I'm not sure if Linux has a paging file, but I fail to see why the linux swapping can't be done preemptively as well. If a program loses focus, swap the memory used by it, but retain the active copy in RAM. If another program needs the RAM, release it. If the program comes back into focus, clear the swap copy. Seems like it would give the best of both worlds.
Article Text: We have all been using the terms swapfile and paging file interchangeably. Even Microsoft invariably refers to the paging file as the swapfile and vice versa. However, the swapfile and paging file are two different entities. Although both are used to create virtual memory, there are subtle differences between the two.
The main difference lies in their names. Swapfiles operate by swapping entire processes from system memory into the swapfile. This immediately frees up memory for other applications to use.
In contrast, paging files function by moving "pages" of a program from system memory into the paging file. These pages are 4KB in size. The entire program does not get swapped wholesale into the paging file.
While swapping occurs when there is heavy demand on the system memory, paging can occur preemptively. This means that the operating system can page out parts of a program when it is minimized or left idle for some time. The memory used by the paged-out portions are not immediately released for use by other applications. Instead, they are kept on standby.
If the paged-out application is reactivated, it can instantly access the paged-out parts (which are still stored in system memory). But if another application requests for the memory space, then the system memory held by the paged-out data is released for its use. As you can see, this is really quite different from the way a swapfile works.
An important distinction to make is that debit cards don't offer the protections that credit cards do. If someone makes a fradulent purchase with your debit card (using it as a "Visa" card), you don't get the opportunity to dispute it.
Actually no, I made the point that he doesn't make a big deal of it. He never asks for a supervisor if there's any type of line, and is actually very kind about it. Sometimes he'll just say "check again" and immediately provide his driver's license. It comes across as more of a learning experience for the clerk.
Based on your response, I'm sure you also set all your passwords to "password" since any password can be cracked anyway, right? Leave your doors unlocked too? The point isn't that it makes it 100% secure and trustworthy... it's that any amount of increase security is a good thing.
I've found that a lot of smaller shops tend to be more dilligent in checking signatures than Walmart type stores. Half Price Books is one of those that has always done an excellent job checking signatures. Same with our local computer store. For comparison, my CC signature hasn't been readable for over a year on my card, and Walmart has never asked to see alternate identification.
Instead of signing the back of his credit cards, my dad writes "Ask for photo ID". If they don't, he asks them calmly if the signatures match. If the cashier says yes, he asks to talk to their supervisor. He doesn't make a big fuss out of it most of the time, and tends to joke around with the cashiers more than make them feel bad, but it gets his point across. He also praises those cashiers that do actually ask for photo ID.
I like it because it has the net effect of making cashiers more likely to check ALL signatures, not just his.
Fallwell is a complete idiot, as is Robertson. I think that you'll find that while they have a big following, not everyone agrees with everything they say. I've actually heard Graham's father (Billy Graham) give a sermon on loving others (with a large section on tolerance). I haven't heard much about his son, so I can't respond more than that.
I'm from Wisconsin, and my pastor was associate pastor at the largest Pentecostal church in the country, which happens to be in Stockton, CA. I know many people from Texas and agree that racism tends to be more of a problem down there, which I guess would lead to very real issues within the religious organizations as well. All I can say is that based on Christian beliefs, those people will have to face the consequences for their words and actions. They should know better and I feel bad that they don't.
Basketball, Ebay, and homosexuality can be religious if a person treats it as such. I think what you're getting hung up on is the difference between the dictionary definition of religion and the common usage, which implies religion related to belief of a higher being. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that atheism does get constitutional protection as a religion.
As for the prayer questions and responses, I agree with the original responses. I'd clarify from my own perspective by saying that I have every right to pray whereever I want just like you have the right to stand next to me worshiping Satan if you desired to. I think it's still important for people to try having respect for others, though. That's why when I (silently) pray before eating, I don't make everyone else wait until I'm done. If they want to out of respect, that's great. If they don't, it really doesn't bother me.
If I had a bumper sticker on my car for everything I thought, I'd need a much bigger car. Perhaps a "I believe in God but I'm tolerant of your beliefs" one?
Do you have a campaign going for everything you believe in? Probably not. Do you agree with everything the tinfoil hat group thinks? If not, where's the "Mulder and Scully Aren't Real" buttons? How about the "Elvis Is Really Dead" campaign?
The point I'm sarcastically trying to make is that not everything deserves a vocal opposition. The tinfoil hat crowd and the vocal fundamentalist Christians are the same to me... they're not going to accomplish anything since common sense will hopefully prevail. Even if it doesn't, these movies will still be available for people to see, and will probably get more viewership as a result of this media attention.
If anyone has questions about what fundamentalist Christians really believe, feel free to ask. I'm more than willing to have reasonable debates about my beliefs. I think that if you sat down and tried talking reasonably with most other fundamentalists, you'd find the same is true.
Just so the rest of the world doesn't think that it's a small minority of Americans who are doing this
You're taking one poll question and trying to change its meaning. If the poll had asked how many people felt that creationism should be taught in textbooks instead of evolution theory, your statement would fit.
While it may be a large majority of Americans that believe in creationism, it's a small minority that actually feel that their will should be pushed on others. Hell, you're even ignoring the fact that most Americans (myself included) wouldn't take the time to vocally oppose/support something unless we REALLY thought it was a big deal.
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil".
Just like another poster, I've never known any Christians that believe Muslims are evil or that people of Arab descent are automatically terrorists. In fact, following 9/11, EVERY Christian leader that I heard (fundamentalist and not) made the point specifically that tolerance was fundamentally important and that terrorists were the extreme minority. Hell, even Bush, the whipping boy for anti-religion folk, made that point in almost all of his post 9/11 speeches.
Also please educate me, what are the different extremes in Christian fundamentalism?
There are many classifications of Christian fundamentalism. Within each organized religion (Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal) there are extremists (trust me when I say their beliefs vary widely). Among those extremists there's a subgroup of people that actually make a fuss over things. While I believe that's their right, I don't agree with it. I also believe it's your right to tell them to shut up, although I wouldn't agree with that either.
I think the few responses you've received to your posts should be enough to show you that your stereotype of fundamentalist Christians ISN'T accurate. As of now, the door knockers and "sudden friends" aren't all you've heard.
I'll clarify my previous statement then. Most fundamentalist Christians don't have an issue with the movies being shown at IMAX theaters either. How do I know this? Because I AM a fundamentalist Christian, in America. Certainly I know more of them than you, too.
The ones screwing the pooch are the ones that even we fundamentalist Christians get annoyed with. They're the ones that give us the bad stereotype and force us to explain stuff like this. Out of all the people at my church (300+ members), between 10 and 20 would have issues with the IMAX movies being shown. Around 5-10 might voice that concern, and 1 or 2 might make a big deal about it.
You're failing to see the point. Generalization of any kind is just as simple-minded as the people opposing those movies being shown at the IMAX theaters. Using black people isn't the best example, but how about something else... like being a computer nerd. Take a survey of Slashdotters and I'm sure you'll find that most have girlfriends/wives, decent social skills, and don't snort when they laugh. You'd never think that due to the stereotypes most people have.
MOST Christians don't have a problem with scientific movies about evolution being shown at IMAX theaters just like most non-Christians really don't care about a courthouse displaying the 10 commandments. I think most Christians realize that not everyone is going to agree with everything they say, and it's better to just accept that and be friendly with others instead of being "objectionable".
The following is from the Scientology FAQ. I think it explains very clearly why we don't like them. [/sarcasm] ----------------
Why do some people oppose Scientology?
There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes that cause a percentage of the population to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. This small percentage of society (roughly 2 percent) cannot tolerate that Scientology is successful at improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing more to help society than any other group. Those who are upset by seeing man get better are small in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and its efforts to create a sane civilization and more freedom for the individual.
Damn straight. What most Slashdoters don't realize is that far more science and technology goes into most sports than any of their favorite TV shows. A few examples: - golf ball dimple patterns (planned using computer simulations) - baseball bat swing motion (motion tracking and computer analysis is used in the pros) - football game planning (teams keep extensive stats that are used to find weaknesses in defenses)
That's just touching the surface, too. There's a LOT of really cool tech being used in sports these days.
My wife is an occupational therapist, and I know with at least one patient they came up with an even simpler solution: they turned the mouse sensitivity WAY down. Since tremors would move the cursor a much shorter distance, the patient was able to use the mouse once again. Obviously that does nothing for stray mouse clicks. It also required the patient have good range of motion, which a geriatric user might not have. The benefit was that is was free and universally available.
I have moderator points, but I want to respond instead. I can visit both of those two ABC links without Firefox 1.0.1 crashing. I've tried reloading the pages, changing the text size, printing, and it all works fine.
I was having problems with ESPN.com crashing when 1.0.1 first came out, and posted a bug report on it. Turns out completely deleting the directory and reinstalling fixed the problem, which was originally caused by a bad Flash app on the page.
The Firefox crew handles crash reports pretty quickly in my experience. Perhaps someone just needs to tweak the installer to completely remove all the old files instead of just copying the new ones.
Actually that's not entirely true. Here's the text everyone is referring to when they say you can't talk to anyone about it:
No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
While the wording is flawed and should be updated, people ARE allowed to talk to their lawyer(s). Additionally, section 232 of the act gives the person being investigated the right to sue the US government if he feels the government violated anything in any section 215-232 (minimum $10,000). These sections specifically prohibit getting a warrant for speech that is specifically covered by the 1st ammendment.
I agree that the PATRIOT act needs to be fixed, but most people complaining about it need to read the act itself to get their facts straight. There are many good parts of the act, and the parts that should be fixed mainly need clarification.
Please point out in the bill where people's civil rights are being violated. If you read sections 213-223, you'll see that EVERY change regarding federal wiretaps simply brings them up to date to include computer and cell phone taps. Additionally, most clauses state that the wiretap isn't valid if the speech being tapped is covered by first amendment rights. Finally, section 223 adds punishment for government agencies and employees if it is found that they have violated any of the preceeding (sections 213-222) requirements for a wiretap, and allows the individual to sue the US government for a minimum of $10,000.
How about you read the act and try being a little more specific. Perhaps the section of the act that you're referring to?
Slashdot posted this over a month ago. A simple search for answers.com would reveal that.
That said, this is definitely a good thing. Dictionary.com is fine and all, but answers.com provides a lot more information for most words. It'll be interesting what happens once Google links to even more Wikipedia content. I think it'll become a little more well known and more used as a result. Most non-Slashdot crowd still haven't heard of Wikipedia. Perhaps being linked prominently from Google would change that.
You're the idiot. While there was corruption is Wisconsin during Tommy's terms, he didn't have a direct role in it. OIC anyone? This is an organization whose funding came from programs pushed through by Democratic state politicians. Any attempts to delve into the inner workings of the organization was pushed back by Democrats playing the race card.
The biggest issue at hand is that Gov. Doyle is continuing to claim that he won't raise taxes, but goes on spending sprees and is now proposing a completely new tax.
You're correct, but you're also unfamiliar with the situation in Wisconsin that is leading to this tax proposal. The governor is claiming to have a balanced budget without raising any taxes. He's also vetoing Republican legislation for a property tax freeze.
At the same time, he's proposing this new tax and increasing spending. It's technically not raising taxes since it's a brand new tax, but logically it's the same thing.
What this really comes down to is a wasteful government throwing money at different programs, increasing taxes for some of the highest taxed citizens in the country, and claiming that to do otherwise will be "hurting our kids education".
Just like almost any other web service out there, if you're uncomfortable using it, don't sign up. That's pretty simple.
Google News is good enough on its own without requiring the user to login and customize the search, so it's not like they're forcing you to provide your data. It's 100% opt-in.
Additionally, since a free email account can be 100% anonymous (unless they subpoena your name from your ISP, which they can't do on their own), there's no way to link all that data to an actual person. Think Google is invading your privacy? Change your account once in a while or don't sign up to begin with.
The only reason the Google Toolbar 3 is controversial is because Slashdotters haven't taken the time to look at how it really works. Most think that the Autolink feature creates links that weren't put there by the page's creator (automatically linking an address to Google maps, for instance). In reality, you have to visit a page then click the Autolink button. It's automatic in a semi-automatic gun kind of way. Sure, it's doing a lot of stuff on its own, but it needs you to start telling it to do so before it starts. Not controversial since it's use is optional.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if Linux has a paging file, but I fail to see why the linux swapping can't be done preemptively as well. If a program loses focus, swap the memory used by it, but retain the active copy in RAM. If another program needs the RAM, release it. If the program comes back into focus, clear the swap copy. Seems like it would give the best of both worlds.
Article Text:
We have all been using the terms swapfile and paging file interchangeably. Even Microsoft invariably refers to the paging file as the swapfile and vice versa. However, the swapfile and paging file are two different entities. Although both are used to create virtual memory, there are subtle differences between the two.
The main difference lies in their names. Swapfiles operate by swapping entire processes from system memory into the swapfile. This immediately frees up memory for other applications to use.
In contrast, paging files function by moving "pages" of a program from system memory into the paging file. These pages are 4KB in size. The entire program does not get swapped wholesale into the paging file.
While swapping occurs when there is heavy demand on the system memory, paging can occur preemptively. This means that the operating system can page out parts of a program when it is minimized or left idle for some time. The memory used by the paged-out portions are not immediately released for use by other applications. Instead, they are kept on standby.
If the paged-out application is reactivated, it can instantly access the paged-out parts (which are still stored in system memory). But if another application requests for the memory space, then the system memory held by the paged-out data is released for its use. As you can see, this is really quite different from the way a swapfile works.
An important distinction to make is that debit cards don't offer the protections that credit cards do. If someone makes a fradulent purchase with your debit card (using it as a "Visa" card), you don't get the opportunity to dispute it.
See here for more info.
Actually no, I made the point that he doesn't make a big deal of it. He never asks for a supervisor if there's any type of line, and is actually very kind about it. Sometimes he'll just say "check again" and immediately provide his driver's license. It comes across as more of a learning experience for the clerk.
Based on your response, I'm sure you also set all your passwords to "password" since any password can be cracked anyway, right? Leave your doors unlocked too? The point isn't that it makes it 100% secure and trustworthy... it's that any amount of increase security is a good thing.
That's interesting since my father has always been a strong Democratic supporter and is a labor union member. I know... don't feed the trolls.
I've found that a lot of smaller shops tend to be more dilligent in checking signatures than Walmart type stores. Half Price Books is one of those that has always done an excellent job checking signatures. Same with our local computer store. For comparison, my CC signature hasn't been readable for over a year on my card, and Walmart has never asked to see alternate identification.
Instead of signing the back of his credit cards, my dad writes "Ask for photo ID". If they don't, he asks them calmly if the signatures match. If the cashier says yes, he asks to talk to their supervisor. He doesn't make a big fuss out of it most of the time, and tends to joke around with the cashiers more than make them feel bad, but it gets his point across. He also praises those cashiers that do actually ask for photo ID.
I like it because it has the net effect of making cashiers more likely to check ALL signatures, not just his.
Fallwell is a complete idiot, as is Robertson. I think that you'll find that while they have a big following, not everyone agrees with everything they say. I've actually heard Graham's father (Billy Graham) give a sermon on loving others (with a large section on tolerance). I haven't heard much about his son, so I can't respond more than that.
I'm from Wisconsin, and my pastor was associate pastor at the largest Pentecostal church in the country, which happens to be in Stockton, CA. I know many people from Texas and agree that racism tends to be more of a problem down there, which I guess would lead to very real issues within the religious organizations as well. All I can say is that based on Christian beliefs, those people will have to face the consequences for their words and actions. They should know better and I feel bad that they don't.
Basketball, Ebay, and homosexuality can be religious if a person treats it as such. I think what you're getting hung up on is the difference between the dictionary definition of religion and the common usage, which implies religion related to belief of a higher being. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that atheism does get constitutional protection as a religion.
As for the prayer questions and responses, I agree with the original responses. I'd clarify from my own perspective by saying that I have every right to pray whereever I want just like you have the right to stand next to me worshiping Satan if you desired to. I think it's still important for people to try having respect for others, though. That's why when I (silently) pray before eating, I don't make everyone else wait until I'm done. If they want to out of respect, that's great. If they don't, it really doesn't bother me.
If I had a bumper sticker on my car for everything I thought, I'd need a much bigger car. Perhaps a "I believe in God but I'm tolerant of your beliefs" one?
Do you have a campaign going for everything you believe in? Probably not. Do you agree with everything the tinfoil hat group thinks? If not, where's the "Mulder and Scully Aren't Real" buttons? How about the "Elvis Is Really Dead" campaign?
The point I'm sarcastically trying to make is that not everything deserves a vocal opposition. The tinfoil hat crowd and the vocal fundamentalist Christians are the same to me... they're not going to accomplish anything since common sense will hopefully prevail. Even if it doesn't, these movies will still be available for people to see, and will probably get more viewership as a result of this media attention.
If anyone has questions about what fundamentalist Christians really believe, feel free to ask. I'm more than willing to have reasonable debates about my beliefs. I think that if you sat down and tried talking reasonably with most other fundamentalists, you'd find the same is true.
You're taking one poll question and trying to change its meaning. If the poll had asked how many people felt that creationism should be taught in textbooks instead of evolution theory, your statement would fit.
While it may be a large majority of Americans that believe in creationism, it's a small minority that actually feel that their will should be pushed on others. Hell, you're even ignoring the fact that most Americans (myself included) wouldn't take the time to vocally oppose/support something unless we REALLY thought it was a big deal.
Just like another poster, I've never known any Christians that believe Muslims are evil or that people of Arab descent are automatically terrorists. In fact, following 9/11, EVERY Christian leader that I heard (fundamentalist and not) made the point specifically that tolerance was fundamentally important and that terrorists were the extreme minority. Hell, even Bush, the whipping boy for anti-religion folk, made that point in almost all of his post 9/11 speeches.
There are many classifications of Christian fundamentalism. Within each organized religion (Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal) there are extremists (trust me when I say their beliefs vary widely). Among those extremists there's a subgroup of people that actually make a fuss over things. While I believe that's their right, I don't agree with it. I also believe it's your right to tell them to shut up, although I wouldn't agree with that either.
I think the few responses you've received to your posts should be enough to show you that your stereotype of fundamentalist Christians ISN'T accurate. As of now, the door knockers and "sudden friends" aren't all you've heard.
I'll clarify my previous statement then. Most fundamentalist Christians don't have an issue with the movies being shown at IMAX theaters either. How do I know this? Because I AM a fundamentalist Christian, in America. Certainly I know more of them than you, too.
The ones screwing the pooch are the ones that even we fundamentalist Christians get annoyed with. They're the ones that give us the bad stereotype and force us to explain stuff like this. Out of all the people at my church (300+ members), between 10 and 20 would have issues with the IMAX movies being shown. Around 5-10 might voice that concern, and 1 or 2 might make a big deal about it.
You're failing to see the point. Generalization of any kind is just as simple-minded as the people opposing those movies being shown at the IMAX theaters. Using black people isn't the best example, but how about something else... like being a computer nerd. Take a survey of Slashdotters and I'm sure you'll find that most have girlfriends/wives, decent social skills, and don't snort when they laugh. You'd never think that due to the stereotypes most people have.
MOST Christians don't have a problem with scientific movies about evolution being shown at IMAX theaters just like most non-Christians really don't care about a courthouse displaying the 10 commandments. I think most Christians realize that not everyone is going to agree with everything they say, and it's better to just accept that and be friendly with others instead of being "objectionable".
The following is from the Scientology FAQ. I think it explains very clearly why we don't like them. [/sarcasm]
----------------
Why do some people oppose Scientology?
There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes that cause a percentage of the population to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. This small percentage of society (roughly 2 percent) cannot tolerate that Scientology is successful at improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing more to help society than any other group. Those who are upset by seeing man get better are small in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and its efforts to create a sane civilization and more freedom for the individual.
Damn straight. What most Slashdoters don't realize is that far more science and technology goes into most sports than any of their favorite TV shows. A few examples:
- golf ball dimple patterns (planned using computer simulations)
- baseball bat swing motion (motion tracking and computer analysis is used in the pros)
- football game planning (teams keep extensive stats that are used to find weaknesses in defenses)
That's just touching the surface, too. There's a LOT of really cool tech being used in sports these days.
My wife is an occupational therapist, and I know with at least one patient they came up with an even simpler solution: they turned the mouse sensitivity WAY down. Since tremors would move the cursor a much shorter distance, the patient was able to use the mouse once again. Obviously that does nothing for stray mouse clicks. It also required the patient have good range of motion, which a geriatric user might not have. The benefit was that is was free and universally available.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has already shown people how to decode these messages.
I have moderator points, but I want to respond instead. I can visit both of those two ABC links without Firefox 1.0.1 crashing. I've tried reloading the pages, changing the text size, printing, and it all works fine.
I was having problems with ESPN.com crashing when 1.0.1 first came out, and posted a bug report on it. Turns out completely deleting the directory and reinstalling fixed the problem, which was originally caused by a bad Flash app on the page.
The Firefox crew handles crash reports pretty quickly in my experience. Perhaps someone just needs to tweak the installer to completely remove all the old files instead of just copying the new ones.
I agree that the PATRIOT act needs to be fixed, but most people complaining about it need to read the act itself to get their facts straight. There are many good parts of the act, and the parts that should be fixed mainly need clarification.
Please point out in the bill where people's civil rights are being violated. If you read sections 213-223, you'll see that EVERY change regarding federal wiretaps simply brings them up to date to include computer and cell phone taps. Additionally, most clauses state that the wiretap isn't valid if the speech being tapped is covered by first amendment rights. Finally, section 223 adds punishment for government agencies and employees if it is found that they have violated any of the preceeding (sections 213-222) requirements for a wiretap, and allows the individual to sue the US government for a minimum of $10,000.
How about you read the act and try being a little more specific. Perhaps the section of the act that you're referring to?
Slashdot posted this over a month ago. A simple search for answers.com would reveal that.
That said, this is definitely a good thing. Dictionary.com is fine and all, but answers.com provides a lot more information for most words. It'll be interesting what happens once Google links to even more Wikipedia content. I think it'll become a little more well known and more used as a result. Most non-Slashdot crowd still haven't heard of Wikipedia. Perhaps being linked prominently from Google would change that.
You're the idiot. While there was corruption is Wisconsin during Tommy's terms, he didn't have a direct role in it. OIC anyone? This is an organization whose funding came from programs pushed through by Democratic state politicians. Any attempts to delve into the inner workings of the organization was pushed back by Democrats playing the race card.
The biggest issue at hand is that Gov. Doyle is continuing to claim that he won't raise taxes, but goes on spending sprees and is now proposing a completely new tax.
You're correct, but you're also unfamiliar with the situation in Wisconsin that is leading to this tax proposal. The governor is claiming to have a balanced budget without raising any taxes. He's also vetoing Republican legislation for a property tax freeze.
At the same time, he's proposing this new tax and increasing spending. It's technically not raising taxes since it's a brand new tax, but logically it's the same thing.
What this really comes down to is a wasteful government throwing money at different programs, increasing taxes for some of the highest taxed citizens in the country, and claiming that to do otherwise will be "hurting our kids education".
Just like almost any other web service out there, if you're uncomfortable using it, don't sign up. That's pretty simple.
Google News is good enough on its own without requiring the user to login and customize the search, so it's not like they're forcing you to provide your data. It's 100% opt-in.
Additionally, since a free email account can be 100% anonymous (unless they subpoena your name from your ISP, which they can't do on their own), there's no way to link all that data to an actual person. Think Google is invading your privacy? Change your account once in a while or don't sign up to begin with.
You tinfoil hat types need some common sense.
The only reason the Google Toolbar 3 is controversial is because Slashdotters haven't taken the time to look at how it really works. Most think that the Autolink feature creates links that weren't put there by the page's creator (automatically linking an address to Google maps, for instance). In reality, you have to visit a page then click the Autolink button. It's automatic in a semi-automatic gun kind of way. Sure, it's doing a lot of stuff on its own, but it needs you to start telling it to do so before it starts. Not controversial since it's use is optional.