Thank you for your pedantry. While decimate did originally refer to the removal of every tenth part of something, today the meaning is extended to include the destruction of any large proportion of a group, and this definition has been accepted for quite a few decades... going back to at least WWII.
Look the word up in practically any modern dictionary... while your 1/10th definition will probably be there, it will probably have an (archaic) or (obsolete) qualifier on it. At the very least, the newer definition will also be listed. More likely ahead of the one you've given, illustrating the most common usage of the word.
Yes... languages evolve. Words change meaning. Live with it.
I think, perhaps, you may be overly optimistic in how many people would actually be willing to step up to the plate for Java if Oracle stopped development.
I wouldn't mind it at all... but do you seriously think that wouldn't cause a whole lot of people to lose a certain level of confidence in Java's future?
Really... what are some long term consequences of this decision? Could Oracle decide that if it can't have its way with Java, then nobody should have their version of Java, and simply stop making new versions? What would such a decision mean for Java?
The "new" method has the problem of immediately favoring the first design to get a positive response.
My own experience with focus groups is that they were more interested in _WHY_ you chose something the way you did, rather than in just what you chose. I'm not entirely sure how this algorithm will determine that.
There are so many bigger things in this world to bear concern over, and the idea of flipping a switch annoys you?
(facepalm)
You know, if something that small will seriously make you pissed off, I might suggest that you consider not using computers at all. Or at the very least, only using computers that belong to other people so that you don't have to shoulder any of the burden that might come with having to administrate or maintain it.
If I seem unsympathetic, it's because I am. I don't tend to feel sorry for people who are too lazy (by your own admission, I'm not name-calling here) to take responsibility for their own choices, which, in this thing that grown-ups call the "real world", sometimes means having to do some real work.
I can't help but read "ptth" as an onomatopoeia for a leaky balloon, and not as a backwards version of http (even though intellectually I know that it really is spelled that way).
I always think of the protocol portion of a URI as being atomic anyways, so no... I'm afraid that you really didn't really ftfm.
I thank the sincerity of your effort, nonetheless. But I really did say what I meant.
Also, having to take an additional step isn't exactly spoonfeeding IMO.
That was my point... people who choose Linux are, in fact, making a deliberate choice to do so. They are already running against the grain of what the general trend would otherwise be, and I would not expect the extra step of having to flip a switch to accomplish that goal to somehow be a dealbreaker for them.
I would think that if one were going to use Linux at all, then they've already adopted a policy of not wanting to be spoon-fed, and so it shouldn't tend to matter if its necessarily as straightforward as Windows. How difficult is flipping a switch, anyways?
When you want to run Windows, turn the thing on. When you want to run a different OS, turn it off.
Not that I think that this is remotely a good thing, but really... we've seen this coming for something on the order of a decade or more now. Is anybody surprised?
I tended to... any job that I believed I could do competently, regardless of the qualifications that they listed, I applied for. I was getting about 2 or 3 interviews a month, but it took me almost 10 months before I got my current job.
Not to mention the jobs that want 10 years experience programming in languages that aren't even 10 years old.
I've actually seen this, in fact.
I've been a professional game developer for quite a few years now, but during my last bout of unemployment between jobs (in 2010), I remember seeing a Craigslist job ad asking for somebody with 5 years of iPhone game programming experience.
When I had graduated in 2003 and was actually looking for an entry level position, I came across one ad wanting a senior Linux administrator with 15 or more years of Linux experience. Another ad that I saw wanted 5 years of Java Swing programming experience (while I understand that actually may have been barely possible, it would have probably required that one have previously been an actual Sun employee).
Rather than prescreening every video before making available... only screen videos that get more than, say, 50 unique views per day (counting since the day they were uploaded). If the video is found to contain copyrighted content, it would then be taken offline and the uploader notified. If the uploader genuinely has legitimate claim to the work, then a compensation system should reasonably exist so that the the screeners are discouraged from taking down videos that are not infringing on anybody's copyright. In addition to a wrongfully taken down video being restored, any compensation that the uploader is entitled to for should be based on the number of unique views that were received prior to takedown, so that the more views it gets before they take it down, the more sure they need to be that the content is not infringing.
I expect that would probably bring down their costs by at least an order of magnitude, as I'm certain that only a very tiny percentage of videos uploaded to youtube get more than 50 views in a single day.
Funny thing is, though.... while I hold the iPad about 12" away. When I'm reading on my iPhone, because the screen size, and therefore pages, are so much smaller, I generally hold it much closer to my face... probably about 6" or so.
You suggest that adding any IPv6 IP's that TPB owns to a blacklist is trivial, but for *EVERY* IP that is blocked, TPB could potentially just get another one, even get two more, and they would not, could not run out anytime that makes any sense at all to consider. We're talking about geological time scales here.
They would eventually run out of v4 IP's... it might take a while, but they would run out. And at least the time period would be on a human scale.
Of course if everything TPB owns appears to be on a single subnet, blocking that may itself be quite easy. But that fails to account for the possibility that legitimate organizations might also be on the same subnet and could be unfairly cut off as well.
Ultimately, my point is that with normal whack-a-mole, you can always win it if you have more bats (and arms) to pound with than there are holes for the mole to come out of. With IPv4 addresses, this is difficult, but actually completely achievable. With IPv6, it isn't even achievable.
20/20 vision acuity can actually perceive something as small as roughly 30 microns across when it is only 12 inches away. That is roughly half the size of the pixels on the Retina display. In practice, the eye can discern even smaller variations than this, however... and so a pixel spacing of 15 microns or better is required to surpass the nyquist limit in any case where adjacent pixels can have potentially very high contrast. To cover all cases, including being equal to what even people with superior vision can detect, the Retina display should increase its resolution by a factor of about 5.
Blocking by IPv4 address is at least theoretically possible, since the total number of IPv4 addresses that could be possibly used could not even *possibly* number more than a few million, as an absolute most. In practice, this is more likely to number only in the hundreds, or maybe even a couple of thousand. Blocking them all is simply a matter of scale, one that may require substantial effort, but at least is humanly achievable in a time frame that we can relate to... probably no more than a few years, as a worst case.
Total IPv6 address space, however, is many orders of magnitude larger. You could block a single IP every minute of every day of every month from now until the earth itself is consumed by the sun's expansion, and you couldn't hope to block even a significant percentage of them.
And the English bible is also a translation of a translation.
Unless you consider being rewritten in the original language a "translation", I'm not sure what you mean by this.
While none of the original manuscripts that the bible purports to come from still exist today, documents that are in the exact same language as the original survive today, and those documents are what modern translations of the bible are based on. Even in King James' time, the English bible was translated directly from the original languages, using the oldest manuscripts that they had available at the time.
I'm not saying that every word in the bible must be literally true, only that it's not a translation of a translation, as I've noted in the past that a lot of people seem to believe.
Actually, it was my understanding that the Hebrew word that is translated into English as "day" in Genesis 1 is the same word that is used to refer to the period of time from sunset until the following sunset.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for your pedantry. While decimate did originally refer to the removal of every tenth part of something, today the meaning is extended to include the destruction of any large proportion of a group, and this definition has been accepted for quite a few decades... going back to at least WWII.
Look the word up in practically any modern dictionary ... while your 1/10th definition will probably be there, it will probably have an (archaic) or (obsolete) qualifier on it. At the very least, the newer definition will also be listed. More likely ahead of the one you've given, illustrating the most common usage of the word.
Yes... languages evolve. Words change meaning. Live with it.
I think, perhaps, you may be overly optimistic in how many people would actually be willing to step up to the plate for Java if Oracle stopped development.
I wouldn't mind it at all... but do you seriously think that wouldn't cause a whole lot of people to lose a certain level of confidence in Java's future?
decimate (v):
1) To kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.
2) Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something):
Seems pretty spot on to me.
Really... what are some long term consequences of this decision? Could Oracle decide that if it can't have its way with Java, then nobody should have their version of Java, and simply stop making new versions? What would such a decision mean for Java?
The "new" method has the problem of immediately favoring the first design to get a positive response.
My own experience with focus groups is that they were more interested in _WHY_ you chose something the way you did, rather than in just what you chose. I'm not entirely sure how this algorithm will determine that.
There are so many bigger things in this world to bear concern over, and the idea of flipping a switch annoys you?
(facepalm)
You know, if something that small will seriously make you pissed off, I might suggest that you consider not using computers at all. Or at the very least, only using computers that belong to other people so that you don't have to shoulder any of the burden that might come with having to administrate or maintain it.
If I seem unsympathetic, it's because I am. I don't tend to feel sorry for people who are too lazy (by your own admission, I'm not name-calling here) to take responsibility for their own choices, which, in this thing that grown-ups call the "real world", sometimes means having to do some real work.
I can't help but read "ptth" as an onomatopoeia for a leaky balloon, and not as a backwards version of http (even though intellectually I know that it really is spelled that way).
I always think of the protocol portion of a URI as being atomic anyways, so no... I'm afraid that you really didn't really ftfm.
I thank the sincerity of your effort, nonetheless. But I really did say what I meant.
That was my point... people who choose Linux are, in fact, making a deliberate choice to do so. They are already running against the grain of what the general trend would otherwise be, and I would not expect the extra step of having to flip a switch to accomplish that goal to somehow be a dealbreaker for them.
I would think that if one were going to use Linux at all, then they've already adopted a policy of not wanting to be spoon-fed, and so it shouldn't tend to matter if its necessarily as straightforward as Windows. How difficult is flipping a switch, anyways?
When you want to run Windows, turn the thing on. When you want to run a different OS, turn it off.
Not that I think that this is remotely a good thing, but really... we've seen this coming for something on the order of a decade or more now. Is anybody surprised?
I was going for subtle... that's a bit overstated.
I tended to... any job that I believed I could do competently, regardless of the qualifications that they listed, I applied for. I was getting about 2 or 3 interviews a month, but it took me almost 10 months before I got my current job.
I'm not in the US, actually. Just north of it, however.
._. is morse code for the letter 'R'
I've actually seen this, in fact.
I've been a professional game developer for quite a few years now, but during my last bout of unemployment between jobs (in 2010), I remember seeing a Craigslist job ad asking for somebody with 5 years of iPhone game programming experience.
When I had graduated in 2003 and was actually looking for an entry level position, I came across one ad wanting a senior Linux administrator with 15 or more years of Linux experience. Another ad that I saw wanted 5 years of Java Swing programming experience (while I understand that actually may have been barely possible, it would have probably required that one have previously been an actual Sun employee).
Rather than prescreening every video before making available... only screen videos that get more than, say, 50 unique views per day (counting since the day they were uploaded). If the video is found to contain copyrighted content, it would then be taken offline and the uploader notified. If the uploader genuinely has legitimate claim to the work, then a compensation system should reasonably exist so that the the screeners are discouraged from taking down videos that are not infringing on anybody's copyright. In addition to a wrongfully taken down video being restored, any compensation that the uploader is entitled to for should be based on the number of unique views that were received prior to takedown, so that the more views it gets before they take it down, the more sure they need to be that the content is not infringing.
I expect that would probably bring down their costs by at least an order of magnitude, as I'm certain that only a very tiny percentage of videos uploaded to youtube get more than 50 views in a single day.
Funny thing is, though.... while I hold the iPad about 12" away. When I'm reading on my iPhone, because the screen size, and therefore pages, are so much smaller, I generally hold it much closer to my face... probably about 6" or so.
You suggest that adding any IPv6 IP's that TPB owns to a blacklist is trivial, but for *EVERY* IP that is blocked, TPB could potentially just get another one, even get two more, and they would not, could not run out anytime that makes any sense at all to consider. We're talking about geological time scales here.
They would eventually run out of v4 IP's... it might take a while, but they would run out. And at least the time period would be on a human scale.
Of course if everything TPB owns appears to be on a single subnet, blocking that may itself be quite easy. But that fails to account for the possibility that legitimate organizations might also be on the same subnet and could be unfairly cut off as well.
Ultimately, my point is that with normal whack-a-mole, you can always win it if you have more bats (and arms) to pound with than there are holes for the mole to come out of. With IPv4 addresses, this is difficult, but actually completely achievable. With IPv6, it isn't even achievable.
20/20 vision acuity can actually perceive something as small as roughly 30 microns across when it is only 12 inches away. That is roughly half the size of the pixels on the Retina display. In practice, the eye can discern even smaller variations than this, however... and so a pixel spacing of 15 microns or better is required to surpass the nyquist limit in any case where adjacent pixels can have potentially very high contrast. To cover all cases, including being equal to what even people with superior vision can detect, the Retina display should increase its resolution by a factor of about 5.
It hasn't, though. It still needs to improve by a factor or about 5 or so.
Total IPv6 address space, however, is many orders of magnitude larger. You could block a single IP every minute of every day of every month from now until the earth itself is consumed by the sun's expansion, and you couldn't hope to block even a significant percentage of them.
Unless you consider being rewritten in the original language a "translation", I'm not sure what you mean by this.
While none of the original manuscripts that the bible purports to come from still exist today, documents that are in the exact same language as the original survive today, and those documents are what modern translations of the bible are based on. Even in King James' time, the English bible was translated directly from the original languages, using the oldest manuscripts that they had available at the time.
I'm not saying that every word in the bible must be literally true, only that it's not a translation of a translation, as I've noted in the past that a lot of people seem to believe.
Actually, it was my understanding that the Hebrew word that is translated into English as "day" in Genesis 1 is the same word that is used to refer to the period of time from sunset until the following sunset.
Take from that what you will...