It doesn't support case-sensitive HFS+, so for those of us who use a non-toy configuration,
From developer.apple.com: HFSX is an extension to HFS Plus to allow additional features that are incompatible with HFS Plus. The only such feature currently defined is case-sensitive filenames. (Emphasis added).
It's not supposed to be compatible. At all. This is like complaining about KDE not compiling properly with a "perfectly sane" configuration of Hurd running on ARM. Even Adobe's CS2 and CS3 applications don't run at all on an HFSX volume.
I didn't say that the images wouldn't matter, I'm saying that they do matter.
One good example would be of photos of the Word Trade Towers circa 2000. 10+ years later, and you're not getting another new photo. These guys have effectively robbed photographers of their control over their images
What? It's not like you built the thing, you just took a photo of it. How can you even think that photographers are entitled to control of historically-priceless unreproducible images of a public landmark?
The question is whether you recognize photographs as creative works of art. I do not, the law does.
Take a painter painting this woman. The artistic work is clearly of his own creation; every stroke of the brush is his own work and the whole thing breathes van Gogh.
Now take a photographer taking a picture. He sees something interesting already existing in the world and simply captures the naturally-occurring moment on film. Now, if he creates the moment (like a film studio hiring actors and building a set and shooting a movie) then there is certainly an artistic creation going on that belongs to someone. But I strenuously disagree with the photographer's ownership of an image, just because he cleverly placed a camera at the right moment in time and chose good borders for where the image should cut off. Those are exactly three vector quantities: time, place, zoom/whatever. About as sensible as an illegal number, IMO.
It's useful to have an archive. After five or ten years people won't care about these images any more, and won't have a problem with someone archiving them. Unfortunately, the next five or ten years are the period when these images will actually be available. It doesn't really make sense to wait until flickr doesn't exist anymore to mirror its content.
And come on people, try to think outside of the current month. How ridiculous is it going to look in 20 years that content creators protect their images into extinction because of some by-attribution pissing contest of egos? We should be mirroring everything far and wide; protecting our society's creative output from annoying little people who don't cite sources looks preposterous next to protecting our creative output from disappearing off the face of the earth and being unavailable to our children.
Already people are kicking themselves for allowing content to be destroyed. A large number of silent movies (remember, the silent movie era stretched across decades) are completely lost today; not a single copy exists in the entire world. This is a critical part of our culture for film historians.
Frames are the right way to do it, and I applaud Google for using them instead of listening to pseudo-engineer web designers who think they know anything yukking it up about how frames are so five years ago.
Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.
Well obviously. Someone has to decide whether or not things are legal, and that someone is the judicial branch. Of course, they must follow procedure set poorly by the legislature. It's hard to know who's really to blame (just maybe the bloggers themselves have committed a crime) until the details come out.
It does (to a ridiculous degree of security, but not perfectly of course) guarantee that you're communicating with someone that VeriSign says is the entity you think you're communicating with. If you trust VeriSign (and essentially the entire internet does by default) then you can be sure.
Although Thawte is apparently a bit better, I've never had any reason to distrust VeriSign. But I definitely do not trust Symantec. Their "internet security suite" is what we in the biz like to call shitware.
Hm, you're right about shadow markets, I didn't think of that. That sounds like something that could happen even now though, and would be covered by SEC enforcement rather than what is actually possible.
And yes the prices could update continuously based on supply/demand numbers (how many people are waiting to buy and sell). Yes, in theory people could wait until the last minute to put in their orders, which would make the buy/sell numbers wildly inaccurate... maybe this isn't such a good idea
I was thinking that the prices would be based on the number of buy/sell orders queued up. In other words: if the trades were executed now, how would the prices look?
But they're not decisions, it's just luck. Whoever happens to hear that a meltdown is happening screws over someone who's taking a nap.
I make money. Someone else has to lose it.
The point of the stock market is to invest in the success of a company, not to compete with other investors. If the company flops, all of its investors should lose. It shouldn't be about which investor gets to their laptop first to dump the stock on some poor unwitting buyer.
If you want to stabilize a feedback system you should insert a "low pass" filter in the loop, not a delay.
OK. Instead of delaying trades, just throw away all high-frequency trades. Destroying high-frequency components is what a low-pass filter does.
A low pass filter is, more or less, like a moving average. With a low pass filter, the market would get information on the average of the last X hours or days of transactions
But now you're talking about filtering the market information, not trade actions. Delaying the price updates is different from delaying trade actions. The only way they're the same (I suspect this is what you're trying to refute) is if: -Prices update exactly once a day -But you can trade whenever you want.
In this case you're correct to say that people would overreact to incidental high-frequency changes that foul up the "snapshot" price at the end of the day, and that feedback would grow out of control.
However, nobody is suggesting that. People are suggesting: -Prices update continuously -But you can't trade except in one shot with everyone else at the end of the trading day.
It's still somewhat vulnerable to millisecond trading (trying to get your trades in at the last possible moment before the one-shot based on the latest prices), but I don't think feedback would grow - even in the face of huge last-instant changes - because the prices would stabilize over the next trading day before any actual trades occur at the end of the day, giving people a chance to rethink.
Instead of limiting how fast market transactions can be done, it would be much better to limit the speed of the information on the system. Do not divulge *every* price for every transaction, but only the average of some period
This seems interesting technically but frankly I wouldn't want to be the person who buys some stock with the understanding that each share is worth $40, when in reality it has dropped recently and is worth less. There are actual people behind these trades, and you can't just give them strategically inaccurate information to stabilize the market...
The problem is that you get some crazy system like this where prices are determined by the trading rules and investment algorithms.
Any actual actions that the company takes are irrelevant to the trading value, which is just the supply and demand between different computers under the trading floor. A company could have inept management, a terrible product at a ludicrous price, and virtually no long-term survival plan, but still have a robust stock price because the variables are just right. Chaos - incredible sensitivity to microscopic changes - is the exact opposite of what you want in an economy.
What a ridiculous argument. Even if the stock did still have some value, that just means you're screwing over other people - and next time that could be you.
This sounds like a band-aid solution to a bigger problem. Millisecond trading is exploiting the system; it just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market. Why is it allowed?
It's pretty amazing that they even were able to track the problem down to a particular bit. No general purpose operating system has anything even remotely having dreams of approaching that level of reliability and stability. It's nice to see the strengths of bare-metal hacking demonstrated in this bleary age of big-button-pushing Java and.NET.
Chrome's noscript is really bad though. You can only allow scripts for the current domain, so if the page uses scripts from a different domain then you have to visit that separately and allow it. And there are no temporary allows, only permanent. And wildcards don't work, so you have to unblock news.slashdot.org separately from yro.slashdot.org.
Still, Firefox is frequently infuriating and I only use it because Midori isn't mature yet.
Well the code's there, it's not just going to disappear if Oracle abandons it. And it's free. So if it meets people's needs then there's no reason they should refuse to use it just because it's no longer supported.
If someone else were to take charge of the cleanup/well control effort, I would respect their answer of "no you can't study the ocean floor."
But BP can't be trusted to make that judgment. There's no reason to believe that any of those concerns are legitimate. I mean come on, you should be a little suspicious of the people responsible for the disaster of the decade denying access to the site...
Slashdot Mirror
From developer.apple.com:
HFSX is an extension to HFS Plus to allow additional features that are incompatible with HFS Plus. The only such feature currently defined is case-sensitive filenames. (Emphasis added).
It's not supposed to be compatible. At all. This is like complaining about KDE not compiling properly with a "perfectly sane" configuration of Hurd running on ARM. Even Adobe's CS2 and CS3 applications don't run at all on an HFSX volume.
I didn't say that the images wouldn't matter, I'm saying that they do matter.
What? It's not like you built the thing, you just took a photo of it. How can you even think that photographers are entitled to control of historically-priceless unreproducible images of a public landmark?
The question is whether you recognize photographs as creative works of art. I do not, the law does.
Take a painter painting this woman. The artistic work is clearly of his own creation; every stroke of the brush is his own work and the whole thing breathes van Gogh.
Now take a photographer taking a picture. He sees something interesting already existing in the world and simply captures the naturally-occurring moment on film. Now, if he creates the moment (like a film studio hiring actors and building a set and shooting a movie) then there is certainly an artistic creation going on that belongs to someone. But I strenuously disagree with the photographer's ownership of an image, just because he cleverly placed a camera at the right moment in time and chose good borders for where the image should cut off. Those are exactly three vector quantities: time, place, zoom/whatever. About as sensible as an illegal number, IMO.
It's useful to have an archive. After five or ten years people won't care about these images any more, and won't have a problem with someone archiving them. Unfortunately, the next five or ten years are the period when these images will actually be available. It doesn't really make sense to wait until flickr doesn't exist anymore to mirror its content.
And come on people, try to think outside of the current month. How ridiculous is it going to look in 20 years that content creators protect their images into extinction because of some by-attribution pissing contest of egos? We should be mirroring everything far and wide; protecting our society's creative output from annoying little people who don't cite sources looks preposterous next to protecting our creative output from disappearing off the face of the earth and being unavailable to our children.
Already people are kicking themselves for allowing content to be destroyed. A large number of silent movies (remember, the silent movie era stretched across decades) are completely lost today; not a single copy exists in the entire world. This is a critical part of our culture for film historians.
Frames are the right way to do it, and I applaud Google for using them instead of listening to pseudo-engineer web designers who think they know anything yukking it up about how frames are so five years ago.
Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.
George Carlin is a crazy old anarchist stand-up comedian, not someone you should ever take seriously on political philosophy...
Well obviously. Someone has to decide whether or not things are legal, and that someone is the judicial branch. Of course, they must follow procedure set poorly by the legislature. It's hard to know who's really to blame (just maybe the bloggers themselves have committed a crime) until the details come out.
It does (to a ridiculous degree of security, but not perfectly of course) guarantee that you're communicating with someone that VeriSign says is the entity you think you're communicating with. If you trust VeriSign (and essentially the entire internet does by default) then you can be sure.
Although Thawte is apparently a bit better, I've never had any reason to distrust VeriSign. But I definitely do not trust Symantec. Their "internet security suite" is what we in the biz like to call shitware.
Hm, you're right about shadow markets, I didn't think of that. That sounds like something that could happen even now though, and would be covered by SEC enforcement rather than what is actually possible.
And yes the prices could update continuously based on supply/demand numbers (how many people are waiting to buy and sell). Yes, in theory people could wait until the last minute to put in their orders, which would make the buy/sell numbers wildly inaccurate... maybe this isn't such a good idea
I was thinking that the prices would be based on the number of buy/sell orders queued up. In other words: if the trades were executed now, how would the prices look?
But they're not decisions, it's just luck. Whoever happens to hear that a meltdown is happening screws over someone who's taking a nap.
The point of the stock market is to invest in the success of a company, not to compete with other investors. If the company flops, all of its investors should lose. It shouldn't be about which investor gets to their laptop first to dump the stock on some poor unwitting buyer.
OK. Instead of delaying trades, just throw away all high-frequency trades. Destroying high-frequency components is what a low-pass filter does.
But now you're talking about filtering the market information, not trade actions. Delaying the price updates is different from delaying trade actions. The only way they're the same (I suspect this is what you're trying to refute) is if:
-Prices update exactly once a day
-But you can trade whenever you want.
In this case you're correct to say that people would overreact to incidental high-frequency changes that foul up the "snapshot" price at the end of the day, and that feedback would grow out of control.
However, nobody is suggesting that. People are suggesting:
-Prices update continuously
-But you can't trade except in one shot with everyone else at the end of the trading day.
It's still somewhat vulnerable to millisecond trading (trying to get your trades in at the last possible moment before the one-shot based on the latest prices), but I don't think feedback would grow - even in the face of huge last-instant changes - because the prices would stabilize over the next trading day before any actual trades occur at the end of the day, giving people a chance to rethink.
This seems interesting technically but frankly I wouldn't want to be the person who buys some stock with the understanding that each share is worth $40, when in reality it has dropped recently and is worth less. There are actual people behind these trades, and you can't just give them strategically inaccurate information to stabilize the market...
The problem is that you get some crazy system like this where prices are determined by the trading rules and investment algorithms.
Any actual actions that the company takes are irrelevant to the trading value, which is just the supply and demand between different computers under the trading floor. A company could have inept management, a terrible product at a ludicrous price, and virtually no long-term survival plan, but still have a robust stock price because the variables are just right. Chaos - incredible sensitivity to microscopic changes - is the exact opposite of what you want in an economy.
What a ridiculous argument. Even if the stock did still have some value, that just means you're screwing over other people - and next time that could be you.
That only benefits the people who refresh the financial news every other second and can respond immediately to changes.
This sounds like a band-aid solution to a bigger problem. Millisecond trading is exploiting the system; it just sucks profit out of tiny variations in the market. Why is it allowed?
It's pretty amazing that they even were able to track the problem down to a particular bit. No general purpose operating system has anything even remotely having dreams of approaching that level of reliability and stability. It's nice to see the strengths of bare-metal hacking demonstrated in this bleary age of big-button-pushing Java and .NET.
Chrome's noscript is really bad though. You can only allow scripts for the current domain, so if the page uses scripts from a different domain then you have to visit that separately and allow it. And there are no temporary allows, only permanent. And wildcards don't work, so you have to unblock news.slashdot.org separately from yro.slashdot.org.
Still, Firefox is frequently infuriating and I only use it because Midori isn't mature yet.
Insanity is a legal defense, not a crime
So what, just write your own.
(define (car z)
(z (lambda (p q) p)))
(define (cdr z)
(z (lambda (p q) q)))
Well the code's there, it's not just going to disappear if Oracle abandons it. And it's free. So if it meets people's needs then there's no reason they should refuse to use it just because it's no longer supported.
The rallying cry of the army of idiots...
...including Common Lisp.
If someone else were to take charge of the cleanup/well control effort, I would respect their answer of "no you can't study the ocean floor."
But BP can't be trusted to make that judgment. There's no reason to believe that any of those concerns are legitimate. I mean come on, you should be a little suspicious of the people responsible for the disaster of the decade denying access to the site...