but the regexp performance problems are real, and I have encountered them before
That's all well and good, but unless you're parsing extremely large volumes of text, the issues are probably unimportant. Which is, of course, why profiling is so important. Throwing out a perfectly valid solution simply because it is, in theory (or even in practice) slow, is ridiculous if you have other performance problems elsewhere, or if the code is running at a speed that is sufficient for the problem at hand.
Put another way, if regexes solve the problem in a simple and easy manner, use them. And if, in running the code, you discover it's too slow to meet your requirements, and profiling indicates the regex is a problem, then switch to something else. But dismissing regexes out of hand is silly.
because we find that it an extremely ugly hack that strongly encourages write-once read-never code.
Good for you. I'm not sure why you pointed this out, as I don't really care, but that's lovely. Regardless, Zawinski clearly dislikes Perl, and those quotes make it clear that this dislike has translated to regexes as well, despite their being clearly superior to other solutions for certain problem domains. It looks like you may have done the same...
If that's all you were using regexes for, you were probably misusing them in the first place. Try doing any kind of complex text file parsing and you'll understand why regexes have their place.
First off, Mr. Zawinski is recorded as being rather prejudiced against Perl, so I'd take any comments he's made regarding regex's with a massive grain of salt. In fact, I'd probably just ignore him altogether. Besides, his comments are focused almost entirely on the *mis*uses of regexes, not their appropriate application.
As for your second complaint... uhh, who cares? Premature optimization is the devil. So if regex's allow you to cleanly implement a simple solution to a problem (and regexes *are* very well suited to certain tasks, even if they do tend to be misused, particularly in languages such as Perl where they're very tightly integrated), it would be foolish to move to another technique based solely on performance concerns without first profiling the code.
'course, the real irony, on the performance front, is that Mr. Zawinski himself said "The heavy use of regexps in Emacs is due almost entirely to performance issues: because of implementation details, Emacs code that uses regexps will almost always run faster than code that uses more traditional control structures." So maybe they aren't so evil or slow after all?
At least modern Christians are not disingenuous about the man-written nature of the Bible.
You *must* be joking. Hell, with a comment like that, I'm a little baffled as to how you got modded insightful. Flamebait, certainly. Stupid, definitely. But insightful? Hardly.
And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
Oh, don't be stupid. If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US. *Every* religion has it's extremists. It's not unreasonable to be at least somewhat fearful if you go out of your way to bait them into violence.
And that will still be the case after any digital switchover. IOW, the status quo will remain the status quo for any amateurs out there. So, what's your point, again?
They don't need to inspect the packets to identify them as p2p
Uhh, yes, they do. While, unless you're using a standard P2P port. 'course, if you're doing that, you're not that serious about circumventing your ISPs throttling (BTW, I'm on Shaw, and while they throttle, enabling encryption and using a non-standard port gets around it quite neatly).
If FF is running in the background, there's no way it's memory use is randomly spiking, and as such, FF3 should only improve your experience, by reducing the overall, long-term memory usage. In short, your comment is, I think, more or less irrelevant to the original problem reported.
at least MS is out there rethinking how people use applications
And by that, I assume you mean, at least MS is out there needlessly changing the interfaces for applications we've gotten used to over the past, oh, 20 years, such that they deviate from UI paradigms we've become intimately familiar with. Yes, thank goodness for that. God bless MS.
. The effective approach is to stop the problem at the source: get politics out of money. Don't permit legislation that creates monopolies and destroys competition. Trash these FCC regulations, and the market will take care of itself.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh god, that's good... so idealistic, it's kinda cute.
Never heard of a natural monopoly, huh? Or barriers to entry? I can only assume not, since most libertarian idealists have to pretend these things don't exist in order to maintain their illusions.
See, content delivery is very expensive. It requires laying wires in the ground, ground that you have to gain access to. Back in the day, utilities got access to public easements, and so their job was made a lot easier... because of government regulation. Without that regulation, it's basically impossible to lay new lines, and even if you could get permission from landowners, it would be so wildly expensive that it would cost billions upon billions to achieve (as Verizon has demonstrated). Consequently, all but the most moneyed interests can even get in the game.
So, no, the industry will *not* magically regulate itself. In the absence of regulation, you'd see mergers collapse the few players down into just a tiny handful of monopolies (not unlike today), and since no one would be able to afford to build out new infrastructure, no competition would spring up.
And no, wireless doesn't solve this problem. You still need a) the technology in the first place, b) the public easements to put up cell towers, and c) the money to roll out the infrastructure, and the only people who'll be able to afford this are the big players who're already trying to monopolize the industry.
Honestly, do you libertarians willfully blind yourselves to market realities, or are you really just that naive?
Hmm, I was worried about that. They specifically mentioned Israeli and Palistinean officials supporting the claim, but I probably should've looked for another source (I couldn't remember if WND was a pulp source, though I had a suspicion).
Actually, I take it back, it appears the man who planned the attack was, according to Israeli and Palistinian authorities, "an activist in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization", and "received financing from Hezbollah". (source).
I seem to recall it was an Israeli Arab living in Jerusalem, and not a Palestinian terrorist, that was responsible for that shooting... but, I'm not surprised by such confusion from a zionist apologist.
What? I picked up Frankenstein on a whim, and it's a fantastic book. As is Nicholas Nicholby, The Scarlet Letter, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and a number of other so-called "classics" that I've read. And my English training ended at the close of my mandatory courses in University.
Just because *you* don't like them doesn't mean they aren't great pieces of literature. Many require knowledge of their context to truly appreciate, and many certainly require an appreciation of writing as a form, as well as a medium for telling stories. But a classic is a classic for a reason, not just because some snooty writing professor deemed it so.
I think wear leveling probably potentially has significant limits that proponents seem to ignore.
Well, I think the earth probably is the center of the universe. 'course, both of our statements are unsupported by anything but guesswork, so why should either statement be believed over the people actually working in the industry on wear-leveling technology in modern flash drives?
Especially if you have less than 10% free space.
a) 10% of a 160GB flash drive is still 16GB... plenty of space, even if you are concerned. b) Most people don't run their hard disks anywhere near 10% of their storage capacity, so it's a minor issue. c) Wear leveling drives may very well contain addition free storage space just so that the algorithm can perform optimally. d) Using a log-structured filesystem, it doesn't really matter how much free space there is, as the free space region always moves through the disk... hence the "leveling" part of wear leveling.
That said, I haven't found a decently detailed write-up on exactly how wear-leveling accomplishes its task
Well, you could just start with Wikipedia, rather than blindly speculating.
Well, that's probably only true on drives that don't automatically do wear leveling. Is it a waste of effort? Sure. But the additional write cycles will probably have a negligible effect given the sheer number of memory cells available in a device such as this.
I support the Electoral College system because I don't want public policy catering exclusively to people from large urban areas.
You mean... most people. Yes, god forbid.
And before you trot out the tyranny of the majority line, don't forget, the president is merely a third of the power in the US. The senate serves as a strong element for balancing the states out, as does the judiciary. As such, I see little reason why small states should have a stronger say in who runs the executive, other than history.
Slashdot Mirror
but the regexp performance problems are real, and I have encountered them before
That's all well and good, but unless you're parsing extremely large volumes of text, the issues are probably unimportant. Which is, of course, why profiling is so important. Throwing out a perfectly valid solution simply because it is, in theory (or even in practice) slow, is ridiculous if you have other performance problems elsewhere, or if the code is running at a speed that is sufficient for the problem at hand.
Put another way, if regexes solve the problem in a simple and easy manner, use them. And if, in running the code, you discover it's too slow to meet your requirements, and profiling indicates the regex is a problem, then switch to something else. But dismissing regexes out of hand is silly.
because we find that it an extremely ugly hack that strongly encourages write-once read-never code.
Good for you. I'm not sure why you pointed this out, as I don't really care, but that's lovely. Regardless, Zawinski clearly dislikes Perl, and those quotes make it clear that this dislike has translated to regexes as well, despite their being clearly superior to other solutions for certain problem domains. It looks like you may have done the same...
If that's all you were using regexes for, you were probably misusing them in the first place. Try doing any kind of complex text file parsing and you'll understand why regexes have their place.
First off, Mr. Zawinski is recorded as being rather prejudiced against Perl, so I'd take any comments he's made regarding regex's with a massive grain of salt. In fact, I'd probably just ignore him altogether. Besides, his comments are focused almost entirely on the *mis*uses of regexes, not their appropriate application.
As for your second complaint... uhh, who cares? Premature optimization is the devil. So if regex's allow you to cleanly implement a simple solution to a problem (and regexes *are* very well suited to certain tasks, even if they do tend to be misused, particularly in languages such as Perl where they're very tightly integrated), it would be foolish to move to another technique based solely on performance concerns without first profiling the code.
'course, the real irony, on the performance front, is that Mr. Zawinski himself said "The heavy use of regexps in Emacs is due almost entirely to performance issues: because of implementation details, Emacs code that uses regexps will almost always run faster than code that uses more traditional control structures." So maybe they aren't so evil or slow after all?
At least modern Christians are not disingenuous about the man-written nature of the Bible.
You *must* be joking. Hell, with a comment like that, I'm a little baffled as to how you got modded insightful. Flamebait, certainly. Stupid, definitely. But insightful? Hardly.
And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
Oh, don't be stupid. If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US. *Every* religion has it's extremists. It's not unreasonable to be at least somewhat fearful if you go out of your way to bait them into violence.
And that will still be the case after any digital switchover. IOW, the status quo will remain the status quo for any amateurs out there. So, what's your point, again?
They don't need to inspect the packets to identify them as p2p
Uhh, yes, they do. While, unless you're using a standard P2P port. 'course, if you're doing that, you're not that serious about circumventing your ISPs throttling (BTW, I'm on Shaw, and while they throttle, enabling encryption and using a non-standard port gets around it quite neatly).
If FF is running in the background, there's no way it's memory use is randomly spiking, and as such, FF3 should only improve your experience, by reducing the overall, long-term memory usage. In short, your comment is, I think, more or less irrelevant to the original problem reported.
at least MS is out there rethinking how people use applications
And by that, I assume you mean, at least MS is out there needlessly changing the interfaces for applications we've gotten used to over the past, oh, 20 years, such that they deviate from UI paradigms we've become intimately familiar with. Yes, thank goodness for that. God bless MS.
Umm... what's your point? You'll get a C&D *today* for running an unlicensed FM tranceiver. Digital or analog, it doesn't really matter.
Meanwhile, the unlicensed bands are still unlicensed, and they're still analog. So hack away.
Such large-ish spikes might not be good for the user experience.
As long as the spikes don't exceed available physical memory, who really cares?
Common convention defines it. So does common sense.
No they don't. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have nothing to rule upon.
Example: Is the word "nigger" allowed?
Translation: discussing how to kill animals humanely is okay, unless they're cute, in which case it's tantamount to slavery.
. The effective approach is to stop the problem at the source: get politics out of money. Don't permit legislation that creates monopolies and destroys competition. Trash these FCC regulations, and the market will take care of itself.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh god, that's good... so idealistic, it's kinda cute.
Never heard of a natural monopoly, huh? Or barriers to entry? I can only assume not, since most libertarian idealists have to pretend these things don't exist in order to maintain their illusions.
See, content delivery is very expensive. It requires laying wires in the ground, ground that you have to gain access to. Back in the day, utilities got access to public easements, and so their job was made a lot easier... because of government regulation. Without that regulation, it's basically impossible to lay new lines, and even if you could get permission from landowners, it would be so wildly expensive that it would cost billions upon billions to achieve (as Verizon has demonstrated). Consequently, all but the most moneyed interests can even get in the game.
So, no, the industry will *not* magically regulate itself. In the absence of regulation, you'd see mergers collapse the few players down into just a tiny handful of monopolies (not unlike today), and since no one would be able to afford to build out new infrastructure, no competition would spring up.
And no, wireless doesn't solve this problem. You still need a) the technology in the first place, b) the public easements to put up cell towers, and c) the money to roll out the infrastructure, and the only people who'll be able to afford this are the big players who're already trying to monopolize the industry.
Honestly, do you libertarians willfully blind yourselves to market realities, or are you really just that naive?
Hmm, I was worried about that. They specifically mentioned Israeli and Palistinean officials supporting the claim, but I probably should've looked for another source (I couldn't remember if WND was a pulp source, though I had a suspicion).
I assume you have a similar objection to the USDA?
Actually, I take it back, it appears the man who planned the attack was, according to Israeli and Palistinian authorities, "an activist in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization", and "received financing from Hezbollah". (source).
I seem to recall it was an Israeli Arab living in Jerusalem, and not a Palestinian terrorist, that was responsible for that shooting... but, I'm not surprised by such confusion from a zionist apologist.
What? I picked up Frankenstein on a whim, and it's a fantastic book. As is Nicholas Nicholby, The Scarlet Letter, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and a number of other so-called "classics" that I've read. And my English training ended at the close of my mandatory courses in University.
Just because *you* don't like them doesn't mean they aren't great pieces of literature. Many require knowledge of their context to truly appreciate, and many certainly require an appreciation of writing as a form, as well as a medium for telling stories. But a classic is a classic for a reason, not just because some snooty writing professor deemed it so.
I think wear leveling probably potentially has significant limits that proponents seem to ignore.
Well, I think the earth probably is the center of the universe. 'course, both of our statements are unsupported by anything but guesswork, so why should either statement be believed over the people actually working in the industry on wear-leveling technology in modern flash drives?
Especially if you have less than 10% free space.
a) 10% of a 160GB flash drive is still 16GB... plenty of space, even if you are concerned.
b) Most people don't run their hard disks anywhere near 10% of their storage capacity, so it's a minor issue.
c) Wear leveling drives may very well contain addition free storage space just so that the algorithm can perform optimally.
d) Using a log-structured filesystem, it doesn't really matter how much free space there is, as the free space region always moves through the disk... hence the "leveling" part of wear leveling.
That said, I haven't found a decently detailed write-up on exactly how wear-leveling accomplishes its task
Well, you could just start with Wikipedia, rather than blindly speculating.
Because it's not worth the trouble to find a "better" filesystem if you've got one that already works reliably and well?
probably shorten a flash drives lifespan.
Well, that's probably only true on drives that don't automatically do wear leveling. Is it a waste of effort? Sure. But the additional write cycles will probably have a negligible effect given the sheer number of memory cells available in a device such as this.
No, that he's not.
Yours truly,
The World
I support the Electoral College system because I don't want public policy catering exclusively to people from large urban areas.
You mean... most people. Yes, god forbid.
And before you trot out the tyranny of the majority line, don't forget, the president is merely a third of the power in the US. The senate serves as a strong element for balancing the states out, as does the judiciary. As such, I see little reason why small states should have a stronger say in who runs the executive, other than history.
They tend to focus on swing states with a fair number of votes in play, such as Ohio, NH, Florida, etc.
Why?