Frankly, I'd rather have a 12 in. Powerbook with the iBook case (tougher). I like the form factor.
Yeah. All these complainers don't seem to understand the virtues of the different products. I think the niches are completely well defined. I chose the 12" ibook a year ago, even though I could have spent the money on the tibook or the 14". I wanted something that was very portable. I'm very happy with my choice.
Given infinite resources now, I would choose the 12" powerbook. The 15" powerbook is just slightly too unweildy for my portable use, and the 12" can drive my desktop monitor, unlike the ibook (it better, that is). I carry my laptop *everywhere*. The 12" ibook is still a great option for folks that want to save $800 or so.
For many people (ok, maybe just for me), tabbed browsing isn't just to solve screen clutter: It's also to solve speed issues with switching windows in browsers. Personally, in IE on windows, clicking "Open in New Window" makes both windows unusable for what feels like ten seconds. If that were solved, I'd have no desire for tabbed browsing. So... if Apple has solved the speed problem...
I've opted to do a generic as possible degree, a masters in computer science, at a good, respected university (either Oriel college Oxford, Durham or Bristol).
You are completely right. For example, the broad-based education that I received at ITT Technical Institute has given me the confidence necessary to become the director of MIS at a Fortune 500 firm.
Your previos respondent is an idiot. Of course you are right. The breakthrough revelation with the iPod was that read-only contact and calendar access is ideal for an ultra-portable device. Read-only general document access would be fantastic as well. The current screen is just a little small for reading word docs and watching movies. So, make it a little tiny bit bigger.
Somehow I feel like all the naysayers are people that have never used an iPod. As I've become comfortable with the iPod, I've realized that this would be a huge boon. I would pay another $500 for it.
As other posters have pointed out, my post is informative, and wrong. This apparently is not an example of http keepalives, but rather t/tcp. A standard on a different level of the OSI model. Still totally kosher.
IE doesn't exhibit this behavior with servers that don't support http pipelining/keepalives/whatever.
IIS isn't the only server that supports it, btw. Apache does, and I imagine Tux or whatever the current kernelspace webserver is supports it too.
Also, your second scenario, for a server that doesn't understand the keepalive, is, as you allow, completely wrong. If a server could be confused in such a manner, then it would be trivial to write a DoS attack for the server that would not require large amounts of bandwidth.
The poster is completely mislead. He's talking about the fact that IE (and many other web browsers) don't tear down connections after only a single transfer. This allows them to transfer the web page, and then all the images, over only a few threads/connections. It results in a huge speedup, and has no downside, since they do close their connections once all the material is transfered. It's not so that subsequent page loads will be faster, if I understand corretly.
What IE does to FTP servers is a completely different problem. Yes, it is a similar technique, but FTP and HTTP are pretty different anyway. It's a lot more damaging, since FTP servers maintain a more state for connected users than HTTP servers (iiuc, again).
It's not just to keep resumes on file. It's also so that HR can look busy so they'll be less likely outsourced. I have a friend who went in to an interview once, and was told that the company had a policy of requiring outside interviews for all positions, but they were going to hire someone up internally. He just wasted hours of his life on the telephone, in the car, and in the interview room.
Oh, me too. I'm not saying that this makes unhappiness desireable for workers. In many situations, specific kinds of worker unhappiness can be profitable for the company.
This isn't a moral judgment. It's just the way people work.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the studies were with officeworkers in general. So it's still possible that more creative jobs require more relative happiness. Of course, I don't think you can call us VB programmers creative professionals, exactly.
Re:The purpose of comments is to be USEFUL...
on
Linux Kernel Code Humor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Work is done better by those who enjoy themselves doing it.
This is a common misconception. Unhappy, overly criticized workers are less likely to make mistakes, and get more accomplished. In the general case. Extensive research on the subject has been published, although I'm not interested in hunting it down.
That's exactly the problem. If you are exacting and critical, then you will be disappointed with recommendation systems because the averaging out effect removes all the interesting music.
Of course it recommended Moby: Moby is so common, popular, and inoffensive that even if Amazon's source data were perfect, it would still be the safest suggestion. Most people like Moby. I happen to think that most of Moby's stuff is cheap crap. My tastes are uncommon. Even among the few people that I agree with about music, we have sharp disagreements: My brother agrees with me on everything about music within genres, but he can listen to D&B, which bores me to tears, and I can listen to Johnny Cash or Elvis, which similarly drives him insane.
If Amazon could specially identify picky people, such as myself, they could insist that their algorithm only treated people as matches when their *uncommon* opinions match, and then only use *uncommon* opinions for recommendations, I'd be discovering a lot more music all the time.
Of course, I could buy ten CDs a week for the rest of my life, and not really run out of new things I'm interested in as it is. I don't think I need a referal service. So nevermind.
There's no such thing as an open community with taste. Too many people are idiots. If you've got a group of people with taste, but they're out in the open on the internet, you're guaranteed to attract a million morons with no capacity for critical thought whatsoever. This is why Amazon saw that I ordered Tangent 2002 - Disco Nouveau, and recommended Moby. People are dumb.
"No such extortion logic applies to Open Source. Hey, Open Source, you better do XXXX or we'll discontinue (or won't initially develop) Microsoft Office for Linux! I wonder what the open source community's reaction would be if MS threatened not to bring Office to Linux? How badly would we take it? Just how much could Microsoft force us to do using this tactic?"
None of your respondents have made the obvious point: Microsoft could force nothing on the Open Source Software/Free Software community with this tactic. Even if some large OSS/FS organizations made deals with MS, any of the other vendors (which includes me, you, and everyone else on/., since we can press an RHAT CD) could go ahead and do whatever was prohibited by the agreement.
Of course, arm twisting is not the only purpose of Office:mac. It also makes a boatload of money for MS. Not as much as, say, OfficeXP, but it's still a healthy ROI.
The way that they argue to their shareholders is this: Every penny we'd make next year on Office:linux would be a dime lost the year after that, on Advanced Server, etc. licenses. They'd be right. Unless they're planning on attacking Miguel de Icaza with submarined patents in.NET (which I really don't think they'd do) then they'd have given up control of the desktop. They'd have to have their heads examined for releasing Office:linux.
I suppose the best of all possible worlds would be all three: Regular structure in ~/Documents/ ~/Music/ ~/Pictures/ ~/Movies/ a la Mac OS X, a meta field for all files, and real-time full-text indexing. Neither Mac OS X nor Windows XP, afaik, do their indexing as the files are saved. We need a local google, basically.
The Mac OS X solution allows file servers to do full text indexing, and if the indexes are in the correct locations, all clients reap the benefits. That's pretty cool in my book, and according to the admins at my office, the same is not possible with Win2K server. They could be wrong, but that's a critical difference if it's MS's problem.
Except that those users that can't remember where their shortcuts are aren't going to set up good metadata in the first place. So knowing that it's about loans isn't going to help anyway.
When it comes to that, users just need full text indexing of their documents so they can do full text searches more quickly. Iduno about windows, but we've definitely got that in mac os.
I'd rather put up with the spam. But if you really need to avoid it, do what I do: use two accounts: one for online publishing on the Web and sites like Slashdot, and the other for people I know. You get the best of both worlds.
Well. You can also do a mini turing test + allow only. Make a filter that bounces unknown addys unless they include a password in the subgect line. Make the bounce message inform the receiver of the proper password.
If the spammers figure that out, then I'd read their damn email.
I have no special spam rules. I use my personal email account _everywhere_. Apple blocks %99 of the spam out there, before it ever hits my inbox. The rest is handily caught by Mail.app's junk filter. This amounts to about one message per day. It used to be nothing, but then some idiot friend of mine put my name in a cc: field and started blasting my email addy to a million free hotmail and yahoo accounts.
The Peace Corps is the single most effective anti-terrorist technique used by humans in recorded history.
No, really. If you solve people's immediate problems, there is less cause for extremism. The cheapest, most effective way to end terrorism, is to make foreigners happier. If we can help some village in Laos better able to market it's goods, this could help you and I, sitting in our warm cozy chairs in the US of A.
Your ROI in Laos can be higher than your ROI in Kansas. This is enlightened self interest. Welcome to classical liberalism.
Cost who? *Not* doing it might not cost the living people (I think it would), but it would certainly cost all the people that die.
So I think you'll have to clarify what you mean by "cost" and what you mean by "us".
I think what you're really saying is that you don't know what will happen if we continue to experience unchecked growth, both in population and economy. You'd like to see us approach something stable. Who's to say that some arbitrary limit on life-extending enginuity is going to be a stable solution? The future that I see is a whole lot more dystopian, but I imagine that the stable solution will only be acheived after we've exploited every possible life-extending enginuity, and the Earth is at it's absolute limit of human population, and there is an honest-to-goodness struggle for existence. And I imagine this will take at least a few hundred years, if not much longer.
This isn't the future that I'd like, but short of a world authoritarian government, I don't see a way to avoid it. Start moving people to other planets, I guess.
Yeah, but some of us sober fellows, who were never suckered in, have been harmed by y'all's failures. I wish very deeply that everyone had started a little wiser, and just skipped that learning experience.
If I understand correctly, and I may not, it's worse than that. Imagine a new patented standard, STDML. The patent holders say, "You may use my patents, but only on the web."
Now it is against the GPL to use that standard at all, since there is a restriction on the reuse of the code. No GPLed software would be able to use the standard in any form, on the web or otherwise.
This isn't just a problem with philosophy. It's a very practical problem. Many Free Software folks are not of the RMS opinion that everything can and must be GPLed. We just want them to be able to play on the same field as proprietary and "Open Source" folks. This locks them out.
Early childhood amnesia is pretty well discussed by neuroscientists. Not that that means they've got any excellent answers.
The best one I've heard, expressed to me in some cognitive psychology course, is that accessing memories is facilitated by a better frame of reference, and our current frame of reference is so different from our early childhood, we are left unable to access the memories.
I'm sure I'll gloss over important details, but: If you're hungry when you learn something, then it may be easier to recall that memory when you are hungry. This seems to be due to spreading activation. If memories, concepts, feelings, thoughts, smells, or anything else is linked in your mind, then it will be faster to access one if the other has been activated recently.
So, since everything about us is so fantastically different from our childhoods (we can control our muscles properly, speak, see the world from 6', rather than 2', etc.), now we have no connection to those memories to exploit.
Iduno. This was definitely not presented to me as a conclusive explanation, and I'm sure I'm missing parts. If you're really interested in the subject of memory, you should take a course on cognitive neuroscience or cognitive psychology. It was really difficult for me, but it was definitely the most rewarding subject I've ever learned about.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I'd rather have a 12 in. Powerbook with the iBook case (tougher). I like the form factor.
Yeah. All these complainers don't seem to understand the virtues of the different products. I think the niches are completely well defined. I chose the 12" ibook a year ago, even though I could have spent the money on the tibook or the 14". I wanted something that was very portable. I'm very happy with my choice.
Given infinite resources now, I would choose the 12" powerbook. The 15" powerbook is just slightly too unweildy for my portable use, and the 12" can drive my desktop monitor, unlike the ibook (it better, that is). I carry my laptop *everywhere*. The 12" ibook is still a great option for folks that want to save $800 or so.
You can support a family on 50k working in SF if you're willing to commute. Peice of cake. That's what millions of us do.
If you don't have a family to support, you could probably live in SF proper.
good, but no tabbed browsing
For many people (ok, maybe just for me), tabbed browsing isn't just to solve screen clutter: It's also to solve speed issues with switching windows in browsers. Personally, in IE on windows, clicking "Open in New Window" makes both windows unusable for what feels like ten seconds. If that were solved, I'd have no desire for tabbed browsing. So... if Apple has solved the speed problem...
I've opted to do a generic as possible degree, a masters in computer science, at a good, respected university (either Oriel college Oxford, Durham or Bristol).
You are completely right. For example, the broad-based education that I received at ITT Technical Institute has given me the confidence necessary to become the director of MIS at a Fortune 500 firm.
(Sorry, that won't be funny to foreigners.)
Your previos respondent is an idiot. Of course you are right. The breakthrough revelation with the iPod was that read-only contact and calendar access is ideal for an ultra-portable device. Read-only general document access would be fantastic as well. The current screen is just a little small for reading word docs and watching movies. So, make it a little tiny bit bigger.
Somehow I feel like all the naysayers are people that have never used an iPod. As I've become comfortable with the iPod, I've realized that this would be a huge boon. I would pay another $500 for it.
As other posters have pointed out, my post is informative, and wrong. This apparently is not an example of http keepalives, but rather t/tcp. A standard on a different level of the OSI model. Still totally kosher.
IE doesn't exhibit this behavior with servers that don't support http pipelining/keepalives/whatever.
IIS isn't the only server that supports it, btw. Apache does, and I imagine Tux or whatever the current kernelspace webserver is supports it too.
Also, your second scenario, for a server that doesn't understand the keepalive, is, as you allow, completely wrong. If a server could be confused in such a manner, then it would be trivial to write a DoS attack for the server that would not require large amounts of bandwidth.
The poster is completely mislead. He's talking about the fact that IE (and many other web browsers) don't tear down connections after only a single transfer. This allows them to transfer the web page, and then all the images, over only a few threads/connections. It results in a huge speedup, and has no downside, since they do close their connections once all the material is transfered. It's not so that subsequent page loads will be faster, if I understand corretly.
What IE does to FTP servers is a completely different problem. Yes, it is a similar technique, but FTP and HTTP are pretty different anyway. It's a lot more damaging, since FTP servers maintain a more state for connected users than HTTP servers (iiuc, again).
It's not just to keep resumes on file. It's also so that HR can look busy so they'll be less likely outsourced. I have a friend who went in to an interview once, and was told that the company had a policy of requiring outside interviews for all positions, but they were going to hire someone up internally. He just wasted hours of his life on the telephone, in the car, and in the interview room.
I hate HR.
Oh, me too. I'm not saying that this makes unhappiness desireable for workers. In many situations, specific kinds of worker unhappiness can be profitable for the company.
This isn't a moral judgment. It's just the way people work.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the studies were with officeworkers in general. So it's still possible that more creative jobs require more relative happiness. Of course, I don't think you can call us VB programmers creative professionals, exactly.
Work is done better by those who enjoy themselves doing it.
This is a common misconception. Unhappy, overly criticized workers are less likely to make mistakes, and get more accomplished. In the general case. Extensive research on the subject has been published, although I'm not interested in hunting it down.
That's exactly the problem. If you are exacting and critical, then you will be disappointed with recommendation systems because the averaging out effect removes all the interesting music.
Of course it recommended Moby: Moby is so common, popular, and inoffensive that even if Amazon's source data were perfect, it would still be the safest suggestion. Most people like Moby. I happen to think that most of Moby's stuff is cheap crap. My tastes are uncommon. Even among the few people that I agree with about music, we have sharp disagreements: My brother agrees with me on everything about music within genres, but he can listen to D&B, which bores me to tears, and I can listen to Johnny Cash or Elvis, which similarly drives him insane.
If Amazon could specially identify picky people, such as myself, they could insist that their algorithm only treated people as matches when their *uncommon* opinions match, and then only use *uncommon* opinions for recommendations, I'd be discovering a lot more music all the time.
Of course, I could buy ten CDs a week for the rest of my life, and not really run out of new things I'm interested in as it is. I don't think I need a referal service. So nevermind.
Anyway.
There's no such thing as an open community with taste. Too many people are idiots. If you've got a group of people with taste, but they're out in the open on the internet, you're guaranteed to attract a million morons with no capacity for critical thought whatsoever. This is why Amazon saw that I ordered Tangent 2002 - Disco Nouveau, and recommended Moby. People are dumb.
"No such extortion logic applies to Open Source. Hey, Open Source, you better do XXXX or we'll discontinue (or won't initially develop) Microsoft Office for Linux! I wonder what the open source community's reaction would be if MS threatened not to bring Office to Linux? How badly would we take it? Just how much could Microsoft force us to do using this tactic?"
/., since we can press an RHAT CD) could go ahead and do whatever was prohibited by the agreement.
.NET (which I really don't think they'd do) then they'd have given up control of the desktop. They'd have to have their heads examined for releasing Office:linux.
None of your respondents have made the obvious point: Microsoft could force nothing on the Open Source Software/Free Software community with this tactic. Even if some large OSS/FS organizations made deals with MS, any of the other vendors (which includes me, you, and everyone else on
Of course, arm twisting is not the only purpose of Office:mac. It also makes a boatload of money for MS. Not as much as, say, OfficeXP, but it's still a healthy ROI.
The way that they argue to their shareholders is this: Every penny we'd make next year on Office:linux would be a dime lost the year after that, on Advanced Server, etc. licenses. They'd be right. Unless they're planning on attacking Miguel de Icaza with submarined patents in
Yes. Of course, you are right.
I suppose the best of all possible worlds would be all three: Regular structure in ~/Documents/ ~/Music/ ~/Pictures/ ~/Movies/ a la Mac OS X, a meta field for all files, and real-time full-text indexing. Neither Mac OS X nor Windows XP, afaik, do their indexing as the files are saved. We need a local google, basically.
The Mac OS X solution allows file servers to do full text indexing, and if the indexes are in the correct locations, all clients reap the benefits. That's pretty cool in my book, and according to the admins at my office, the same is not possible with Win2K server. They could be wrong, but that's a critical difference if it's MS's problem.
Except that those users that can't remember where their shortcuts are aren't going to set up good metadata in the first place. So knowing that it's about loans isn't going to help anyway.
When it comes to that, users just need full text indexing of their documents so they can do full text searches more quickly. Iduno about windows, but we've definitely got that in mac os.
I'd rather put up with the spam. But if you really need to avoid it, do what I do: use two accounts: one for online publishing on the Web and sites like Slashdot, and the other for people I know. You get the best of both worlds.
Well. You can also do a mini turing test + allow only. Make a filter that bounces unknown addys unless they include a password in the subgect line. Make the bounce message inform the receiver of the proper password.
If the spammers figure that out, then I'd read their damn email.
I have no special spam rules. I use my personal email account _everywhere_. Apple blocks %99 of the spam out there, before it ever hits my inbox. The rest is handily caught by Mail.app's junk filter. This amounts to about one message per day. It used to be nothing, but then some idiot friend of mine put my name in a cc: field and started blasting my email addy to a million free hotmail and yahoo accounts.
The Peace Corps is the single most effective anti-terrorist technique used by humans in recorded history.
No, really. If you solve people's immediate problems, there is less cause for extremism. The cheapest, most effective way to end terrorism, is to make foreigners happier. If we can help some village in Laos better able to market it's goods, this could help you and I, sitting in our warm cozy chairs in the US of A.
Your ROI in Laos can be higher than your ROI in Kansas. This is enlightened self interest. Welcome to classical liberalism.
Cost who? *Not* doing it might not cost the living people (I think it would), but it would certainly cost all the people that die.
So I think you'll have to clarify what you mean by "cost" and what you mean by "us".
I think what you're really saying is that you don't know what will happen if we continue to experience unchecked growth, both in population and economy. You'd like to see us approach something stable. Who's to say that some arbitrary limit on life-extending enginuity is going to be a stable solution? The future that I see is a whole lot more dystopian, but I imagine that the stable solution will only be acheived after we've exploited every possible life-extending enginuity, and the Earth is at it's absolute limit of human population, and there is an honest-to-goodness struggle for existence. And I imagine this will take at least a few hundred years, if not much longer.
This isn't the future that I'd like, but short of a world authoritarian government, I don't see a way to avoid it. Start moving people to other planets, I guess.
Balance is out the window.
You were supposed to say, "YOU'RE BINGO!!!"
Yeah, but some of us sober fellows, who were never suckered in, have been harmed by y'all's failures. I wish very deeply that everyone had started a little wiser, and just skipped that learning experience.
Who's Bingo?
Um, I think that's wrong too.
If I understand correctly, and I may not, it's worse than that. Imagine a new patented standard, STDML. The patent holders say, "You may use my patents, but only on the web."
Now it is against the GPL to use that standard at all, since there is a restriction on the reuse of the code. No GPLed software would be able to use the standard in any form, on the web or otherwise.
This isn't just a problem with philosophy. It's a very practical problem. Many Free Software folks are not of the RMS opinion that everything can and must be GPLed. We just want them to be able to play on the same field as proprietary and "Open Source" folks. This locks them out.
Early childhood amnesia is pretty well discussed by neuroscientists. Not that that means they've got any excellent answers.
The best one I've heard, expressed to me in some cognitive psychology course, is that accessing memories is facilitated by a better frame of reference, and our current frame of reference is so different from our early childhood, we are left unable to access the memories.
I'm sure I'll gloss over important details, but: If you're hungry when you learn something, then it may be easier to recall that memory when you are hungry. This seems to be due to spreading activation. If memories, concepts, feelings, thoughts, smells, or anything else is linked in your mind, then it will be faster to access one if the other has been activated recently.
So, since everything about us is so fantastically different from our childhoods (we can control our muscles properly, speak, see the world from 6', rather than 2', etc.), now we have no connection to those memories to exploit.
Iduno. This was definitely not presented to me as a conclusive explanation, and I'm sure I'm missing parts. If you're really interested in the subject of memory, you should take a course on cognitive neuroscience or cognitive psychology. It was really difficult for me, but it was definitely the most rewarding subject I've ever learned about.