Maybe I need to see Evil Dead again (I've only seen it once), but I think that Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness both blow it away. This is speaking as someone who has a statue/ action figure (one of the 18" macfarlane toys) of Ash in my office.
Btw, I recently read Bruce Campell's autobiography and found it very entretaining. You should check it out if you haven't. Many amusing stories.
Yeah when I read the summary, I wondered whether peter303 really thought that it was going to be news to regular slashdot readers that "the web allows one to extend bad manners from real life." What a fucking idiot.
Someone should mod up parent. SV1 is the token to look for to identify IE on xpsp2. It stands for "security version 1". I can't find relevant documentation now, so you'll have to take my word for it.
There is *no* way that a interpreted or JIT compiled language can be *faster* than native code.
This is like saying that C can't be fater than the assembly. In theory it's true: whatever assembly is generated by your C compiler could have been written by you by hand. But in practice, you don't write assembly the same way a compiler does and it is much smarted about optimizing it than you are. So we reach a point where good compilers can generate more efficient code than would any actual human would write if they hand-coded in assembly, even though they theoretically could write equivalent code.
Similarly, a good JIT will in practice be faster than running native C code. We haven't reached that point yet, but we will because the JIT and the runtime are free to do things (like reorganizing memory to reduce paging and to put certain things on the same cache line) that your C compiler can't do since it lets you have access to pointers to arbitrary memory (and lets you pass them around and do whatever you want with them), and because your compiler doesn't have the same information at compile time about how you use the program that the JIT and runtime do, since they get to see what happens at runtime.
it is made to be easy and idiot proof, like visual basic. you cannot do "neat hacks" in java, because if you could, the B coders would screw it up and produce worse code.
The only people who would rely on "neat hacks" in a production system are your "B coders": kids straight out of college who haven't yet learned who to write clear, maintainable, solid code. Regardless of language, your "A Coders"-- people who know how to write professional quality code-- are going to be good enough to write correct code that doesn't rely on being clever and tricky, and don't think that clever and tricky code is cool or macho.
But you can do/proc without a special GUID program, so also IMHO it wins the toss.
Why is this "Informative"? This just isn't true. First, a GUID is a unique ID and has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Assuming parent meant GUI, it's still not true, as the standard windows commandline tools for manipulating the registry are quite decent.
Granted, the registry is a bit more nebulous, since you can't see/set values with a simple `sysctl -whatever`.
I'm not familiar with sysctl. Can you explain why `sysctl -whatever` is "simple" and `reg query`, `reg add`, etc., in windows aren't? It seems like it would be equivalent.
And then no one would ever use the standalone app and would forget it exists, thus leaving their computer without needed patches. At least when windowsupdate is accessible through the browser, people sometimes think to go to it.
In my intro linguistics class freshman year in college, we discussed shm reduplication as part of a lecture on linguistic games (also talking about pig latin and such), and the professor certainly implied that this had existed long before mallrats. In fact, he thought that the usage in mallrats actually violated the prior standards of use. I tried to argue that this was intentional on Smith's part and was the source of the humor.
You don't buy a cordless phone and expect anyone passing by to make calls do you?
I don't expect them to be able to listen to my calls either. It doesn't mean that with a scanner you won't have an easy time listening to neighbors on their cordless phones.
I don't know if I find that argument very compelling. It's similar to trying to sell me a car alarm by saying that otherwise someone might steal my car and go run over people, and someone might see the license plate and I would then end up getting arrested.
Ths isn't limited to California. There are lots of parts of the US that already have these sorts of no-smoking laws, or are currently considering them. They get a good amount of news coverage, and I've seen a lot of articles where bartenders and other employees were interviewed, and they generally say that their health has greatly improved since things went non-smoking, even if they are themselves smokers. Just because someone smokes cigarettes of his own sometimes doesn't mean it isn't very harmful to his health to spend many many hours a week in a small enclosed place with dozens of people constantly smoking cigarettes. So the fact "there aren't too many" non-smoking bartenders is really not relevant to the discussion.
Anti-piracy measures aren't usually meant to stop professional pirates. They have a lot of resources to throw at the problem and will generally circumvent anything. Trying to stop them usually isn't worth the trouble and the cost. Anti-piracy is meant to stop casual copying. For example, since it was so easy to copy Dreamcast games, I knew lots of people who had a Dreamcast and would never buy their own games, instead copying everything. But if they wanted a Gamecube game, they would pay for it. So that's a lot of money that makers of Dreamcast games lost that they didn't have to. And the same thing happens on the PC. If you stop a guy from copying a game off his roommate, he'll often pay for it (or ask for it for a Christmas gift or whatever) whether pirated copies would have been available in Russia or not. Remember, this is a business. They aren't trying to stop piracy everywhere no matter what the cost because that's the moral thing to do. They are stopping the component of it for which it is cost-effective to do so.
Those people have no business playing in the market, then. Auction theory is in second semester economics here at UMD@CP, including the exact variant that Google is using.
Agreed. I wasn't even an economics major (did CS), and I took three classes that covered Dutch auctions.
I don't remember anyone saying that he wanted a GUI or a fancy interface. What he said is that he wants something that runs on the Windows operating system. A Windows program doesn't require a GUI anymore than a Unix program does. In fact, when you start a new "project" in Visual Studio, one of the first things you choose is whether it is to be a GUI app or a console app.
If you store them all in config files scattered over your hard drive and then the hard drive dies, you are also hosed. No matter what, you need to back up your data or you risk this happening.
That's like saying you know where every configuration file is because it's stored somewhere under '/'.
No, it's not like that. With the registry, if I want to find the settings for an app named Foo made by the Bar company, I know that its settings will be at {HKLM,HKCU}\software\bar\foo\ . I can go there and find the relevant settings. With config files, I have no such assurance. The file for a given app may be in any of a number of different places, plus sometimes a newer version of an app will change the way it does things.
I do in fact know what I'm talking about and I've had to deal with this a lot. Firstly, the way config files are used is not standard. Saying that "Most apps use some kind of lib or something to access their configs" just confirms that they are not all the same. And it isn't true that no one other than original app writer will ever want to change the settings. What if I want to write a script that is going to go through for each use on my system and set some preference? If all of the settings are in the registry, I know ahead of time how to do it (once I look up the names of the relevant keys and values) with standard APIs. With text files, I need to write my own parsing code which I am going to need to change next time I am dealing with settings for a different program. Ugh. What if I sometimes work with the code of different programs that use different standards? Not of these are huge obstacles in practice, but it's a pain and it's just not as good as having everything standardized in one format.
No, this is exactly what the registry is for. It is a central place for applications (and the OS) to keep their settings. Imagine what would happen if you used a config file. You would end up like linux where every application has its own config file in its own format in a different place. Having it in the registry means you know where it is, you can use standard APIs to manipulate the data, etc. This is good. Saying each app should design its own way of storing these settings is like saying it should be bundled with its own file system to store saved files. It's ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, but the percentage you gave is actually seven nines. Five is two less than that. Good try though.
Maybe I need to see Evil Dead again (I've only seen it once), but I think that Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness both blow it away. This is speaking as someone who has a statue/ action figure (one of the 18" macfarlane toys) of Ash in my office.
Btw, I recently read Bruce Campell's autobiography and found it very entretaining. You should check it out if you haven't. Many amusing stories.
Yeah when I read the summary, I wondered whether peter303 really thought that it was going to be news to regular slashdot readers that "the web allows one to extend bad manners from real life." What a fucking idiot.
Someone should mod up parent. SV1 is the token to look for to identify IE on xpsp2. It stands for "security version 1". I can't find relevant documentation now, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Or, in other states theft of goods, theft of services, grand theft, and petty theft. Oh sorry, was I not supposed to mention those?
You don't seem to be a troll, and yet your second sentence directly contradicts the first. I am confused.
This is like saying that C can't be fater than the assembly. In theory it's true: whatever assembly is generated by your C compiler could have been written by you by hand. But in practice, you don't write assembly the same way a compiler does and it is much smarted about optimizing it than you are. So we reach a point where good compilers can generate more efficient code than would any actual human would write if they hand-coded in assembly, even though they theoretically could write equivalent code.
Similarly, a good JIT will in practice be faster than running native C code. We haven't reached that point yet, but we will because the JIT and the runtime are free to do things (like reorganizing memory to reduce paging and to put certain things on the same cache line) that your C compiler can't do since it lets you have access to pointers to arbitrary memory (and lets you pass them around and do whatever you want with them), and because your compiler doesn't have the same information at compile time about how you use the program that the JIT and runtime do, since they get to see what happens at runtime.
The only people who would rely on "neat hacks" in a production system are your "B coders": kids straight out of college who haven't yet learned who to write clear, maintainable, solid code. Regardless of language, your "A Coders"-- people who know how to write professional quality code-- are going to be good enough to write correct code that doesn't rely on being clever and tricky, and don't think that clever and tricky code is cool or macho.
Why is this "Informative"? This just isn't true. First, a GUID is a unique ID and has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Assuming parent meant GUI, it's still not true, as the standard windows commandline tools for manipulating the registry are quite decent.
I'm not familiar with sysctl. Can you explain why `sysctl -whatever` is "simple" and `reg query`, `reg add`, etc., in windows aren't? It seems like it would be equivalent.
And then no one would ever use the standalone app and would forget it exists, thus leaving their computer without needed patches. At least when windowsupdate is accessible through the browser, people sometimes think to go to it.
Or his daughter, depending on the gender of the person using the name.
In my intro linguistics class freshman year in college, we discussed shm reduplication as part of a lecture on linguistic games (also talking about pig latin and such), and the professor certainly implied that this had existed long before mallrats. In fact, he thought that the usage in mallrats actually violated the prior standards of use. I tried to argue that this was intentional on Smith's part and was the source of the humor.
I don't expect them to be able to listen to my calls either. It doesn't mean that with a scanner you won't have an easy time listening to neighbors on their cordless phones.
I don't know if I find that argument very compelling. It's similar to trying to sell me a car alarm by saying that otherwise someone might steal my car and go run over people, and someone might see the license plate and I would then end up getting arrested.
Ths isn't limited to California. There are lots of parts of the US that already have these sorts of no-smoking laws, or are currently considering them. They get a good amount of news coverage, and I've seen a lot of articles where bartenders and other employees were interviewed, and they generally say that their health has greatly improved since things went non-smoking, even if they are themselves smokers. Just because someone smokes cigarettes of his own sometimes doesn't mean it isn't very harmful to his health to spend many many hours a week in a small enclosed place with dozens of people constantly smoking cigarettes. So the fact "there aren't too many" non-smoking bartenders is really not relevant to the discussion.
Anti-piracy measures aren't usually meant to stop professional pirates. They have a lot of resources to throw at the problem and will generally circumvent anything. Trying to stop them usually isn't worth the trouble and the cost. Anti-piracy is meant to stop casual copying. For example, since it was so easy to copy Dreamcast games, I knew lots of people who had a Dreamcast and would never buy their own games, instead copying everything. But if they wanted a Gamecube game, they would pay for it. So that's a lot of money that makers of Dreamcast games lost that they didn't have to. And the same thing happens on the PC. If you stop a guy from copying a game off his roommate, he'll often pay for it (or ask for it for a Christmas gift or whatever) whether pirated copies would have been available in Russia or not. Remember, this is a business. They aren't trying to stop piracy everywhere no matter what the cost because that's the moral thing to do. They are stopping the component of it for which it is cost-effective to do so.
What about the Robin Hood laws?
Agreed. I wasn't even an economics major (did CS), and I took three classes that covered Dutch auctions.
I don't remember anyone saying that he wanted a GUI or a fancy interface. What he said is that he wants something that runs on the Windows operating system. A Windows program doesn't require a GUI anymore than a Unix program does. In fact, when you start a new "project" in Visual Studio, one of the first things you choose is whether it is to be a GUI app or a console app.
Why does everyone make this same mistake? It should certainly be "All Your Package Are Belong to Us".
If you store them all in config files scattered over your hard drive and then the hard drive dies, you are also hosed. No matter what, you need to back up your data or you risk this happening.
No, it's not like that. With the registry, if I want to find the settings for an app named Foo made by the Bar company, I know that its settings will be at {HKLM,HKCU}\software\bar\foo\ . I can go there and find the relevant settings. With config files, I have no such assurance. The file for a given app may be in any of a number of different places, plus sometimes a newer version of an app will change the way it does things.
I do in fact know what I'm talking about and I've had to deal with this a lot. Firstly, the way config files are used is not standard. Saying that "Most apps use some kind of lib or something to access their configs" just confirms that they are not all the same. And it isn't true that no one other than original app writer will ever want to change the settings. What if I want to write a script that is going to go through for each use on my system and set some preference? If all of the settings are in the registry, I know ahead of time how to do it (once I look up the names of the relevant keys and values) with standard APIs. With text files, I need to write my own parsing code which I am going to need to change next time I am dealing with settings for a different program. Ugh. What if I sometimes work with the code of different programs that use different standards? Not of these are huge obstacles in practice, but it's a pain and it's just not as good as having everything standardized in one format.
No, this is exactly what the registry is for. It is a central place for applications (and the OS) to keep their settings. Imagine what would happen if you used a config file. You would end up like linux where every application has its own config file in its own format in a different place. Having it in the registry means you know where it is, you can use standard APIs to manipulate the data, etc. This is good. Saying each app should design its own way of storing these settings is like saying it should be bundled with its own file system to store saved files. It's ridiculous.