Because every time the computer loses power, the cache will disappear. Unlike SDRAM, flash is nonvolatile. What's the price of this compared to the price of a good UPS? Hmm, I see what you're getting at. However, what would mediate which processes are worthy to write data to the NVRAM? I mean, no app wants to lose data.
Seems to me that writing to flash is rather slow, Rereading the data afterwards would be much quicker, meaning your best approach would be to find a way to put write-once-read-many data there. What OS supports this? Every OS known to man; it's called SDRAM.
I mean seriously, if the OS knows that there are a few hundred GB of data to which it regularly needs access, why not cache them in regular system memory?
Resource forks are far better than the idiotic "everything is a folder" model. Want to upload that Keynote project to your friendly CMS via a web browser? Can't, because it's not a file, it's a #@$!ing FOLDER. You have to zip it first. Words cannot accurately describe how tiresome this becomes.
True, but you'd have had the same problem with a multi-fork file, since the web process would upload the data fork... HTTP forms don't know anything about multi-fork files.
Better would be for the web browser to auto-zip the file or something prior to uploading (or have the OS present the bundle [i.e. folder] as an opaque pre-zipped file to the browser).
This is why big beer manufacturers (like Budweiser) tend to invest a far amount of money in making sure that they have a lot of filter material available
Now, if they'd invest as much money in making decent beer, they might be on to something!
"copywritable"? Dear god. First, learn how to spell; then learn what it means. Then think, then start asking some questions. And do your best to avoid the catch-phrase "intellectual property", because when you get down to brass tacks and in law, it's vague and somewhat meaningless.
The fact that a CD and a DVD cost the same amount, even though the production costs are orders-of-magnitude different, means that: (1) A CD album sells far fewer copies than a DVD of a movie does. Thus, the price needs to be higher to recoup costs; or (2) The price we pay is not really correlated to the production cost. In particular, the claims that the cost of a CD is required to pay all the people involved in the production of the work is greatly exaggerated.
I'm with you up until the second sentence of (2). You are implying a faulty parallel inference that "the cost of a [DVD] is required to pay all the people involved in the production" of the film. Obviously this is false. The principal revenue source for a commercial feature is theatrical distribution; release on DVD etc. is a secondary window typically optioned to a different distributor. The producer is interested in recouping their budget on box-office sales. Thus, retail DVD sales can often be viewed as "bonus money" in contrast to music products where the CD (or download, etc.) is the principal end-product designed to be profitable.
Thanks for the passage. That's an interesting philosophy; I didn't realise that harvesting asteroids from space was in the cards, but it's an interesting idea.
Nonetheless, the examples given of what to do with the proceeds of such wealth included rehabilitating populations in Africa. How is this end-game different from "wast[ing] all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting"?
We could waste all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting.
Maybe we should use the money to start slaughtering existent populations in the developing world then, instead, and nip this problem in the bud.
Or, we could reach for the stars and bring back some asteroids which will do so much more for the people of Earth than the sum total of all the charitable contributions ever donated.
We have high death tolls and squalid conditions in developing nations, yet American billionaires have their heads so far up their asses that they'd rather piss about their wealth on an esoteric toy of value to a statistically negligible number of people. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
b
Hmm! Interesting, I was unaware/dubious of that requirement. Thanks!
-b
What does "meta question" in your subject line mean?
-b
b
Crap, oops; I meant a few hundred MB.
-b
thanks,
-b
I mean seriously, if the OS knows that there are a few hundred GB of data to which it regularly needs access, why not cache them in regular system memory?
b
But basic editing means [...] It took a second or to.
Right.
-b
Resource forks are far better than the idiotic "everything is a folder" model.
Want to upload that Keynote project to your friendly CMS via a web browser? Can't, because it's not a file, it's a #@$!ing FOLDER. You have to zip it first. Words cannot accurately describe how tiresome this becomes.
True, but you'd have had the same problem with a multi-fork file, since the web process would upload the data fork... HTTP forms don't know anything about multi-fork files.
Better would be for the web browser to auto-zip the file or something prior to uploading (or have the OS present the bundle [i.e. folder] as an opaque pre-zipped file to the browser).
b
I've read here on \. that the RFIDs were going to be used...
Backslashdot?
b
So kids are picking on robots in U.K. schools now, or something?
-b
"Virii"?
-b
This is why big beer manufacturers (like Budweiser) tend to invest a far amount of money in making sure that they have a lot of filter material available
Now, if they'd invest as much money in making decent beer, they might be on to something!
-b
Your smarmy pedagogical tone is really endearing, original, and becoming of a mature orator.
"copywritable"? Dear god. First, learn how to spell; then learn what it means. Then think, then start asking some questions. And do your best to avoid the catch-phrase "intellectual property", because when you get down to brass tacks and in law, it's vague and somewhat meaningless.
-b
The fact that a CD and a DVD cost the same amount, even though the production costs are orders-of-magnitude different, means that:
(1) A CD album sells far fewer copies than a DVD of a movie does. Thus, the price needs to be higher to recoup costs; or
(2) The price we pay is not really correlated to the production cost. In particular, the claims that the cost of a CD is required to pay all the people involved in the production of the work is greatly exaggerated.
I'm with you up until the second sentence of (2). You are implying a faulty parallel inference that "the cost of a [DVD] is required to pay all the people involved in the production" of the film. Obviously this is false. The principal revenue source for a commercial feature is theatrical distribution; release on DVD etc. is a secondary window typically optioned to a different distributor. The producer is interested in recouping their budget on box-office sales. Thus, retail DVD sales can often be viewed as "bonus money" in contrast to music products where the CD (or download, etc.) is the principal end-product designed to be profitable.
-ben
(BCIT film)
Does anyone think that it would help Apple to change its trading symbol from APPL to IPOD?
Apple's trading symbol is not APPL, it is AAPL.
(Likely you are thinking of the 32-bit HFS type code that identifies applications.)
-b
So many hassles and PR disasters could be averted by just admitting you FUBARed
I agree that Google's initial offering was erroneous and distasteful, but do you really feel that they fucked up beyond all recognition?
b
it's spelled: Escheria coli
I thought it was Escherichia coli.
-b
Oh, right, Zonk is illiterate (the hallmark of a model "editor"). I guess he really means "Escherichia Coli".
-ben
Thanks for the passage. That's an interesting philosophy; I didn't realise that harvesting asteroids from space was in the cards, but it's an interesting idea.
Nonetheless, the examples given of what to do with the proceeds of such wealth included rehabilitating populations in Africa. How is this end-game different from "wast[ing] all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting"?
-ben
We could waste all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting.
Maybe we should use the money to start slaughtering existent populations in the developing world then, instead, and nip this problem in the bud.
Or, we could reach for the stars and bring back some asteroids which will do so much more for the people of Earth than the sum total of all the charitable contributions ever donated.
Citation/evidence?
-b
We have high death tolls and squalid conditions in developing nations, yet American billionaires have their heads so far up their asses that they'd rather piss about their wealth on an esoteric toy of value to a statistically negligible number of people. Sad.
b
This is why the slashdot "editors" are so highly regarded, highly paid, highly esteemed, highly self-absorbed, ...