Species which "invade" a different ecosystem (by way of being transported by humans) often have radically different traits than the locals, but may exploit the same resources that locally evolved species. Thus, they may be able to out-compete the local species for resources (food, etc.) faster than the local species can adapt (given the usual slowness of evolutionary adaptation).
usually don't handle large files all that well, plus you often need to manually say "start tracking file X" rather than having it happen automatically -- usually you want "track everything in folders X,Y,Z". Essentially DVCS'es are too complex for this task and rsync is too simplistic. Unison is "about right" (though it does have some shortcomings.)
However, if you're talking synchronising only stuff like shell scripts (like profile scripts, little self-made utilities, etc.) then I'd prefer a DVCS too for the reasons you've already stated.
If you don't approve of cherry picking, then I encourage you to read your fucking bible. It condones genocide, slavery, opression of women, etc. etc. Do you agree with those views? If not, why not?
Btw, Mithras is also alarmingly similar to Jesus. (And I'm sure there are more examples from roughly 2K years ago.)
Oh, why am I even bothering? Grow a dick and log in.
would seem to imply that there wouldn't be needless suffering (Darfour, the hunger in most of Africa, the Tsunami that killed over 100k people, etc. etc.). The only rational conclusion is that god is either a trickster (trying to conceal his existence) or evil. So there.
If you look at the language of the site, they're specifically not accusing him of rape (odd, that you should pick that over murder, but oh well).
The point is that he uses exactly the same kind of language to accuse people of all sorts of things -- f.ex. accusing a Muslim congrescritter of being a terrorist by using absurdly leading language such as "Now, *I'm* not saying that you're a terrorist, but some people might think.... Why don't you deny the rumour that you are a terrorist?"
Glenn Beck is a fucking pussy who can't handle being confronted with his own tactics and he no moral high ground in this case.
If you're doing things right your developers are only pushing their changesets to the central repository every couple of days.
With a DVCS the developer just has their own branch (which can be on a central server) and they can commit whenever they like and have everything backed up -- branch management is so easy with most DVCSes that this is a non-issue. Now, if the developer is disconnected for long periods at a time, then you might have a point... but in that case a centralized VCS is even worse. At least with a DVCS the developer can just tar up the working tree (including.git,.bzr or whatever) and email that to himself to have a backup.
Given that most assemblers are macro assemblers, I'd imagine that disassembly doesn't give the original source code back. You get an equivalent source code, but it might be considerably harder to read (depending on macro usage, obviously).
So basically, God's existence is moot. Why are we still arguing about it?
Because belief without evidence still causes enormous harm in the world. That's why it's important to disabuse these people of their silly and absurd notions. (Hard/impossible as that may be.)
Has the Rorschach test been subjected to double-blind tests, or hasn't it? If not, it should not be considered effective at anything until it has. [b]Can[/b] it be subjected to double-blind tests? If not, it should be considered pseudoscience and abandoned until it has.
(Oh, and citations to peer-reviewed reputable journals please, since you're the one arguing for effectiveness you'll need to provide evidence for it.)
strategy doesn't work: In your example value_expected may not be computable if the boundary_okay condition doesn't hold. (I.e. you're not doing short-circuit evaluation). If your language is lazily (or non-strictly) evaluated you might get away with it, but given your example syntax I doubt you were thinking of lazy/non-strict language.:)
That and the weird idea to put the entire office suite into one, big executable.
Modern systems only load the memory pages of executables that are actually needed, so it doesn't matter how big the executable is -- what matters is how much of the executable actually needs to be loaded.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Anecdote and casual observation accumulated over time equate to empirical evidence.
Absolutely not! If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round, but if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough to discover that.
You're no scientist and have no idea what scientists actually do.
Sure, it's not transactions per se, but fbarrier() + atomic rename() is enough for what almost all programs want to do. Programs that need actual transactions can use fsync() as they always have -- though there may certainly still be a case for providing an app-specified grouping of I/O operations (i.e. lightweight "transactions") to avoid sync'ing unrelated blocks during fsync().
with all these anti-Evolutionists... it's becoming increasingly hard to tell when someone is just joking or if they're making what they think is a serious argument against Evolution:(.
That's just a clever mildly clever rhetorical trick. Your statement presupposes that there is a "prime mover" (otherwise there simply [b]is[/b] no "why"). There is no evidence of any such prime mover.
Of course, you're right -- if you can, you might as well just delete the old backups. I was thinking in terms of storage where it may not be technically feasible to actually ensure that the backups are physically deleted. In that case you know that the *encrypted* data will be around forever, but presumably you wouldn't store the keys along with the backups and could throw the keys away to ensure that data which should really have been "deleted" cannot ever be accessed beyond its expiry date. (Modulo the crypto algorithm being broken or, more likely, some adversary intercepting keys and keeping them around beyond the expiry date.)
Slashdot Mirror
Species which "invade" a different ecosystem (by way of being transported by humans) often have radically different traits than the locals, but may exploit the same resources that locally evolved species. Thus, they may be able to out-compete the local species for resources (food, etc.) faster than the local species can adapt (given the usual slowness of evolutionary adaptation).
usually don't handle large files all that well, plus you often need to manually say "start tracking file X" rather than having it happen automatically -- usually you want "track everything in folders X,Y,Z". Essentially DVCS'es are too complex for this task and rsync is too simplistic. Unison is "about right" (though it does have some shortcomings.)
However, if you're talking synchronising only stuff like shell scripts (like profile scripts, little self-made utilities, etc.) then I'd prefer a DVCS too for the reasons you've already stated.
As long as web developers will keep supporting non-standards-compliant garbage like IE the users won't care.
If you don't approve of cherry picking, then I encourage you to read your fucking bible. It condones genocide, slavery, opression of women, etc. etc. Do you agree with those views? If not, why not?
Btw, Mithras is also alarmingly similar to Jesus. (And I'm sure there are more examples from roughly 2K years ago.)
Oh, why am I even bothering? Grow a dick and log in.
Thank you for that comment.
I hadn't heard of Horus in those terms, but Mithras is also has an uncannily similar story to Jesus. What a coincidence, eh?
I've already posted so I can't mod this, but FWIW I'd mod you way way up, Mr/Mrs. AC. :)
Well said.
would seem to imply that there wouldn't be needless suffering (Darfour, the hunger in most of Africa, the Tsunami that killed over 100k people, etc. etc.). The only rational conclusion is that god is either a trickster (trying to conceal his existence) or evil. So there.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(Independent innovation can be affected by the patent system. That in itself is absurd.)
If you look at the language of the site, they're specifically not accusing him of rape (odd, that you should pick that over murder, but oh well).
The point is that he uses exactly the same kind of language to accuse people of all sorts of things -- f.ex. accusing a Muslim congrescritter of being a terrorist by using absurdly leading language such as "Now, *I'm* not saying that you're a terrorist, but some people might think .... Why don't you deny the rumour that you are a terrorist?"
Glenn Beck is a fucking pussy who can't handle being confronted with his own tactics and he no moral high ground in this case.
With a DVCS the developer just has their own branch (which can be on a central server) and they can commit whenever they like and have everything backed up -- branch management is so easy with most DVCSes that this is a non-issue. Now, if the developer is disconnected for long periods at a time, then you might have a point... but in that case a centralized VCS is even worse. At least with a DVCS the developer can just tar up the working tree (including .git, .bzr or whatever) and email that to himself to have a backup.
it's ruining my ability to finish a
I think you're right! Now, what might one call such a tool? A... "compiler" maybe?
Given that most assemblers are macro assemblers, I'd imagine that disassembly doesn't give the original source code back. You get an equivalent source code, but it might be considerably harder to read (depending on macro usage, obviously).
Because belief without evidence still causes enormous harm in the world. That's why it's important to disabuse these people of their silly and absurd notions. (Hard/impossible as that may be.)
Has the Rorschach test been subjected to double-blind tests, or hasn't it? If not, it should not be considered effective at anything until it has. [b]Can[/b] it be subjected to double-blind tests? If not, it should be considered pseudoscience and abandoned until it has.
(Oh, and citations to peer-reviewed reputable journals please, since you're the one arguing for effectiveness you'll need to provide evidence for it.)
strategy doesn't work: In your example value_expected may not be computable if the boundary_okay condition doesn't hold. (I.e. you're not doing short-circuit evaluation). If your language is lazily (or non-strictly) evaluated you might get away with it, but given your example syntax I doubt you were thinking of lazy/non-strict language. :)
Turing-Completeness only says something about what you can compute, not how efficiently you can compute it.
"Oooh, I don't understand how this newfangled Internets works, so let's just say it's eeeeeevil!"
When will they stop these dinosaurs from running the industry?
Modern systems only load the memory pages of executables that are actually needed, so it doesn't matter how big the executable is -- what matters is how much of the executable actually needs to be loaded.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Absolutely not! If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round, but if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough to discover that.
You're no scientist and have no idea what scientists actually do.
Sure, it's not transactions per se, but fbarrier() + atomic rename() is enough for what almost all programs want to do. Programs that need actual transactions can use fsync() as they always have -- though there may certainly still be a case for providing an app-specified grouping of I/O operations (i.e. lightweight "transactions") to avoid sync'ing unrelated blocks during fsync().
someone speaks some sense. POSIX simply currently lacks fbarrier(...).
with all these anti-Evolutionists... it's becoming increasingly hard to tell when someone is just joking or if they're making what they think is a serious argument against Evolution :(.
That's just a clever mildly clever rhetorical trick. Your statement presupposes that there is a "prime mover" (otherwise there simply [b]is[/b] no "why"). There is no evidence of any such prime mover.
Of course, you're right -- if you can, you might as well just delete the old backups. I was thinking in terms of storage where it may not be technically feasible to actually ensure that the backups are physically deleted. In that case you know that the *encrypted* data will be around forever, but presumably you wouldn't store the keys along with the backups and could throw the keys away to ensure that data which should really have been "deleted" cannot ever be accessed beyond its expiry date. (Modulo the crypto algorithm being broken or, more likely, some adversary intercepting keys and keeping them around beyond the expiry date.)