SVN is a centralized system. Its design philosophy is simply different from what you need for distributed development of any sort. That's all there's to it.
Version control systems are designed in a certain way and you will use whatever fits your situation the best. That said, there's a multitude of open source offerings. For centralized VC, Subversion fits the bill. For distributed, Mercurial or Git are the two major choices.
What is it exactly about Subversion that makes it so much worse than another presumably centralized VCS? You can't compare it to a distributed system because it isn't one -- remember that.
Properly done broccoli and cauliflower should be crunchy:) Yes, it's a fine line before it turns to mush, needs a bit experimenting to figure it out. Like all cooking.
Your liking of white cabbage and Brussels sprouts makes up for it, yep:)
I like all of those, and spinach, and other vegy stuff, and I'm nowhere near being a vegetarian. Fava beans with bacon, mmmm.
Yeah, and that difference is interesting if you're a chemist. It's immaterial otherwise. Fructose is a tad sweeter per Joule of energy, BTW, so you can use less of it compared to glucose to have the same perceived sweetness.
It's a non-issue. Get over it. You've bought into HFCS hysteria. All sugars are equally good or bad. Limit the calorie intake and you'll be fine, HFCS or no HFCS.
Well, my 8 y.o. does get to go to Wendys once in a while, but she ate at McDonalds only once and hated it too. I hate McD too, it's just some seriously bad tasting food. You can eat pretty healthy at Wendys. KFC is damn near useless, it's like eating salt with food, not the other way round. McD and KFC is off the list for us.
This is mental. HFCS is, metabolically, no better and no worse than cane sugar or fructose you get from fruits. Stop being silly. The idea that Europe's imaginary non-adoption of HFCS and reliance on cane sugar makes it not have "the same obesity problem" (when it does, in fact), is completely uninformed. Cane sugar and HFCS are equivalents. The imaginary lack of obesity would be due to maintaining a healthy calorie intake and running after public transportation, not because they chose a particular kind of sugar that ends up as the same thing once it reaches the bloodstream. The reason that I say you imagine Europe to lack the obesity problem is because it's true. Europe has obesity problem, just a bit delayed vs. the U.S. My family has doctors, and they see kids, and it's like what one would see in the U.S. 20-30 years ago. As more people in Europe switch to driving, the obesity can't but become worse. Use of public transport usually gives you a very healthy amount of exercise, don't discount that.
Those people were dead set to kill others. Censure of information doesn't fix that. It your fantasy. I understand your anguish and stuff, but it doesn't work that way.
Why stop there. Just don't run the browser at all. The idea that there is any point in not running javascript is silly. I wouldn't consider "non-javascript" users very important these days. It's their choice not to use javascript, and their choice not to be my customers. Good riddance I say. If all you want is static HTML, then it's your choice, but be aware that you might as well be reading PDFs or word processor documents. Those have hyperlinks too, you know. The point of the browser is to be a bit more than a non-javascript PDF reader.
Listservs do that, but if you had actually read what's said on those listservs: those are low-security passwords. You're not supposed to use that password anywhere else.
Because, obviously, doing the hash in the browser is still a galaxy away. Hey, wait, maybe not. The cleartext password isn't supposed to leave the browser, no matter what connection-level encryption you're using. If it does, you're doing it wrong.
Some 15 years ago, when Philips CFLs in Europe were still a hot new thing, I designed a replacement constant power regulating supply that made the light appear to turn on instantly. I've made a batch of 20 boards, and put them in replacement CFLs, that were to replace the unmodified CFLs we had in the house. It was also dimmable. Someone could probably make good money for a short while by offering light bulbs with such upgraded power supplies, but they wouldn't be cheap. One good thing is that such supplies do extend the life of the CFL (not in isolation, you have to derate the tube!). Mine could put out up to 10kV to light the bulb up, so as long as the envelope had some vacuum in it, it would light up even if the electrodes were evaporated away to be flush with the envelope. I've had the supplies fail and had to upgrade some components, as I was pretty novice back then, but the fluorescent tubes have never failed. Those CFLs are still in use, all 20 of them, and they still produce apparently normal amounts of light, 15 years later. As long as the tube keeps vacuum, you can design a power supply that will keep it lit up. When it gets too dim for your taste, you can replace it then, even if I'd personally like to be able to replace the tube only. Those power supplies could be made to last pretty much forever. Of course they wouldn't be cheap, even if you'd make them in quantity. They have to be of sufficient quality and a run of 1000 pieces would still cost over $50 per unit, give-or-take.
Such supplies make more sense as replacements for "ballasts" in tube fluorescents -- they can, pretty much, make a tube last as close to "forever" as practicable. If you want to trade off a bit of efficiency for longevity, you could make it regulate light output instead of electrical power, up to a certain power limit for safety of course. Large fluorescent tubes can dissipate quite a bit more thermal power than relatively small lightbulbs, but the electrodes do get hot once filament has eroded away, as it will eventually do.
In all this, the key is in understanding failure modes of CCFLs and fluorescents. The key contributors are:
1. Failure of ballast/supply electronics. 2. Failure of filaments. 3. Failure of vacuum. 4. Loss of efficiency of the light-emitting coating.
#4 you can't help with without changing the chemistry of the coating, so an electronic designer can't help with that. If you overdrive the bulb, then the coating wears out much faster than it otherwise would, though, so that's something you have control over in a way, but not by trying to put out rated light output from the bulb. The only way to prolong #4 is to derate the light output.
#3 you can't help with directly if it's a random failure somewhat unrelated to stress. If the glass envelope is thermally stressed around the electrodes and if that contributes to loss of vacuum, then of course derating the tube is the only way to help.
#2 is immaterial if you don't use filament emission for startup, but if the filament is worn out then you'll be concentrating heat load on the electrodes, potentially making them hotter and leading to vacuum failure #3.
#1 is something you have full control over.
A bulb that's "dead" (no light output at all) that still has good vacuum indicates #1. That's a waste of a perfectly good mercury-containing tube, then, and a bad thing (tm).
The way to make CCFLs last "forever", as I've found out, is to have "aggresive" power supply that provides fixed electric power to the bulb (not fixed current), and to derate the light output of the tube by a factor of at least 2.5. So I'd buy the largest CFLs one could get, and drive them as if they were small 8-12W ones. Instant startup, long lasting. Win.
If you think that 5% by weight is mercury you're delusional. It's about 5mg of mercury in a bulb -- about the amount you have in 15-20 lb of tuna, assuming about 0.5ppm w/w. About 1% of what was in a mercury thermometer.
No, you won't break even pretty quick. In fact, you won't break even ever, if you're a wise investor at least. In 5-10 years -- sure. Right now - nope.
The light output ratings on those LEDs are apples to oranges vs. how incandescents are rated, so unfortunately, like you've found out, you can't replace a 60W, much less a 100W indandescent with an 8W LED bulb. I've found that for floodlights in the dining room we need 20W LED in place of a 100W incandescent, and it's still a tad dimmer if you take a light meter and put it on the table where you're eating. Probably a 25W LED would really do the job .
Slashdot Mirror
SVN is a centralized system. Its design philosophy is simply different from what you need for distributed development of any sort. That's all there's to it.
Version control systems are designed in a certain way and you will use whatever fits your situation the best. That said, there's a multitude of open source offerings. For centralized VC, Subversion fits the bill. For distributed, Mercurial or Git are the two major choices.
What is it exactly about Subversion that makes it so much worse than another presumably centralized VCS? You can't compare it to a distributed system because it isn't one -- remember that.
Properly done broccoli and cauliflower should be crunchy :) Yes, it's a fine line before it turns to mush, needs a bit experimenting to figure it out. Like all cooking.
Your liking of white cabbage and Brussels sprouts makes up for it, yep :)
I like all of those, and spinach, and other vegy stuff, and I'm nowhere near being a vegetarian. Fava beans with bacon, mmmm.
Yeah, and that difference is interesting if you're a chemist. It's immaterial otherwise. Fructose is a tad sweeter per Joule of energy, BTW, so you can use less of it compared to glucose to have the same perceived sweetness.
Agreed, I meant both cane and beet sugar.
I don't know what you do to your cauliflower, man. RIP, poor cauliflower. It tastes great unless you rape it in the kitchen. Don't rape your food ;)
It's a non-issue. Get over it. You've bought into HFCS hysteria. All sugars are equally good or bad. Limit the calorie intake and you'll be fine, HFCS or no HFCS.
Perhaps.
Well, my 8 y.o. does get to go to Wendys once in a while, but she ate at McDonalds only once and hated it too. I hate McD too, it's just some seriously bad tasting food. You can eat pretty healthy at Wendys. KFC is damn near useless, it's like eating salt with food, not the other way round. McD and KFC is off the list for us.
This is mental. HFCS is, metabolically, no better and no worse than cane sugar or fructose you get from fruits. Stop being silly. The idea that Europe's imaginary non-adoption of HFCS and reliance on cane sugar makes it not have "the same obesity problem" (when it does, in fact), is completely uninformed. Cane sugar and HFCS are equivalents. The imaginary lack of obesity would be due to maintaining a healthy calorie intake and running after public transportation, not because they chose a particular kind of sugar that ends up as the same thing once it reaches the bloodstream. The reason that I say you imagine Europe to lack the obesity problem is because it's true. Europe has obesity problem, just a bit delayed vs. the U.S. My family has doctors, and they see kids, and it's like what one would see in the U.S. 20-30 years ago. As more people in Europe switch to driving, the obesity can't but become worse. Use of public transport usually gives you a very healthy amount of exercise, don't discount that.
Those people were dead set to kill others. Censure of information doesn't fix that. It your fantasy. I understand your anguish and stuff, but it doesn't work that way.
Flash is an extra thing. Javascript comes with every browser.
Why stop there. Just don't run the browser at all. The idea that there is any point in not running javascript is silly. I wouldn't consider "non-javascript" users very important these days. It's their choice not to use javascript, and their choice not to be my customers. Good riddance I say. If all you want is static HTML, then it's your choice, but be aware that you might as well be reading PDFs or word processor documents. Those have hyperlinks too, you know. The point of the browser is to be a bit more than a non-javascript PDF reader.
Things might change in a year, that's true, but for where I am it makes no sense, at least not if I buy from brick-and-mortar stores.
Maybe. I get what's available and peddled as "replacement" for a particular kind of a legacy lamp. I also do measurements, though ;)
keepass is difficult and/or inconvenient. I get it. Oh, wait.
Listservs do that, but if you had actually read what's said on those listservs: those are low-security passwords. You're not supposed to use that password anywhere else.
Because, obviously, doing the hash in the browser is still a galaxy away. Hey, wait, maybe not. The cleartext password isn't supposed to leave the browser, no matter what connection-level encryption you're using. If it does, you're doing it wrong.
Shit, I should have been explicit. CFLs do cost less. It's LEDs that don't.
It was crap to begin with, anyway.
Some 15 years ago, when Philips CFLs in Europe were still a hot new thing, I designed a replacement constant power regulating supply that made the light appear to turn on instantly. I've made a batch of 20 boards, and put them in replacement CFLs, that were to replace the unmodified CFLs we had in the house. It was also dimmable. Someone could probably make good money for a short while by offering light bulbs with such upgraded power supplies, but they wouldn't be cheap. One good thing is that such supplies do extend the life of the CFL (not in isolation, you have to derate the tube!). Mine could put out up to 10kV to light the bulb up, so as long as the envelope had some vacuum in it, it would light up even if the electrodes were evaporated away to be flush with the envelope. I've had the supplies fail and had to upgrade some components, as I was pretty novice back then, but the fluorescent tubes have never failed. Those CFLs are still in use, all 20 of them, and they still produce apparently normal amounts of light, 15 years later. As long as the tube keeps vacuum, you can design a power supply that will keep it lit up. When it gets too dim for your taste, you can replace it then, even if I'd personally like to be able to replace the tube only. Those power supplies could be made to last pretty much forever. Of course they wouldn't be cheap, even if you'd make them in quantity. They have to be of sufficient quality and a run of 1000 pieces would still cost over $50 per unit, give-or-take.
Such supplies make more sense as replacements for "ballasts" in tube fluorescents -- they can, pretty much, make a tube last as close to "forever" as practicable. If you want to trade off a bit of efficiency for longevity, you could make it regulate light output instead of electrical power, up to a certain power limit for safety of course. Large fluorescent tubes can dissipate quite a bit more thermal power than relatively small lightbulbs, but the electrodes do get hot once filament has eroded away, as it will eventually do.
In all this, the key is in understanding failure modes of CCFLs and fluorescents. The key contributors are:
1. Failure of ballast/supply electronics.
2. Failure of filaments.
3. Failure of vacuum.
4. Loss of efficiency of the light-emitting coating.
#4 you can't help with without changing the chemistry of the coating, so an electronic designer can't help with that. If you overdrive the bulb, then the coating wears out much faster than it otherwise would, though, so that's something you have control over in a way, but not by trying to put out rated light output from the bulb. The only way to prolong #4 is to derate the light output.
#3 you can't help with directly if it's a random failure somewhat unrelated to stress. If the glass envelope is thermally stressed around the electrodes and if that contributes to loss of vacuum, then of course derating the tube is the only way to help.
#2 is immaterial if you don't use filament emission for startup, but if the filament is worn out then you'll be concentrating heat load on the electrodes, potentially making them hotter and leading to vacuum failure #3.
#1 is something you have full control over.
A bulb that's "dead" (no light output at all) that still has good vacuum indicates #1. That's a waste of a perfectly good mercury-containing tube, then, and a bad thing (tm).
The way to make CCFLs last "forever", as I've found out, is to have "aggresive" power supply that provides fixed electric power to the bulb (not fixed current), and to derate the light output of the tube by a factor of at least 2.5. So I'd buy the largest CFLs one could get, and drive them as if they were small 8-12W ones. Instant startup, long lasting. Win.
If you think that 5% by weight is mercury you're delusional. It's about 5mg of mercury in a bulb -- about the amount you have in 15-20 lb of tuna, assuming about 0.5ppm w/w. About 1% of what was in a mercury thermometer.
No, you won't break even pretty quick. In fact, you won't break even ever, if you're a wise investor at least. In 5-10 years -- sure. Right now - nope.
I agree. One 60W incandescent bulb is OK maybe in Harry Potter's closet under the stairs.
The light output ratings on those LEDs are apples to oranges vs. how incandescents are rated, so unfortunately, like you've found out, you can't replace a 60W, much less a 100W indandescent with an 8W LED bulb. I've found that for floodlights in the dining room we need 20W LED in place of a 100W incandescent, and it's still a tad dimmer if you take a light meter and put it on the table where you're eating. Probably a 25W LED would really do the job .