Basically the only way this is different from your HFS is that it encapsulates the meta-data (that is currently in the path name) differently.
Not true. With an HFS, there is one path to a file (excepting, of course, setting up sym links, but that gets messy quick).
With an attribute system, there could be several paths to a document. Eg, give me all the documents about politics, and give me all the documents about Europe would produce two sets of documents with some documents in common.
An HFS imposes an inflexible and artificial meta-data system. Does the politics folder belong under Europe, or does Europe belong under politics?
If selection is limited to the submissions a specific group of trusted people, then the utility of the network is limited. Plus, all newbies will be viewed with suspicion.
I wish to apologize to everyone, particularly the original poster, for my comment above. It was the end of my workday and I was tired, I was letting off steam, I exercised poor judgement.
It was nothing more than a dickhead comment.
Again, I apologize to the original poster and the Slashdot community.
I really wanted to say as a "conservative Christian" your opinion doesn't mean jack, but not only would that be an ad hominem attack, it would be rude.
Protestants do not adhere to the pope's dogmatic statements,
they believe the bible as their last authority
In the general, many Protestants interpret the Bible too literally to be seen as anything but dogmatic.
In the specific, at the last Babtist convention, the clause about the Bible being the last authority was removed. In fact, this so incensed Jimmy Carter that he withdrew his membership.
A "conservative christian" calling the Pope dogmatic is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I really wanted to say as a "conservative Christian" your opinion doesn't mean jack, but that would be rude.
Re:Also _Effective Java_
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 1
Just what I was going to post. Effective Java has given me new strategies, affirmed some of my practices, and addressed many of the coding issues that I have been facing for years.
Recommended reading for intermediate to advanced programmers (except those of course who emit light from their bum).
Well, let's examine the alternative: tight coupling. Everytime a programmer modifies a module, he then has to modify all related modules.
Good engineering requires that modules know as little as possible about each other. Module B should not break if Module A is optimized. This is fundamental.
BTW, what do Globally Unique Identifiers have to do with software modules?
Thanks for the link to TUNES. I hadn't heard anything about computational reflection for years and thought it had fallen by the wayside.
But I must disagree with your arguement. Federal and state governments define objects of commerce and warfare as a matter of routine business. They define what a motor vehicle is, what a controlled substance is, what a binding contract is, etc. As well, there are many standards bodies that produce specifications with implicit and explicit definitions on a wide variety of products and concepts.
TUNES is not an operating system as the term is understood in established use. Windows is. MS would like to define Windows based on what is commercially and legally in their interest and not on what the true properties of the OS are.
Minimal federal intervention: great. But we don't want commercial organizations, public and private institutions, nor even private citizens to make definitions according legal criteria in absence of common sense.
Eg, cheating? I wasn't cheating on the exam. I was using innovative techniques in establishing my resourcefulness in problem solving. Surely you wouldn't want to punish innovation!
Eg, hand grenade? That's not a hand grenade. That's a Personal Security Essence of Peace Soft and Cuddly Love Capsule. See? It says so right on the side there. Everyone should have security. It's a fundamental right!
Yes, dependencies are intricate. A goal of modularity is to manage dependencies. Components A and C should be perfectly interchangeable as long as they both honor the API contract. (It is still possible for B to break if B does not honor the contract.)
Sure, you can "modularize" your code without loose coupling, but why would you do that?
Netscape, for example, doesn't like to stay running for an entire day without crashing at least once. That's not a Windows problem.
This is not necessarily the case. An application may crash because system calls put it in an inconsistant state or corrupt it's memory. The (published) Windows API is a debacle. Of course, MS programmers know the work arounds. Furthermore, an application crash should not make the entire system unstable.
I have not used Win2k much, but the first day I used it, it crashed as I was shutting down applications. Fortunately, I don't have to used MS products much.
I agree. A lot of businesses do their competing at the legal and political levels. Enron used soft money to influence who regulated their industry. Many companies push dubious patents and threaten litigation.
We'd all be a lot better if big companies actually competed in a free market. This is not a big ask. They're always crowing about how wonderful and necessary free markets and global capital are.
Some enterprising people probably realized that they could make a few bucks taking apart old computersand no one would be monitoring their activities and they could make off with a bundle of money while the people who do the real work and handle all the toxic materials get all the health problems and long term environmental damage. Because the workers have no political clout, these "entrpreneurs" have little chance of being held accountable for their negligence.
The digits of pi are random, not practically random.
Knowing all the digits from 1 to n gives no clue as to what the n + 1 digit is.
To be random, a sequence has to be completely unpredictable and expressible in nothing less than the sequence itself. That's why compressing truly random data is impossible.
That's exactly right. With pi, the only way to know the nth digit is to read it from a representation or calculate it. That is, pi is "expressible in nothing less that the sequence of pi itself."
Lots of little patterns in there, providing you cross byte boundaries. 4 1's in a row happens 4 times. 3 zeroes in a row come up 7 times.'10' comes up 17 times. '100' comes up 12 times. '0100' comes up 8 times.
Yes, there are patterns, but each pattern has to represent the same thing. The patterns you've given surely cross character boundaries. If there are 3 zeroes in a row, I have to know that those 3 zeroes represent the same thing.
I've yet to see an HDTV unit that's worth it. The concept is great, but all the set's I've seen have lousy pictures. The color tends to wash out unless your sitting directly in front of the monitor. Motion and curved objects cause all sorts of problems. Objects are aliased on the fly, so there are square chunks in the picture. Nothing is worse that some non-linear shaped object in motion. It constantly flips into "focus" as it's being aliased (or whatever the process is).
If you haven't noticed this, you're kidding yourself.
Linux is missing an important element compared to other OSes: Design. It hasn't got a coherent set of features that are based on a sober evulation of the average user's needs.
Assuming that MS does have a coherent set of features (and I'm not sure this is a legitimate comment, but for the sake of argument), this has been a long time coming and it wasn't always so.
Another problem with Windows apps is they often work well at the basic level, but try anything remotely sophisticated and they either get your doc wrong or seg fault. Eg, try using Word for a good sized doc, complete with sections. Then try putting in a table of contents. It will eventually fail and get the page numbers wrong.
Linux and X Windows aren't as easy as Windows yet. But the advantage of Linux is that it's got the basics correct. Windows will always disappoint sophisticated users.
if you're going to write a user OS, you need careful design.
Careful design? Where in Windows is there careful design? It is very usable for naive users, but this is not a result of careful design. Windows is usable because a lot of resources have been thrown at it (and the apps) to deal with its poor design.
Windows design is foremost centered on keeping the MS monopoly going. The users come second, despite what all the MS propaganda is spouting.
The Linux development community should focus on developing and sticking to some technical design standards and working (and innovating) within those contraints.
As far as I can tell, it's the Open Source Community that stick to standards, and the Windows development community that's always bastardizing standards.
But the Slashdot crowd won't like it, because the UNIX/Linux crowd is clueless in this area.
That's one way to look at it, but what is really happening is that the Unix crowd ensures that features are built on top of rock solid foundations rather adding features that don't always work and then going back and making lots of fixes.
BTW, I don't tell the OS the configuration of the hard drive everytime I open a file.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. With an HFS, there is one path to a file (excepting, of course, setting up sym links, but that gets messy quick).
With an attribute system, there could be several paths to a document. Eg, give me all the documents about politics, and give me all the documents about Europe would produce two sets of documents with some documents in common.
An HFS imposes an inflexible and artificial meta-data system. Does the politics folder belong under Europe, or does Europe belong under politics?
Your criticisms are sour grapes.
If selection is limited to the submissions a specific group of trusted people, then the utility of the network is limited. Plus, all newbies will be viewed with suspicion.
Sort of defeats the purpose.
Thanks. Great explanation.
Could you elaborate and tie this in with the number of primes between m and n?
I wish to apologize to everyone, particularly the original poster, for my comment above. It was the end of my workday and I was tired, I was letting off steam, I exercised poor judgement.
It was nothing more than a dickhead comment.
Again, I apologize to the original poster and the Slashdot community.
Ok, ok.
I really wanted to say as a "conservative Christian" your opinion doesn't mean jack, but not only would that be an ad hominem attack, it would be rude.
In the general, many Protestants interpret the Bible too literally to be seen as anything but dogmatic.
In the specific, at the last Babtist convention, the clause about the Bible being the last authority was removed. In fact, this so incensed Jimmy Carter that he withdrew his membership.
A "conservative christian" calling the Pope dogmatic is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I really wanted to say as a "conservative Christian" your opinion doesn't mean jack, but that would be rude.
Just what I was going to post. Effective Java has given me new strategies, affirmed some of my practices, and addressed many of the coding issues that I have been facing for years.
Recommended reading for intermediate to advanced programmers (except those of course who emit light from their bum).
You scare much too easily...
Well, let's examine the alternative: tight coupling. Everytime a programmer modifies a module, he then has to modify all related modules.
Good engineering requires that modules know as little as possible about each other. Module B should not break if Module A is optimized. This is fundamental.
BTW, what do Globally Unique Identifiers have to do with software modules?
Thanks for the link to TUNES. I hadn't heard anything about computational reflection for years and thought it had fallen by the wayside.
But I must disagree with your arguement. Federal and state governments define objects of commerce and warfare as a matter of routine business. They define what a motor vehicle is, what a controlled substance is, what a binding contract is, etc. As well, there are many standards bodies that produce specifications with implicit and explicit definitions on a wide variety of products and concepts.
TUNES is not an operating system as the term is understood in established use. Windows is. MS would like to define Windows based on what is commercially and legally in their interest and not on what the true properties of the OS are.
Minimal federal intervention: great. But we don't want commercial organizations, public and private institutions, nor even private citizens to make definitions according legal criteria in absence of common sense.
Eg, cheating? I wasn't cheating on the exam. I was using innovative techniques in establishing my resourcefulness in problem solving. Surely you wouldn't want to punish innovation!
Eg, hand grenade? That's not a hand grenade. That's a Personal Security Essence of Peace Soft and Cuddly Love Capsule. See? It says so right on the side there. Everyone should have security. It's a fundamental right!
Yes, dependencies are intricate. A goal of modularity is to manage dependencies. Components A and C should be perfectly interchangeable as long as they both honor the API contract. (It is still possible for B to break if B does not honor the contract.)
Sure, you can "modularize" your code without loose coupling, but why would you do that?
It's not easy. That's why we earn BIG MONEY.
This is not necessarily the case. An application may crash because system calls put it in an inconsistant state or corrupt it's memory. The (published) Windows API is a debacle. Of course, MS programmers know the work arounds. Furthermore, an application crash should not make the entire system unstable.
I have not used Win2k much, but the first day I used it, it crashed as I was shutting down applications. Fortunately, I don't have to used MS products much.
The author is giving counter examples to disprove the assertion that IP laws are necessary for economic growth.
Big corporations argue for IP laws by suggesting they need them to protect their investment in R & D.
The article gives a couple of examples where plenty of R & D occured without IP laws. It then shows how IP laws are used to stifle development.
So, in one sense, the author's view is pragmatic because he exposes the big corporations arguments as hollow ideals.
I agree. A lot of businesses do their competing at the legal and political levels. Enron used soft money to influence who regulated their industry. Many companies push dubious patents and threaten litigation.
We'd all be a lot better if big companies actually competed in a free market. This is not a big ask. They're always crowing about how wonderful and necessary free markets and global capital are.
Hey, don't knock the Great American Way!
Here's the bit you left out:
Some enterprising people probably realized that they could make a few bucks taking apart old computers and no one would be monitoring their activities and they could make off with a bundle of money while the people who do the real work and handle all the toxic materials get all the health problems and long term environmental damage. Because the workers have no political clout, these "entrpreneurs" have little chance of being held accountable for their negligence.
But then, you're a troll, aren't you?
Great. As shareholder, I don't want private companies advertised by my Postal Service!
Pencils have always been made of graphite. It used to be that proces of putting the graphite in the pencil involved lead.
The digits of pi are random, not practically random.
Knowing all the digits from 1 to n gives no clue as to what the n + 1 digit is.
That's exactly right. With pi, the only way to know the nth digit is to read it from a representation or calculate it. That is, pi is "expressible in nothing less that the sequence of pi itself."
Yes, there are patterns, but each pattern has to represent the same thing. The patterns you've given surely cross character boundaries. If there are 3 zeroes in a row, I have to know that those 3 zeroes represent the same thing.
I've yet to see an HDTV unit that's worth it. The concept is great, but all the set's I've seen have lousy pictures. The color tends to wash out unless your sitting directly in front of the monitor. Motion and curved objects cause all sorts of problems. Objects are aliased on the fly, so there are square chunks in the picture. Nothing is worse that some non-linear shaped object in motion. It constantly flips into "focus" as it's being aliased (or whatever the process is).
If you haven't noticed this, you're kidding yourself.
Sorry, but I think HDTV is nothing but a con.
Assuming that MS does have a coherent set of features (and I'm not sure this is a legitimate comment, but for the sake of argument), this has been a long time coming and it wasn't always so.
Another problem with Windows apps is they often work well at the basic level, but try anything remotely sophisticated and they either get your doc wrong or seg fault. Eg, try using Word for a good sized doc, complete with sections. Then try putting in a table of contents. It will eventually fail and get the page numbers wrong.
Linux and X Windows aren't as easy as Windows yet. But the advantage of Linux is that it's got the basics correct. Windows will always disappoint sophisticated users.
Careful design? Where in Windows is there careful design? It is very usable for naive users, but this is not a result of careful design. Windows is usable because a lot of resources have been thrown at it (and the apps) to deal with its poor design.
Windows design is foremost centered on keeping the MS monopoly going. The users come second, despite what all the MS propaganda is spouting.
As far as I can tell, it's the Open Source Community that stick to standards, and the Windows development community that's always bastardizing standards.
I'm in total agreement. Just replace "Australia" with Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, hell, the whole damn southwest of the US.
We are all sorely lacking in civic leadership and entrepreneurialship in alternative energy sources. And isn't Enron such a shining example!
That's one way to look at it, but what is really happening is that the Unix crowd ensures that features are built on top of rock solid foundations rather adding features that don't always work and then going back and making lots of fixes.
BTW, I don't tell the OS the configuration of the hard drive everytime I open a file.