Chrome uses 100M *per tab*. I just checked about:memory, and I saw my Chrome at 2.5G with about 20 tabs open. My Gmail tab uses 210M. I don't see how your entire Chrome can use the same amount of memory as just one of my Chrome tabs.
That sounds great, except does that cause all other applications to restart? Currently, if I can't guess which application is causing Cinnamon to freeze, I restart Cinnamon, but that forces all of my applications to abruptly restart.
I've been using Mint at home for a few months. While I like the design better than any other desktop, I have one major problem with it:
If any program freezes, the WHOLE DESKTOP freezes. I get this about once a day where Firefox stops to think for 10 or so seconds. During those 10 seconds, cinnamon refuses to do ANYTHING except draw the mouse cursor.
You can't switch applications, you can't switch desktops, you can't run shell commands to try to kill the misbehaving program.
The only thing you can do is hit Ctrl+Alt+F6, and kill programs from that console. But it's not even obvious what program is causing the trouble, as it's has nothing to do with CPU utilization. It's as if cinnamon only has one thread for rendering the screen and since Firefox is (very slowly) updating the screen, then nothing else can happen in the entire system.
As part of my day job, I interview both junior and senior designers for jobs in C++.
I get excited when people know about references. You might be amazed at how often someone applies for a SENIOR position and can't answer this question:
Can you explain what a [C++] reference is, when you should use them, and describe their memory/time complexity.
For a entry level position, if you SAY that you know C++, you better be able to answer that question. If you SAY that you are an expert, you better be able to explain virtual inheritance, vtables, templates, partial template specilization, etc...
If you say that you don't know C++, but you know SOME language which you can discuss in a meaningful manner, that's fine too.
Regardless of the job you are applying for, I expect you to be a quick thinker and demonstrate good problem solving skills. Beyond that, if you are applying for a senior position, you better know SOME language very well.
And anyone who says that C#, Java, Python or some other toy language is "better" must never have written software where performance actually mattered. If you are writing GUIs for a phone, then use whatever language gets the job done best, but when you are writing software that has to get massive amounts of work done, on limited resources, and needs uptimes that are measured in years, then you use a language with less run-time overhead and more predictable results.
Extra insurance *is* a higher standard. Now, maybe it's not meaningfully higher, but it's not the only difference. In my city, all licenced taxis must have a specific meter which charges at a predictable rate. You can find out ahead of time (from a web-site) what your ride is going to cost.
Now, I get what you are saying. We probably don't require that they are better drivers. That seems like an oversight.
You are half right here. Driving a taxi is mostly the same as driving a normal car. I think that a surprisingly large percentage of regular drivers are terrible drivers; they should have their licences revoked. But any politician that changed the laws such that the bottom 20% of drivers lost their licence would at least be quickly voted out of office, and possibly assassinated for causing our economy to collapse [think of all the people that couldn't drive to work anymore].
We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.
Distillation only works with liquids. Comet ice is not a liquid. Even if light water [on the surface] evaporates more quickly, since there is no process to replenish the light water on the surface, all you're going to end up with is a tiny crust of heavy water (a few molecules thick) and then the rest of the ice is going to be the original mixture.
Take an X-ray machine for example. We know these can kill people (look up Therac-25). However, if we write an overall program that calls a supplied program to calculate the treatment duration, and have a routine to control the machine and which has a hard limit on the duration, then it doesn't matter if the supplied program can, in some circumstances, calculate an excessive duration, because the patient can't get that dose.
What makes you think that "hard limit" enforcing code can't have a bug in it? I assume your answer is that it's such a small program that you can do a formal proof that it has no bugs. Fine, but what about the OS it runs under? Or the memory controller? Or the actual memory? Any of those can be wrong in a way that could, in theory, cause a patient to be given an overdose.
If we can make a robot that is more accurate than a human (at practically any task), we probably should (ignoring issues of liability and macroeconomics), but we have yet to make *anything* that is 100%, let alone a computer controlled robot.
I don't know what you mean by "analog", but unless you are talking about a single, physical wire connecting you with the 911 operator, then calls have been routed and core lines have been oversubscribed for decades (several). Even before rotary dial, you had to ask an operator to connect you. They probably had more outages than any modern system.
Obviously, you meant "compared to 3rd world countries", because when you compare the US to other 1st world countries, it does pretty poorly. Canada, most of Europe, even the Czech Republic has fewer road fatalities (per car) than the US.
Ever heard of ring species?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
You can have groups A, B, and C. A and B can interbreed. B and C can interbreed. A and C cannot interbreed.
Those groups do not fit into any traditional species categories.
There is no such thing as a compostable plastic bag. There are bags which are LABELLED as compostable. My city (Ottawa, Canada), has a curbside city compost pickup program, but they do not allow any plastic bags (even ones marked as compostable) into that program. The bags gum up their grinders.
Except, who gets the $0.05 when you fail to recycle the bag? Atlantic Canada did something similar with aluminum pop cans, but allowed the bottling company to keep half of the deposit for cans that were never returned. Almost overnight, they stopped producing the more environmentally sensible, refillable glass bottles because they simply made more money off of lazy people who couldn't be bothered to recover the $0.05 by recycling their cans.
If by "100 years", you mean, "100,000 years", then I might agree with you. Evolution takes a LONG time, unless you mean that we will invent some sort of treatment that will reduce your sleep requirements.
I think that is a terrible idea. You might be amazed at what the majority of people believe, or would vote for.
(Vote #1) Let's reduce taxes to 0%! (Results:) 75% agree.
Don't know about you, but I do just fine with zero hands on the wheel. On a straight stretch of highway, with good alignment, I can drive for miles without ever touching the steering wheel. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could drive the same highway while asleep.
But, people should keep both hands on the wheel (as much as possible) for the obvious reason:
You can't react as fast or as well. If something unexpected happens, having both hands on the wheel and being conscience both greatly increase your ability to perform emergency maneuvers.
There are very good reasons to take one hand off the steering wheel: turn signals, transmission, using any of the car's features that are meant to be used while driving such as cruise control buttons. They all increase your risk of accident, but are all necessary in some way. Just driving around with one hand permanently off the steering wheel for no good reason is irresponsible.
All things require dissatisfaction. People who see a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter and think, "I'm not hungry enough" will not make a sandwich. Once they are dissatisfied with their hunger, they will put the two together.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean "fewer" vulnerabilities.
Chrome uses 100M *per tab*. I just checked about:memory, and I saw my Chrome at 2.5G with about 20 tabs open. My Gmail tab uses 210M. I don't see how your entire Chrome can use the same amount of memory as just one of my Chrome tabs.
That sounds great, except does that cause all other applications to restart? Currently, if I can't guess which application is causing Cinnamon to freeze, I restart Cinnamon, but that forces all of my applications to abruptly restart.
If any program freezes, the WHOLE DESKTOP freezes. I get this about once a day where Firefox stops to think for 10 or so seconds. During those 10 seconds, cinnamon refuses to do ANYTHING except draw the mouse cursor.
You can't switch applications, you can't switch desktops, you can't run shell commands to try to kill the misbehaving program.
The only thing you can do is hit Ctrl+Alt+F6, and kill programs from that console. But it's not even obvious what program is causing the trouble, as it's has nothing to do with CPU utilization. It's as if cinnamon only has one thread for rendering the screen and since Firefox is (very slowly) updating the screen, then nothing else can happen in the entire system.
If you say that you don't know C++, but you know SOME language which you can discuss in a meaningful manner, that's fine too.
Regardless of the job you are applying for, I expect you to be a quick thinker and demonstrate good problem solving skills. Beyond that, if you are applying for a senior position, you better know SOME language very well.
And anyone who says that C#, Java, Python or some other toy language is "better" must never have written software where performance actually mattered. If you are writing GUIs for a phone, then use whatever language gets the job done best, but when you are writing software that has to get massive amounts of work done, on limited resources, and needs uptimes that are measured in years, then you use a language with less run-time overhead and more predictable results.
Extra insurance *is* a higher standard. Now, maybe it's not meaningfully higher, but it's not the only difference. In my city, all licenced taxis must have a specific meter which charges at a predictable rate. You can find out ahead of time (from a web-site) what your ride is going to cost. Now, I get what you are saying. We probably don't require that they are better drivers. That seems like an oversight.
You are half right here. Driving a taxi is mostly the same as driving a normal car. I think that a surprisingly large percentage of regular drivers are terrible drivers; they should have their licences revoked. But any politician that changed the laws such that the bottom 20% of drivers lost their licence would at least be quickly voted out of office, and possibly assassinated for causing our economy to collapse [think of all the people that couldn't drive to work anymore]. We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.
Distillation only works with liquids. Comet ice is not a liquid. Even if light water [on the surface] evaporates more quickly, since there is no process to replenish the light water on the surface, all you're going to end up with is a tiny crust of heavy water (a few molecules thick) and then the rest of the ice is going to be the original mixture.
The human eye is limited to about 2k x 2k so going beyond that is not valuable unless you start sitting close and twisting your neck.
Take an X-ray machine for example. We know these can kill people (look up Therac-25). However, if we write an overall program that calls a supplied program to calculate the treatment duration, and have a routine to control the machine and which has a hard limit on the duration, then it doesn't matter if the supplied program can, in some circumstances, calculate an excessive duration, because the patient can't get that dose.
What makes you think that "hard limit" enforcing code can't have a bug in it? I assume your answer is that it's such a small program that you can do a formal proof that it has no bugs. Fine, but what about the OS it runs under? Or the memory controller? Or the actual memory? Any of those can be wrong in a way that could, in theory, cause a patient to be given an overdose. If we can make a robot that is more accurate than a human (at practically any task), we probably should (ignoring issues of liability and macroeconomics), but we have yet to make *anything* that is 100%, let alone a computer controlled robot.
By these criteria, mules are not alive and fire is.
I don't know what you mean by "analog", but unless you are talking about a single, physical wire connecting you with the 911 operator, then calls have been routed and core lines have been oversubscribed for decades (several). Even before rotary dial, you had to ask an operator to connect you. They probably had more outages than any modern system.
Obviously, you meant "compared to 3rd world countries", because when you compare the US to other 1st world countries, it does pretty poorly. Canada, most of Europe, even the Czech Republic has fewer road fatalities (per car) than the US.
Ever heard of ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... You can have groups A, B, and C. A and B can interbreed. B and C can interbreed. A and C cannot interbreed. Those groups do not fit into any traditional species categories.
I think you mean, "fewer people".
There is no such thing as a compostable plastic bag. There are bags which are LABELLED as compostable. My city (Ottawa, Canada), has a curbside city compost pickup program, but they do not allow any plastic bags (even ones marked as compostable) into that program. The bags gum up their grinders.
And how much do you pay for this service? I find that most of these types of services are much more expensive than just doing the shopping yourself.
Except, who gets the $0.05 when you fail to recycle the bag? Atlantic Canada did something similar with aluminum pop cans, but allowed the bottling company to keep half of the deposit for cans that were never returned. Almost overnight, they stopped producing the more environmentally sensible, refillable glass bottles because they simply made more money off of lazy people who couldn't be bothered to recover the $0.05 by recycling their cans.
If by "100 years", you mean, "100,000 years", then I might agree with you. Evolution takes a LONG time, unless you mean that we will invent some sort of treatment that will reduce your sleep requirements.
I can beat that, I've worked on a single class that had 41,000 lines of code. The .cpp file was 1.6Megs.
I think that is a terrible idea. You might be amazed at what the majority of people believe, or would vote for. (Vote #1) Let's reduce taxes to 0%! (Results:) 75% agree.
Just search google for "Jesus Toast" and you'll get several.
Yeah, C is great, and timeless; as long as by "timeless" you mean, "has gone through 4 different versions". Haven't you heard about C89, C99 and C11?
Don't know about you, but I do just fine with zero hands on the wheel. On a straight stretch of highway, with good alignment, I can drive for miles without ever touching the steering wheel. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could drive the same highway while asleep. But, people should keep both hands on the wheel (as much as possible) for the obvious reason:
You can't react as fast or as well. If something unexpected happens, having both hands on the wheel and being conscience both greatly increase your ability to perform emergency maneuvers.
There are very good reasons to take one hand off the steering wheel: turn signals, transmission, using any of the car's features that are meant to be used while driving such as cruise control buttons. They all increase your risk of accident, but are all necessary in some way. Just driving around with one hand permanently off the steering wheel for no good reason is irresponsible.
All things require dissatisfaction. People who see a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter and think, "I'm not hungry enough" will not make a sandwich. Once they are dissatisfied with their hunger, they will put the two together.