Computationally intensive? Has more to do with IO intensive tasks...
Odds are that page you're not using, and haven't used for a while, isn't going to be used again for another long while.
You're right that choosing which pages to swap out could be made into a very difficult task indeed, but the the problem is really as simple as I initially stated.
In this case, Windows could relatively simply detect that the entire system was idle, and not count that time towards individual pages being idle... Or it could not swap out idle pages if there's no demand for disk cache... Either way would solve the problem of walking away from your system for a few hours and coming back to everything being swapped out.
the logic for swapping out cold memory pages assumes that the goal is to maximize application throughput, at the potential cost of latency when doing large context or workload switches
What you're actually complaining about is that Windows did a poor job of deciding what to page out. Sure, you could "turn off swap" if you have enough memory, and you won't ever have to wait for anything to be paged in.. But your system would be faster if you had a good paging algorithm and could use unaccessed memory pages for disk cache instead.
As somebody who just replaced all the pipes in my house, I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't sell the copper.
There are plenty of reasons for everyday people to have metal to recycle. I shouldn't have to give somebody else a cut because they're licensed in order to protect some idiot company that couldn't protect their assets properly.
What a giant load of bullshit. Let me respond to your points individually.
1. Without an overinflated sense of "fairness", it's trivial to apply common sense to individual situations. After all, traffic infractions are enforced on an individual level. Saying it's impractical to apply judgment to each individual situation is simply incorrect.
2. There should be cases where you should dislike this too.
3. I said nothing of my own capabilities, however it is plain to see that many people are significantly more capable than other people. In the case of traffic laws, it is even more plain that some vehicles are more capable than other vehicles.
4. There's a difference between appreciating the odds of an event, and being paralyzed in fear of the event.
Your life could be lived very well without driving with the effin phone. Mine is.
I'll bet money that you have road rage issues though. Try looking ahead out the windshield instead of giving the look of death to other drivers that are on the phone. You can control yourself, but you can't control them.
Lastly, no matter what this study says, I still believe that cell phones don't make people into bad drivers. That's backwards. Bad drivers use their cell phones instead of paying attention to the road. You'll never see me on my phone while you're in traffic with me. Not because I never do it, but because if there's any traffic (pedestrian or otherwise) I'll pull off the road and stop before using my phone, and even if I don't, I'll keep anything I have to say brief so I can return 100% of my attention to the road. People chatting away on their cell phones as they drive through traffic aren't simply distracted by the phone... They're also crappy drivers without the phone; their lack of respect for the task evidenced by their diversion of attention to their phone conversation.
Truckers with their CB radios have known this for years.... They're trained on how to do it safely. But for some reason we feel that while they need significant driving training, any moron that can back into a parking space can get a license to drive a car.
I see this kind of logic in public all the time. It starts when you're a kid and your parents/elders lie to you about why you should or shouldn't do a certain thing.
Here's the deal. If you don't want somebody to second guess your rules, you can't be disingenuous about why you made the rules. Even stupid people can pick up on it.
People don't believe that the speed limit is what it is for safety reasons because sometime it's not set for safety reasons. Sometimes it's set for other reasons, but still enforced under the guise of "public safety". So what happens? People second guess the speed limit all the time. (And that's even before you get to the fact that when speed limits really are set for safety reasons, they are set for the least common denominator of equipment and skill, and that some people really can exceed it safely. That adds yet another level of mistrust...) It's not just speed limits. It's 6th graders deciding they want to try smoking some pot because they know the DARE officer is lying about it killing them and they want to know what the big deal is, etc...
The root cause of the problems you describe is the lack of respect people in authority positions have for people who aren't in authority positions. That, combined with the willingness of people like you to treat people as a population rather than as individuals.
No, they aren't the two paradigms. They are two paradigms.
The sad thing is that I anticipated your response when I edited functional programming out of that sentence for simplicity, but still decided to omit it, because all it would accomplish is for somebody like you to pick the next methodology down the list...
I think the saying "missing the forest through the trees" applies here.
It's harder to realize why you don't just make fields public until you've seen global variables in a C program.
That's an interesting statement, considering the set of reasons you shouldn't use global variables only slightly overlaps with the set of reasons you shouldn't make your object attributes public. Additionally, in introductory CS classes (anything in the first year), it's not obvious to the student at all why you shouldn't use global variables. Early C students learn about scoping, are told that it is important to avoid the global scope, and are taught *how* to avoid the global scope, but it isn't until you start to learn higher level computer science and basic level software engineering concepts that it starts to become clear why you avoid the global scope.
It is important that C teaches you why you should use objects, but it is equally important that C teaches you why you shouldn't (though arguably there are other, better languages for teaching the latter). A good software engineer has learned that there is a time and place for both object oriented solutions and procedural solutions. The worst engineers I've ever worked with have insisted that one of the two methodologies was always the answer.
Sounds like somebody is a little bitter that he can't get a job since he doesn't have a degree. Must have missed some things in your list of reasons why you might want to attend college. I'll help.
You want to spend a few years of your young life learning a broad range of topics that interest you instead of being stuck working on what your employer decides is appropriate and hoping it makes for good career skills down the road when you have too many adult responsibilities to take time away from your career to learn new basic skills.
You want to be in an environment with other smart people of similar interests to enhance and speed your learning process and avoid getting stuck in idea rat-holes from only being exposed to a single point of view. (No, the internet doesn't solve this problem satisfactorily yet.)
You want that piece of paper which, while it may not mean anything to you, means a lot to employers, and it doesn't matter how much of a self righteous prick you are, life is just as much about how much you know and how skilled you are as it is about how well you play the game.
If you realize how to play the "real life" game in your early teens instead of wanking in your mothers basement 18 hours a day, you can actually get paid, or at the very least pay very little to partake in what ends up being a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
It's not uncommon to be able to easily out do a well established, well respected, highly tuned general purpose solution with a solution that is designed specifically for your particular purpose.
Claiming you can outdo TCP for your particular problem doesn't imply that your solution will be better than TCP in all cases. It's also not that surprising, as there are tons of applications that implement their own solution (or lack of solution) to the retransmit problem to great effect. Those solutions, however, haven't replaced the TCP standard because they're non-ideal or just plain non-functional in a general purpose setting.
While that's true, most developers I know don't edit other people's documents. They write their own. It's an issue for non-development types, but not so much for developers.
Visio is an issue, but around here we tend to tar, feather, and beat anybody who creats a document in Visio rather than dual booting to run it.
"If you had to keep getting up off the couch to reattach one of the legs that kept coming off, how long would you keep the couch? After a few years, if they told you that you had to pay for the rickety sofa again to keep sitting in it, would you pay them, or go buy a different one?"
I know they don't teach this in programming school anymore, but there are other types of applications than database applications.
Excel macros is (sadly) the most popular programming language for this type of application amongst business users.
What would you store in a database if your application takes some values, plugs them into a function, and gives you a result? Does your calculator app have a database behind it?
I know tons of Linux developers... Many of them have their boxes configured to be able to dual boot... But the only people I know who actually dual boot are gamers. Everybody else keeps that windows partition/drive around "just in case", but never ends up booting into it.
The small businesses with less expenses are the ones that never upgraded from Windows 2000 on their old Pentium 2/3s.
Security isn't an issue for them for the most part for two reasons. The boxes aren't internet connected, and virus/worm writers have stopped targeting such an old platform.
Those business aren't "switching" to anything until their hardware dies and there isn't an old PC available from the local recycler to take its place.
The computer industry doesn't know what it means to be a "small business". This is especially true for Microsoft.
As for the medium to large business user - they cannot use unsupported software, so if XP ever ends up in that state they will have to change.
XP will merely change from being supported by Microsoft to being supported by the OEM that sells the hardware. You'd think that would be a turn-off to businesses, but Microsoft has already washed their hands of level 1 and 2 support (and in some cases level 3 support), and businesses are already getting that support from their OEM anyway.
The IEC prefixes were created in 1999 to deal with the discrepancy introduced by hard drive manufacturers. (kilo|giga|mega)bytes had standard definitions in powers of two decades before the hard drive manufacturers started ignoring them, and yet an additional decade before the IEC prefixes were created. Worse, hard drive manufacturers used the correct definitions right up until 1995, when it was switched so they could advertise their drives as having a 1GB capacity.
Just because the prefixes are similar (identical) to metric prefixes is merely confusing for non-computer users. It doesn't mean that they're wrong.
This is also true, but much of history *isn't* civics.
Who we faught against in World War 2... That Sputnik was the first man-made satellite... Those things are history (and history that people should be familiar with), but they aren't civics.
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views Question #17 - D. manmade satellite
Not sure how I got 17 wrong... I thought the right answer, and managed to click the wrong option...
I'm talking about install time options. Basic configuration of an application's essential options through an OS-unified interface.
With RPMs, you have to live with the initial configuration that the packager/builder chose (The pre/post installation scripts are required to be non-interactive). With DEBs, and other OS packages, you can tweak configuration settings at install time. And with DEB in particular you can choose to have it behave like an RPM and do what the package builder decided, or you can have it prompt you at a specified level of importance. Better yet, you can re-run the configuration process at any time. Additionally, because of the implementation, you can remove a package without removing its configuration if you'd like, and install a new version of the same software that has incompatible configuration files, but still retain your configuration.
Those are basically the only differences between DEB and RPM... But they're significant.
Your analogy is broken. This is not like walking through a dangerous neighborhood at night. This is like walking into a dangerous neighborhood at night, finding the type of person who occasionally robs people at gunpoint, borrowing his gun, and shooting yourself with it.
Not only is this person not a victim, but she should herself be prosecuted. She funded these people. She is the cause of this type of crime. The scammers are just a catalyst.
This is nothing like blaming a rape victim. A rape victim doesn't have a choice about being raped, revealing clothes or not. This person had every chance not to be a "victim". Nobody forced her to do anything.
This is not like leaving a stack of 20's out in the open. She didn't leave them around, and they weren't stolen. She gave the money to these people.
any other opinion on the issue is, frankly, not morally or philosophically coherent
Funny, I find your opinion to be logically incoherent. A brainless reaction founded on a gross misunderstanding of reality.
Approximately 4x the surface for 4x the price? Seems about right to me...
Yeah, less pixels, but there's also more electronics in the TV. Speakers + amp. Tuners, image processing (stretching, etc that monitors don't need to do).
Replace it with DFSG+DFHS... You could toss the Java and Menu policies in there too for good measure...
LSB lets third parties put their crap almost anywhere they want on your system and they're still compliant (Did that package you just installed land in/usr,/usr/share,/opt? Is it's data under it's own directory, or is it in/srv,/var, or/home/something? Are its configuration files in/etc, or somewhere else?). We essentially *have* chaos. Third party (commercial) software almost entirely abandons the standard due to its deficiencies, and does whatever it pleases using a myriad of third-party installers. Even Microsoft got with the picture and made MSI, turning RPM into a further embarrassment.
Alternatively, LSB could be scrubbed of the stupid political concessions and re-written by an independent body with no ties to any of the big corporate distributions. It should include strict filesystem guidelines (one place for configuration files. one place for libraries, etc), and a packaging format that allows for interactive installations as well as scriptable installations.
Slashdot Mirror
Computationally intensive? Has more to do with IO intensive tasks...
Odds are that page you're not using, and haven't used for a while, isn't going to be used again for another long while.
You're right that choosing which pages to swap out could be made into a very difficult task indeed, but the the problem is really as simple as I initially stated.
In this case, Windows could relatively simply detect that the entire system was idle, and not count that time towards individual pages being idle... Or it could not swap out idle pages if there's no demand for disk cache... Either way would solve the problem of walking away from your system for a few hours and coming back to everything being swapped out.
That's not strictly true.
What you're actually complaining about is that Windows did a poor job of deciding what to page out. Sure, you could "turn off swap" if you have enough memory, and you won't ever have to wait for anything to be paged in.. But your system would be faster if you had a good paging algorithm and could use unaccessed memory pages for disk cache instead.
Really? Have a backyard BBQ pit, and a bike pump?
If you do, you can melt and cast copper, tin, and aluminum in your back yard. I've done it. It's easy.
As somebody who just replaced all the pipes in my house, I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't sell the copper.
There are plenty of reasons for everyday people to have metal to recycle. I shouldn't have to give somebody else a cut because they're licensed in order to protect some idiot company that couldn't protect their assets properly.
What a giant load of bullshit. Let me respond to your points individually.
1. Without an overinflated sense of "fairness", it's trivial to apply common sense to individual situations. After all, traffic infractions are enforced on an individual level. Saying it's impractical to apply judgment to each individual situation is simply incorrect.
2. There should be cases where you should dislike this too.
3. I said nothing of my own capabilities, however it is plain to see that many people are significantly more capable than other people. In the case of traffic laws, it is even more plain that some vehicles are more capable than other vehicles.
4. There's a difference between appreciating the odds of an event, and being paralyzed in fear of the event.
I'll bet money that you have road rage issues though. Try looking ahead out the windshield instead of giving the look of death to other drivers that are on the phone. You can control yourself, but you can't control them.
Lastly, no matter what this study says, I still believe that cell phones don't make people into bad drivers. That's backwards. Bad drivers use their cell phones instead of paying attention to the road. You'll never see me on my phone while you're in traffic with me. Not because I never do it, but because if there's any traffic (pedestrian or otherwise) I'll pull off the road and stop before using my phone, and even if I don't, I'll keep anything I have to say brief so I can return 100% of my attention to the road. People chatting away on their cell phones as they drive through traffic aren't simply distracted by the phone... They're also crappy drivers without the phone; their lack of respect for the task evidenced by their diversion of attention to their phone conversation.
Truckers with their CB radios have known this for years.... They're trained on how to do it safely. But for some reason we feel that while they need significant driving training, any moron that can back into a parking space can get a license to drive a car.
I see this kind of logic in public all the time. It starts when you're a kid and your parents/elders lie to you about why you should or shouldn't do a certain thing.
Here's the deal. If you don't want somebody to second guess your rules, you can't be disingenuous about why you made the rules. Even stupid people can pick up on it.
People don't believe that the speed limit is what it is for safety reasons because sometime it's not set for safety reasons. Sometimes it's set for other reasons, but still enforced under the guise of "public safety". So what happens? People second guess the speed limit all the time. (And that's even before you get to the fact that when speed limits really are set for safety reasons, they are set for the least common denominator of equipment and skill, and that some people really can exceed it safely. That adds yet another level of mistrust...) It's not just speed limits. It's 6th graders deciding they want to try smoking some pot because they know the DARE officer is lying about it killing them and they want to know what the big deal is, etc...
The root cause of the problems you describe is the lack of respect people in authority positions have for people who aren't in authority positions. That, combined with the willingness of people like you to treat people as a population rather than as individuals.
No, they aren't the two paradigms. They are two paradigms.
The sad thing is that I anticipated your response when I edited functional programming out of that sentence for simplicity, but still decided to omit it, because all it would accomplish is for somebody like you to pick the next methodology down the list...
I think the saying "missing the forest through the trees" applies here.
That's an interesting statement, considering the set of reasons you shouldn't use global variables only slightly overlaps with the set of reasons you shouldn't make your object attributes public. Additionally, in introductory CS classes (anything in the first year), it's not obvious to the student at all why you shouldn't use global variables. Early C students learn about scoping, are told that it is important to avoid the global scope, and are taught *how* to avoid the global scope, but it isn't until you start to learn higher level computer science and basic level software engineering concepts that it starts to become clear why you avoid the global scope.
It is important that C teaches you why you should use objects, but it is equally important that C teaches you why you shouldn't (though arguably there are other, better languages for teaching the latter). A good software engineer has learned that there is a time and place for both object oriented solutions and procedural solutions. The worst engineers I've ever worked with have insisted that one of the two methodologies was always the answer.
Sounds like somebody is a little bitter that he can't get a job since he doesn't have a degree. Must have missed some things in your list of reasons why you might want to attend college. I'll help.
It's not uncommon to be able to easily out do a well established, well respected, highly tuned general purpose solution with a solution that is designed specifically for your particular purpose.
Claiming you can outdo TCP for your particular problem doesn't imply that your solution will be better than TCP in all cases. It's also not that surprising, as there are tons of applications that implement their own solution (or lack of solution) to the retransmit problem to great effect. Those solutions, however, haven't replaced the TCP standard because they're non-ideal or just plain non-functional in a general purpose setting.
While that's true, most developers I know don't edit other people's documents. They write their own. It's an issue for non-development types, but not so much for developers.
Visio is an issue, but around here we tend to tar, feather, and beat anybody who creats a document in Visio rather than dual booting to run it.
I once heard the following analogy:
"If you had to keep getting up off the couch to reattach one of the legs that kept coming off, how long would you keep the couch? After a few years, if they told you that you had to pay for the rickety sofa again to keep sitting in it, would you pay them, or go buy a different one?"
I know they don't teach this in programming school anymore, but there are other types of applications than database applications.
Excel macros is (sadly) the most popular programming language for this type of application amongst business users.
What would you store in a database if your application takes some values, plugs them into a function, and gives you a result? Does your calculator app have a database behind it?
I know tons of Linux developers... Many of them have their boxes configured to be able to dual boot... But the only people I know who actually dual boot are gamers. Everybody else keeps that windows partition/drive around "just in case", but never ends up booting into it.
The small businesses with less expenses are the ones that never upgraded from Windows 2000 on their old Pentium 2/3s.
Security isn't an issue for them for the most part for two reasons. The boxes aren't internet connected, and virus/worm writers have stopped targeting such an old platform.
Those business aren't "switching" to anything until their hardware dies and there isn't an old PC available from the local recycler to take its place.
The computer industry doesn't know what it means to be a "small business". This is especially true for Microsoft.
As for the medium to large business user - they cannot use unsupported software, so if XP ever ends up in that state they will have to change.
XP will merely change from being supported by Microsoft to being supported by the OEM that sells the hardware. You'd think that would be a turn-off to businesses, but Microsoft has already washed their hands of level 1 and 2 support (and in some cases level 3 support), and businesses are already getting that support from their OEM anyway.
That's revisionist history.
The IEC prefixes were created in 1999 to deal with the discrepancy introduced by hard drive manufacturers. (kilo|giga|mega)bytes had standard definitions in powers of two decades before the hard drive manufacturers started ignoring them, and yet an additional decade before the IEC prefixes were created. Worse, hard drive manufacturers used the correct definitions right up until 1995, when it was switched so they could advertise their drives as having a 1GB capacity.
Just because the prefixes are similar (identical) to metric prefixes is merely confusing for non-computer users. It doesn't mean that they're wrong.
This is also true, but much of history *isn't* civics.
Who we faught against in World War 2... That Sputnik was the first man-made satellite... Those things are history (and history that people should be familiar with), but they aren't civics.
You didn't actually change the meaning any.
In other words, you didn't "fix" anything.
Same. Including the braindead question...
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views
Question #17 - D. manmade satellite
Not sure how I got 17 wrong... I thought the right answer, and managed to click the wrong option...
To be fair, some of the questions are "history", and not "civics".
I'm talking about install time options. Basic configuration of an application's essential options through an OS-unified interface.
With RPMs, you have to live with the initial configuration that the packager/builder chose (The pre/post installation scripts are required to be non-interactive). With DEBs, and other OS packages, you can tweak configuration settings at install time. And with DEB in particular you can choose to have it behave like an RPM and do what the package builder decided, or you can have it prompt you at a specified level of importance. Better yet, you can re-run the configuration process at any time. Additionally, because of the implementation, you can remove a package without removing its configuration if you'd like, and install a new version of the same software that has incompatible configuration files, but still retain your configuration.
Those are basically the only differences between DEB and RPM... But they're significant.
Your analogy is broken. This is not like walking through a dangerous neighborhood at night. This is like walking into a dangerous neighborhood at night, finding the type of person who occasionally robs people at gunpoint, borrowing his gun, and shooting yourself with it.
Not only is this person not a victim, but she should herself be prosecuted. She funded these people. She is the cause of this type of crime. The scammers are just a catalyst.
This is nothing like blaming a rape victim. A rape victim doesn't have a choice about being raped, revealing clothes or not. This person had every chance not to be a "victim". Nobody forced her to do anything.
This is not like leaving a stack of 20's out in the open. She didn't leave them around, and they weren't stolen. She gave the money to these people.
any other opinion on the issue is, frankly, not morally or philosophically coherent
Funny, I find your opinion to be logically incoherent. A brainless reaction founded on a gross misunderstanding of reality.
Approximately 4x the surface for 4x the price? Seems about right to me...
Yeah, less pixels, but there's also more electronics in the TV. Speakers + amp. Tuners, image processing (stretching, etc that monitors don't need to do).
Replace it with DFSG+DFHS... You could toss the Java and Menu policies in there too for good measure...
LSB lets third parties put their crap almost anywhere they want on your system and they're still compliant (Did that package you just installed land in /usr, /usr/share, /opt? Is it's data under it's own directory, or is it in /srv, /var, or /home/something? Are its configuration files in /etc, or somewhere else?). We essentially *have* chaos. Third party (commercial) software almost entirely abandons the standard due to its deficiencies, and does whatever it pleases using a myriad of third-party installers. Even Microsoft got with the picture and made MSI, turning RPM into a further embarrassment.
Alternatively, LSB could be scrubbed of the stupid political concessions and re-written by an independent body with no ties to any of the big corporate distributions. It should include strict filesystem guidelines (one place for configuration files. one place for libraries, etc), and a packaging format that allows for interactive installations as well as scriptable installations.