws especially laws in the field your law firm specializes in, is:
a) Stupid
b) Lacking in discretion and good judgement
c) Unprofessional
I bet discretion is quite important to law firms.
Given the way she has handled the situation and her statements I don't see why any reputable law firm should hire her.
Sure looks like she is better off working in some other line. Perhaps she should focus on working work for activist organisations.
[1] Sure, breaking the laws is one of the potential options for changing laws, but hey leave that in fine print or something. Don't understand "fine print"? You're fired.
[2] Privately behind closed doors with full confidentiality is obviously another matter...
War so far has never been cool. Necessary maybe. But cool no.
Things would be so much better IF leaders of any country calling for war actually had to risk their own lives significantly to call for a war.
e.g. if the "Attack Country X" referendum fails, the leaders involved get put on Death Row awaiting individual appeals on the "Don't want him dead though" referendum. We'll give them "purple hearts" if it turns out it was a good idea posthumously.
I'm not a soldier and never intend to be one (coward I guess), but I think that's fair.
And good for morale for soldiers on both sides of the war.
The Attackers: your leaders believe in the war enough to risk their own lives, and most of your citizens believed in the war.
The Defenders: most of the civilians wanted to attack you, so it's fine to attack all of them in defense.
Even if you kill all of them, if the referendum was 75%, then hey 25% collateral damage (assuming nobody against the war actually left the country) isn't so bad. It would be a vast improvement over the past (and present) where people were killing people who they really had nothing against, only because their leaders thought it was a good idea.
I suggest my proposal would result in fewer wars, and any wars would be vastly more "cool" than other major wars in history.
"Any way you slice it though, he still pays more in taxes each year than I am going to make in my lifetime at my current salary.
Very depressing "
Huh? Why should that depress you? Just because someone makes a lot more than you?
If everyone thought like you, all but the richest would be depressed - or perhaps all would be depressed if there was a tie and the richest didn't like being tied for first place.
You make 42K a year, thats a lot more than I earn (I live in a 3rd world country). Does that make you feel a lot happier now?
If it's not enough because you don't have enough for necessities (food, clothing, shelter, overheads[1], plus some fun[2]) then that's understandable.
But if it's not enough just because it's not more than most other people, than that's foolishness.
If you believe that a human life is more precious[3] than any amount of money (which a lot of people _say_ they believe), then having more genuine friends should be worth more to you than having more money.
If you were able to get USD40 billion if your friend sacrificed his life, would you go for the money, even assuming your friend would willingly sacrifice his life so that you could have the money? This assuming you already have enough to survive.
If you do believe that money is more precious to you, then you better really be sure that will be the case forever.
Because if some of us are right (and not totally deluded), forever could be a very long time to count your billions alone without any friends.
[1] In this world you need to spend money to make money - no car = no job for many people.
[2] Unlike others I count fun as a necessity, because otherwise you might as well be a machine. Note: if your fun makes up a substantial part of your total bill then you better be having a lot of fun and not depressed.
[3] I used the word _precious_. Sure the economists will be able to give you an estimated economic value for the average human life, that's all well and good since we have limited resources - we do need to figure out how much compensation for a life.
But to say that's all there is to it is like saying the first taste of ice-cream was worth only the cost of buying it. Even economists know that the ice cream should be worth more to the person than the money the person is paying for it - otherwise that person is stupid.
People value people. Circular perhaps, but without people money is also worthless.
BTW what's the economic value of the Universe anyway?
When people are not ready for something, then they need a bit more supervision.
Looks like the USA still needs a Nanny to look after it.
Unfortunately it got Big Brother instead.
I think people in other countries should learn from that and "grow up" really quick if they haven't already.
If that's true then that's stupid reasoning. The Museum Director is full of it. The whale vomit ball is not part of a whale anymore than her excrement is part of her once it leaves her body AND her private property and floats around for years.
Of course, if the whale claimed it as its work of art, then that's different (I think the whale has more important things to worry about than its old vomit).
Or if there was a law which allows the Gov to have claim to whales AND their byproducts.
Look at it the other way.
If you were indeed about to steal/burgle/etc and not totally stupid you would have headed elsewhere.
He's just trying to do his job.
The issue is the "rules of engagement" aren't that clear to most people, and the stakes have been raised very recently (see below).
Sure there are all these written rules. But the problem is:
1) Not everyone knows them (sometimes not even the cops).
2) They probably don't cover implementation in practical specific cases.
Now if it there was a well thought out and publicly known "Standard Operating Procedure" for interaction between citizens and cops, things could go much smoother.
I think the cop was well within his rights to just stop you "just in case".
However, if they regularly go further than that with no provocation then they themselves could become yet another danger to the public.
It'll be pretty pathetic if it gets to the state where you're actually safer with the Organized Crime (after paying them their "insurance premiums") than with the cops.
Since with Organized Crime, you know that if you piss them off, you should just keep running and not stop.
Whereas with the cops nowadays, it's getting uncertain whether you're safer running or stopping. After all there are these undercover cops/forces. Look what happened to the poor Brazilian guy in London.
Nowadays if you're in any of those riskier cities in USA/UK, if a big intimidating guy 50 metres away from you, yells at you to stop and claims he's a cop or one of the special forces, what are you going to do?
Stop and get killed/robbed by a mugger?
Run and get killed by cops?
But does your country's law make that distinction? I know that in many countries the line is drawn based on an absolute number - 16 or 18. Only in some countries the line is drawn based on the onset of puberty.
;).
The proposal in my post should address your concerns anyway - since such actions would only be allowed if both parties were licensed and thus educated and counselled accordingly.
If such acts have such serious ramifications then perhaps we should treat them more seriously.
After all before you are allowed to drive you have to get a driving license, and there are different types of licenses - trucks, cars, bikes etc.
So maybe before you are allowed to have sex you have to get a license. And maybe there could be different types of licenses - partner-specific lifelong monogamy, polysexual polyamory etc.
Why would you need energy drinks? You underweight or something? Drink some body building protein shakes then.
If you want to stay awake, then so far modafinil appears to work for many people. But I'm not sure of the side effects. Use at your own risk.
Japanese green tea keeps me awake (too well sometimes), and it doesn't seem to be causing significant premature deaths among the Japanese.
Do note that not getting enough sleep is hazardous to your health.
"A child doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to that sort of thing, as they don't understand the actions and the rammifications of said actions."
Child is an ambiguous term. In the USA "child porn" includes visual depictions of 17 year olds. Also not everyone is the same - many children have mental capacities and maturity levels surpassing most slashdotters[1] or adults.
Many (most?) adults don't appear to understand the actions and ramifications of "said actions" too. I'm sure you yourself would know examples.
Thus to address your concerns, should we require people to obtain licenses and relevant counselling/education before they are allowed to perform said actions? And prohibit such actions if done by unlicensed practitioners?
After all, in many places sexual acts by couples who are not married to each other is prohibited by law.
Just extend and modify that concept and things would be a bit better eh?
[1] That said, it seems common perception that most slashdotters have yet to perform "said actions".
"I see tons of pro-Christian conversations and Guild named all night long when I play. Blizzard never shuts them the hell up or takes action to remove these offensive-to-me names. "
What are the names that are offensive to you?
Should Blizzard also take action on people who use offensive (to Christians) words and phrases like God/Jesus (as an expletive), or Jesus-f'ing-Christ?
How about if people did the same thing to the name of Muhammad whom the Muslims revere? Should Blizzard take similar action too?
"You do not Choose your sexual preference "
I don't see how that's relevant to the restriction.
But if you think that's relevant, how about pedophiles - should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?
Should a Pedophile Guild be allowed?
Why don't you put the external ssh and external firewall stuff in a separate VM?
That way if you get hacked, you can easily pause the VM, make a copy for investigation, then revert to a pristine state and make the necessary changes so you won't get hacked again.
The ssh and firewall stuff won't require that much CPU so running them in a VM won't be a big prob.
If you're paranoid you could put the apache in the VM, but leave your files in the host, and then use a "read-only" share to access them.
Lastly is there a way to get a discount for VMWare GSX? Find it kinda pricey...
So you're one of those *****s (or a troll).
Do you know nowadays there are tons of people using displays with different width screens? Even many notebooks have widescreens nowadays with high resolutions that would make 800x600 look weird or require users to tweak their displays and sizes.
By the way, can you please explain why so many "web designers" like to use javascript for _links_, when they could just use normal HTML links? y'know <a href="....">link</a>
What annoys me is sites which require javascript or flash support to do what could be done with "a href" - simple HTML links.
Can anyone tell me why web designers do that? They don't know HTML?
As long as they are still using one head/arm to read from spinning disks, drives are going to be pretty slow.
So far the seek time has not improved very much over the years.
Just curious, assuming it was consensual, wouldn't the victims be rather traumatized when they are told that what they and you were doing was so very very wrong, and you were going to be punished severely for it?
I've seen kids fall down, and it seems they don't know whether they are severely hurt or not - they look to their parents, and if their parents kick a huge fuss, then it becomes a big issue. In contrast if the parents notice but don't look fussed, they just pick themselves up and carry on merrily.
Now, I'm not saying that one should say "it was ok" to stuff like this. But there was someone who was molested, and her parents made it clear to her that it wasn't her fault, and that the guy had something wrong with him. So in the end she grew up pretty well adjusted, no trauma. A bad memory perhaps, but not one that overshadows her life.
I feel if the system hypes things up and treats it like some unspeakable horror, it risks making things a lot worse for the victims.
That may be even more so, if it was consensual. They'd probably be burdened with guilt, shame, and they might feel great resentment at having such a terrible thing being done to them (perhaps also at being tricked etc). All this at an age where they are considered not old enough.
Uh, guess where the people in florida would go then?
I suppose it's not that bad as you'd get more of the smarter ones.
But still...
"The primary issue with Per, Python, and Ruby is that they use interpreters, instead of native-code compilers"
Perl compiles to bytecode. Python also has Psyco which is a "specializing compiler". Ruby is slightly different.
The Pysco bunch appear to be working towards making "High-level languages are faster than low-level ones!" true. Which I thought may be of interest to you.
So what if the core is small. How well does the Itanium 2 perform without all that cache?
Sounds like a whole load of rubbish to me. Unless the anandtech article author provides some facts I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You say the Itanium 2 architecture needs lots of cache, so sharing it with other Itanium 2 cores with some fancy tech is going to make things so much better?
The most recent Itanium 2 chip uses 410 million transistors (and the associated die area) and its current performance is crap compared to a dual core POWER5 with 276 million transistors, and a dual core Opteron with 233 million transistors.
See my other post.
It takes 1640 million transistors for an Itanium 2 system to be slightly faster than a Opteron system with 466 million transistors. And it's a lot slower than a POWER5 system with 552 million transistors.
There is a correlation between transistor count and CPU cost and price.
"perfect for multicore apps"? That's only if you can show me that an Itanium with 100M transistors or less will perform much faster than one core of an Opteron or POWER5.
If you are going to have multi core CPUs with a budget of 1640 million transistors, which would be better?
4 x Itanium cores, or 6 x POWER5 cores or 7 x Opteron cores?
Lastly, if you are doing most real-world stuff, you need enough throughput to feed all those cores. Even if load up your FPU density so high that it theoretically does teraflops on the die, that's only useful if your data set fits within the die or the fast caches. Otherwise the chip will be spending more time waiting than anything.