I don't know about anyone else but my code never really gets translated in my head to English or any spoken form and doing so would seriously effect my coding. When I'm in groove, I'm thinking machine not human.
>Even better with the Y2K panic. It made the dot.com boom
No, the dot.com boom came from the wide spread availablity of Internet access and the invention and mass marketing of the graphical web browser (Netscape, then IE)
Y2K employeed a bunch of otherwise unemployable COBOL programmers and pumped money into consulting companies which had little effect on dot.com's. Most of that was under the radar stuff and much much more money went to the real fly by night dot.coms started by 20 something dropouts.
You have a chance to get an OS that's easy to configure and use or an OS that no one really uses who isn't in a technical field that's not all the easy to use or configure. This is supposed to be for kids so you would have their interests in mind, not your own ideological interests. What do you do?
Make the stupidest fucking decision imaginable! What a fucking asshole! This is why no one takes open source etc. seriously. Its filled with ideologues who have no concept of the real world.
Any decent player can spot a bot in ten hands or less. As I said, they are predictable. And a key thing is they never chat. Another dead give away is looking at the table history. If the same player has been at the table for a long time, enters few pots and usually wins those pots thats a good indication.
If you have something like Deep Blue or Gene and are already a master poker player with more than a few bracelets and know how to program better than most programmers, then yeah maybe you can put up a bot that can consistantly win. Notice how the article stated that bots do well on the low rent tables. They get creamed at the higher stakes games.
Even an intermediate player who can spot a bot can bust that bot. Bots aren't smart, they follow set logic based on hand strength, player betting patterns, and general statistics. If you play them "by the book" you will loose. If you play them by varying your play, playing overly aggressive and not playing crap hands, even in late position, you will always beat them. They are predicable.
Oh and you can always get up and find another table if they make you uncomfortable, thats be beauty of online poker, there's lots of tables out there so you don't have to be stuck on one.
Its also just a matter of time until the poker sites develop bot detection and destruction software. Its already in some clients.
My mail server got hacked and ( )\/\/ |\| ) by some sleazebag spammer. It ended up sending a bunch of spam that had a URL to click on to "sign up" for their wonderful offer. After recovering and updating the mail server I wrote a quick little program that ran overnight that filled in this web form with garbage, but not random garbage that could be filtered out. To a machine each record looked valid. I ended up inserting over 200k records into their database making it worthless. I did it again a few times when I was able to get an IP address that didn't get blocked at the server.
Was it right? Probably not. Did it feel good, HELL YES.
Back before India became the IT department of The West, we were considered wizards and afforded appropriate respect. Now that there are far more humble people who live in a box willing to do the same work for a whole lot less and without attitude we're now an inconvenience. Face it.
So in other words you're saying "Worst explanation ever!"
Next time I'll have to delve into the operations of the PMMU to please everyone I guess
Umm Hmm
This is the stock response we send to customers who get uppity when they play with Task Manager. I belive it was taken from Microsoft or something.
Windows uses virtual memory. Each process has its own virtual address space which is 4GB large. The address space is split into pages 4KB large. Each page may be free (it is not backed by any real memory, access to it is
invalid) or committed (there is actual memory behind it). For each committed page, there is a matching 4KB page in some file on the hard drive, usually the system paging file but may also be an executable file or some data file. Also, when the page is in use or was recently, it is matched by a page of physical memory (meaning the actual RAM chips installed on the motherboard).
When a program loads, the code and data are brought into a virtual address space. Code pages are backed by the executable file itself while data pages are backed by the paging file. The reason for this is that many processes running simultaneously may use the same code (multiple instances of the same program running, or a DLL loaded into different processes), but each such process needs to have its own copy of the data. Note that when such a shared page (i.e., a page of code from an executable file) is loaded into several processes, it takes space in each process' virtual address space separately, but all of those virtual pages are mapped to the same page on disk and the same physical page (if any).
When the program accesses a virtual page, the OS needs to bring the data into physical memory. If the virtual page is already backed by a physical page, nothing needs to be done. Otherwise, the page of data must be read from disk. Typically, after being thus loaded, the page remains in physical memory, in case it is needed again later. When some other (or the same) program needs to load another page and the OS detects that it is short on physical memory, it selects the physical page that was accessed most recently, saves it to the disk and reuses the memory for the new page. Note that data may stay in physical memory long after it was last used if there is enough free RAM - the OS tries to avoid slow disk access as long as possible.
The working set of a process is the set of all virtual pages that are currently backed by physical pages. Working set includes both data pages (coming from the system paging file) and code pages (coming from EXE and DLLs loaded into the process). Remember that a single physical page may be part of working sets of several processes (e.g. all processes that have loaded a particular DLL).
What Task Manager displays in the Memory Usage column in the Processes tab is actually the total size of the working set. It does not accurately reflect the actual memory requirements of the process for the following reasons. First, the working set contains memory pages that were used long ago, are not used currently and will be freed immediately if the OS decides it's low on RAM. Second, if a single physical page is part of the working set of two processes (as often happens with code pages), Task Manager includes it in the total for each process, so if you add up the working set size for those processes, this page will be counted twice and you will end up with a number that overestimates the actual RAM usage.
This second problem heavily affects programs that use WebBrowser control. WebBrowser is a very complex piece of software - it uses lots of DLLs containing megabytes of code. All of this code is loaded into the address space of every process that uses WebBrowser, and reflects in the process' working set size. The code is never loaded twice into physical memory, though, since all those processes share the same RAM pages. In particular, since Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer both use WebBrowser internally, the code is always loaded into RAM anyway.
That's BS. Task Manager reports peak usage. Minimise Notepad then look. It really takes 212k. Microsoft needs to get rid of Task Manager for regualar installs and jsut provdie a simple version for people who don't understand virtual memory.
I'm sooo sick of people looking in Task Manager then saying how much an application sucks because of how much "memory" it uses. For the most part, memory is not a factor.
There's been so mauch change in the past few decades that people keep expecting the same amount of change everywhere. Many people know nothing else. UI as developed by PARC then refined by Apple and Micrsoft hasn't really changed much except for evolutionary steps. There's no revolution coming. Cars have been driven the same basic way since the Model T. Its my firm belief that there will not be revolutionary things such as the printing press, radio, tv, and the Internet coming withing the next 100 or so years. Its time to start refining what we've created rather than look to supplant it.
Bill Gates is an ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) case. Most (if not all) good programmers are. And don't tell me he's not a good programmer. Anyone who can read assembly code on paper in an airplane to debug it and tweak it is a good programmer. I'm sure he is struggling to concentrate. He's probably not a natural leader but that doesn't mean he's not a good leader. Good leaders always have good people supporting them (Balmer, Shelley, Allen). For ADD leaders, those are the people who provide the follow-through lacking in their leader. So even though he can be thinking of 10 different things in any second and probably has no real follow through and shows other signs of ADD that does not mean that he's a moron who can't lead flies to shit.
Unless you can be part of creating a company that has been a sucessfull as Microsoft the only reason you riducle the man is to make yourself feel better about only having one comma in your net worth.
You don't need Active X to format a hard drive. An application called JennyTheSlutwhore.exe can do just as much damaged downloaded from a website or recieved in an e-mail. There's absolutly no difference. If a user is dumb enough to disable security then f em.
It doesn't play well with the Google toolbar. Hell it doesn't play well with any toolbars. After I installed it, all my (standard) toolbars were moved around or resized to 0 width. Its very frustrating when companies release crap software like this. Don't these people know about QA?
To create a usable secure service is going to cost you at least $5k. Do the math. How long will it take at market access rates for you to make that back with the number of subscribers you think you'll get in the best case. After you do that you will change your mind in a heartbeat. If that doesn't scare you, wait until one of your customers sues you for something and you find out none of your various insurance policies cover it. Or if you're even hardened enough to get past that. Do a bit more math and figure out how many concurent users an aDSL line will handle. Refer to the result of your first math forey (see above) then if you are still not scared then you are stupid. In that case, by all means go for it!
You can't stop a flying car, you can only slow it down or land it. If the controls go haywire, you're riding a missle. Maybe in the future, 9/11 type events will be common, but it won't be Abdul in the cockpit, it will be Mom.
I can't believe there are mobile phone OS zealots out there! I can't think of any other reason why my first post would have been labeled Flamebait.
Here come the next OS crusades, with all new players (and Microsoft). ((Maybe Apple soon?))
Nokia is DOS to Sony Ericsson's Macintosh.
Nokia just can't get a windows to market. They're stuck on their crappy UI designed for small black and white screens. All they did when color came out on big screens was color their same crappy UI and make the text bigger.
Its probably too late for Nokia, they lost. Sob Sob.
Most traffic lights exhibit predictable behavior. On my route to work, I can tell which lights I'll stop at by the first light I encounter. If I make the light without stopping I know which light will be the first to stop me (so long as my speed is relatively constant.) If I stop at the first light, I know that a different light will be the first to stop me. So, knowing that I don't slow down much for lights that I know will be green when I get to them. Or know how much time I have to keep a green.
I know I'm not the only person to observe and act upon such behavior. Someone else doing such a thing could end up running the "punishment" red and killing themselves or someone else because for the past n years, its always been green when they get to it...
Its nice to know that traffic engineers don't think two steps ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about anyone else but my code never really gets translated in my head to English or any spoken form and doing so would seriously effect my coding. When I'm in groove, I'm thinking machine not human.
>Even better with the Y2K panic. It made the dot.com boom No, the dot.com boom came from the wide spread availablity of Internet access and the invention and mass marketing of the graphical web browser (Netscape, then IE) Y2K employeed a bunch of otherwise unemployable COBOL programmers and pumped money into consulting companies which had little effect on dot.com's. Most of that was under the radar stuff and much much more money went to the real fly by night dot.coms started by 20 something dropouts.
You have a chance to get an OS that's easy to configure and use or an OS that no one really uses who isn't in a technical field that's not all the easy to use or configure. This is supposed to be for kids so you would have their interests in mind, not your own ideological interests. What do you do? Make the stupidest fucking decision imaginable! What a fucking asshole! This is why no one takes open source etc. seriously. Its filled with ideologues who have no concept of the real world.
Dude, just code. Don't pose.
Any decent player can spot a bot in ten hands or less. As I said, they are predictable. And a key thing is they never chat. Another dead give away is looking at the table history. If the same player has been at the table for a long time, enters few pots and usually wins those pots thats a good indication.
If you have something like Deep Blue or Gene and are already a master poker player with more than a few bracelets and know how to program better than most programmers, then yeah maybe you can put up a bot that can consistantly win. Notice how the article stated that bots do well on the low rent tables. They get creamed at the higher stakes games.
gl
Even an intermediate player who can spot a bot can bust that bot. Bots aren't smart, they follow set logic based on hand strength, player betting patterns, and general statistics. If you play them "by the book" you will loose. If you play them by varying your play, playing overly aggressive and not playing crap hands, even in late position, you will always beat them. They are predicable.
Oh and you can always get up and find another table if they make you uncomfortable, thats be beauty of online poker, there's lots of tables out there so you don't have to be stuck on one.
Its also just a matter of time until the poker sites develop bot detection and destruction software. Its already in some clients.
Bottom line: Apple makes money from hardware. Looses money or breaks even with System software. Plain and simple.
There's no other real consideration. Everything else is reality distortion.
My mail server got hacked and ( )\/\/ |\| ) by some sleazebag spammer. It ended up sending a bunch of spam that had a URL to click on to "sign up" for their wonderful offer. After recovering and updating the mail server I wrote a quick little program that ran overnight that filled in this web form with garbage, but not random garbage that could be filtered out. To a machine each record looked valid. I ended up inserting over 200k records into their database making it worthless. I did it again a few times when I was able to get an IP address that didn't get blocked at the server.
Was it right? Probably not. Did it feel good, HELL YES.
Back before India became the IT department of The West, we were considered wizards and afforded appropriate respect. Now that there are far more humble people who live in a box willing to do the same work for a whole lot less and without attitude we're now an inconvenience. Face it.
Wait til the feds come in and take them away to an undisclosed location and charge them and an enemy combatant. They've created a terrorist trainer!
Yeah, wasn't Apple dead too? Like what, three times now?
So in other words you're saying "Worst explanation ever!"
Next time I'll have to delve into the operations of the PMMU to please everyone I guess
Umm Hmm
This is the stock response we send to customers who get uppity when they play with Task Manager. I belive it was taken from Microsoft or something.
Windows uses virtual memory. Each process has its own virtual address space which is 4GB large. The address space is split into pages 4KB large. Each page may be free (it is not backed by any real memory, access to it is invalid) or committed (there is actual memory behind it). For each committed page, there is a matching 4KB page in some file on the hard drive, usually the system paging file but may also be an executable file or some data file. Also, when the page is in use or was recently, it is matched by a page of physical memory (meaning the actual RAM chips installed on the motherboard). When a program loads, the code and data are brought into a virtual address space. Code pages are backed by the executable file itself while data pages are backed by the paging file. The reason for this is that many processes running simultaneously may use the same code (multiple instances of the same program running, or a DLL loaded into different processes), but each such process needs to have its own copy of the data. Note that when such a shared page (i.e., a page of code from an executable file) is loaded into several processes, it takes space in each process' virtual address space separately, but all of those virtual pages are mapped to the same page on disk and the same physical page (if any). When the program accesses a virtual page, the OS needs to bring the data into physical memory. If the virtual page is already backed by a physical page, nothing needs to be done. Otherwise, the page of data must be read from disk. Typically, after being thus loaded, the page remains in physical memory, in case it is needed again later. When some other (or the same) program needs to load another page and the OS detects that it is short on physical memory, it selects the physical page that was accessed most recently, saves it to the disk and reuses the memory for the new page. Note that data may stay in physical memory long after it was last used if there is enough free RAM - the OS tries to avoid slow disk access as long as possible. The working set of a process is the set of all virtual pages that are currently backed by physical pages. Working set includes both data pages (coming from the system paging file) and code pages (coming from EXE and DLLs loaded into the process). Remember that a single physical page may be part of working sets of several processes (e.g. all processes that have loaded a particular DLL). What Task Manager displays in the Memory Usage column in the Processes tab is actually the total size of the working set. It does not accurately reflect the actual memory requirements of the process for the following reasons. First, the working set contains memory pages that were used long ago, are not used currently and will be freed immediately if the OS decides it's low on RAM. Second, if a single physical page is part of the working set of two processes (as often happens with code pages), Task Manager includes it in the total for each process, so if you add up the working set size for those processes, this page will be counted twice and you will end up with a number that overestimates the actual RAM usage. This second problem heavily affects programs that use WebBrowser control. WebBrowser is a very complex piece of software - it uses lots of DLLs containing megabytes of code. All of this code is loaded into the address space of every process that uses WebBrowser, and reflects in the process' working set size. The code is never loaded twice into physical memory, though, since all those processes share the same RAM pages. In particular, since Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer both use WebBrowser internally, the code is always loaded into RAM anyway.
That's BS. Task Manager reports peak usage. Minimise Notepad then look. It really takes 212k. Microsoft needs to get rid of Task Manager for regualar installs and jsut provdie a simple version for people who don't understand virtual memory.
I'm sooo sick of people looking in Task Manager then saying how much an application sucks because of how much "memory" it uses. For the most part, memory is not a factor.
There's been so mauch change in the past few decades that people keep expecting the same amount of change everywhere. Many people know nothing else. UI as developed by PARC then refined by Apple and Micrsoft hasn't really changed much except for evolutionary steps. There's no revolution coming. Cars have been driven the same basic way since the Model T. Its my firm belief that there will not be revolutionary things such as the printing press, radio, tv, and the Internet coming withing the next 100 or so years. Its time to start refining what we've created rather than look to supplant it.
Bill Gates is an ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) case. Most (if not all) good programmers are. And don't tell me he's not a good programmer. Anyone who can read assembly code on paper in an airplane to debug it and tweak it is a good programmer. I'm sure he is struggling to concentrate. He's probably not a natural leader but that doesn't mean he's not a good leader. Good leaders always have good people supporting them (Balmer, Shelley, Allen). For ADD leaders, those are the people who provide the follow-through lacking in their leader. So even though he can be thinking of 10 different things in any second and probably has no real follow through and shows other signs of ADD that does not mean that he's a moron who can't lead flies to shit.
Unless you can be part of creating a company that has been a sucessfull as Microsoft the only reason you riducle the man is to make yourself feel better about only having one comma in your net worth.
You don't need Active X to format a hard drive. An application called JennyTheSlutwhore.exe can do just as much damaged downloaded from a website or recieved in an e-mail. There's absolutly no difference. If a user is dumb enough to disable security then f em.
It doesn't play well with the Google toolbar. Hell it doesn't play well with any toolbars. After I installed it, all my (standard) toolbars were moved around or resized to 0 width. Its very frustrating when companies release crap software like this. Don't these people know about QA?
To create a usable secure service is going to cost you at least $5k. Do the math. How long will it take at market access rates for you to make that back with the number of subscribers you think you'll get in the best case. After you do that you will change your mind in a heartbeat. If that doesn't scare you, wait until one of your customers sues you for something and you find out none of your various insurance policies cover it. Or if you're even hardened enough to get past that. Do a bit more math and figure out how many concurent users an aDSL line will handle. Refer to the result of your first math forey (see above) then if you are still not scared then you are stupid. In that case, by all means go for it!
You can't stop a flying car, you can only slow it down or land it. If the controls go haywire, you're riding a missle. Maybe in the future, 9/11 type events will be common, but it won't be Abdul in the cockpit, it will be Mom.
I can't believe there are mobile phone OS zealots out there! I can't think of any other reason why my first post would have been labeled Flamebait. Here come the next OS crusades, with all new players (and Microsoft). ((Maybe Apple soon?))
Nokia is DOS to Sony Ericsson's Macintosh. Nokia just can't get a windows to market. They're stuck on their crappy UI designed for small black and white screens. All they did when color came out on big screens was color their same crappy UI and make the text bigger. Its probably too late for Nokia, they lost. Sob Sob.
You're not going to get a real company investing, speculatively, on such a thing. You'll get hackers for better or worse.
Most traffic lights exhibit predictable behavior. On my route to work, I can tell which lights I'll stop at by the first light I encounter. If I make the light without stopping I know which light will be the first to stop me (so long as my speed is relatively constant.) If I stop at the first light, I know that a different light will be the first to stop me. So, knowing that I don't slow down much for lights that I know will be green when I get to them. Or know how much time I have to keep a green. I know I'm not the only person to observe and act upon such behavior. Someone else doing such a thing could end up running the "punishment" red and killing themselves or someone else because for the past n years, its always been green when they get to it... Its nice to know that traffic engineers don't think two steps ahead.
Oh, ha ha. April Fools. Enough Already Slashdot. It was funny this morning... Now its irritating.