For example, I was playing NannyMUD text MUD at lysator for three day, and then committed suicide.
In fact, I jumped from the suicide tower 3 times to see what would happen, but nothing much happened except loosing levels and some XP, which was not a big deal since quest points where holding me back.
Embarrasment, maybe for a time - but if hackers attack security software instead of other apps, maybe it means that security software actually works in protecting these.
Corollary to rule #19: In order to write undecipherable, unmaintainable code, just do what the PHB (aka the boss) says within the asked for timeframe. This practice is also named "pointed-haired programming" and has lent its name to a popular web programming language.
Rule of coding #19: Anything that is coded well gets decorated with as many levels of tweaks, configuration options and features till it is undecipherable, "Turing-complete" code.
There all kinds of ways in which a vivid imagination can be a boon, so it is quite a hard task for evolution to sort out one trait while keeping the other.
The problem of virtual experiences that cannot be reenacted is a somewhat new one. And how do you know evolution won't select for parents who sue the creator of such games =)
I have this feeling that most of the stuff that you complain is hard to configure with Apache, that you couldn't do this with the lightweight stuff at all.
For simple stuff, what is so difficult about setting a port and a base directory?
Probably the developers of sql server didn't undestand how to get the best from a hyperthreading architecture. There's a big difference between 'real' threads and 'pseudo' (time-sliced) threads. I'm betting it's the software that's at fault here and not Intel's architecture.
Maybe start by betting your Karma, Mr. AC?
AFAIK intel-HT is intended to improve the felt performance of users e.g. in front of a GUI by reducing response time. There has to be a catch, because if it was so easy, everyone would have done it before instead of painstakingly optimizing the CPU.
- applications that are a constantly moving target "this would be cool to have"
- applications where the moving-targetness lies in the presentation, while at the same time some customers bitch about any change in presentation
- applications with changing data sets - you can run your tests fine on the standardized data set, but then when it hits the real-world data, all you can say is "Sorry my application is perfect, it just doesn't work with with that data.".
Actually results are mixed; and they even seem to indicate that Linux seems to excel at nothing but quick process startup (which is cool if you do lots of shell scripting, maybe compiling too)
According to the benchmarks published there
- at most OS jobs like threading/process creation, Singularity is at least twice as fast as linux, Linux is very fast at process creation, while XP is good at threads
- in File Operations FreeBSD and Linux beat XP and Singularity at random reads
- in File Operations XP beats Linux and Singularity at sequential reads, with the exception of FreeBSD being fastest if blocksize is high(and very bad for small blocksize)
- linux executable sizes are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
Please bear in mind that a benchmark does not tell whether the "slower" OS actually invested more time in doing some smart stuff that pays off in some other way. In particular, I would not be surprised if an experimental OS like Singularity did less.
Well ok, RAID does not improve latency when you are reading that special random single byte and then send the drives to sleep again, but it does improve the latency required to fetch a big chunk of data of fixed size. You also would have the option to choose smaller drives with faster head positioning. Of course in the real world, better drive parameter often have to be purchased hand in hand with a bigger drive.
- at most OS jobs like threading/process creation, Singularity is at least twice as fast as linux, Linux is very fast at process creation, while XP is good at threads
- in File Operations FreeBSD and Linux beat XP and Singularity at random reads
- in File Operations XP beats Linux and Singularity at sequential reads, with the exception of FreeBSD being fastest if blocksize is high(and very bad for small blocksize)
- linux executable size are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
Please bear in mind that a benchmark does not it tell whether the "slower" OS actually invested more time in doing some smart stuff that pays off in some other way.
You perhaps meant to say: "I honestly wonder what Hollywood-approved historians will think of this time period, say, one hundred years from now. Think of how we view the Western European..
Slashdot Mirror
Any game can be addictive!
For example, I was playing NannyMUD text MUD at lysator for three day, and then committed suicide.
In fact, I jumped from the suicide tower 3 times to see what would happen, but nothing much happened except loosing levels and some XP, which was not a big deal since quest points where holding me back.
So there.
Couldn't one abuse classes as namespaces?
The only thing missing is the ability to alter the class def a la adding "friend"s
Embarrasment, maybe for a time - but if hackers attack security software instead of other apps, maybe it means that security software actually works in protecting these.
Corollary to rule #19: In order to write undecipherable, unmaintainable code, just do what the PHB (aka the boss) says within the asked for timeframe. This practice is also named "pointed-haired programming" and has lent its name to a popular web programming language.
Rule of coding #19: Anything that is coded well gets decorated with as many levels of tweaks, configuration options and features till it is undecipherable, "Turing-complete" code.
The problem of virtual experiences that cannot be reenacted is a somewhat new one.
Well, except for books. I'm sure Heinlein wrote a bunch of stuff that would kill you if you tried it.
Oh, don't worry, I'll lop a grenade before I jump into the trench.
As far as I am concerned, the author is a joker.
What he thinks is costly is just the cost of two visits to the cinema, and at least the cost of bandwidth.
Even some alternatives, like playing a newly bought single-player game, cost more.
There all kinds of ways in which a vivid imagination can be a boon, so it is quite a hard task for evolution to sort out one trait while keeping the other.
The problem of virtual experiences that cannot be reenacted is a somewhat new one. And how do you know evolution won't select for parents who sue the creator of such games =)
Did someone submit the kid to Darwin Awards yet?
Well sounds like you wanted to have fun, and you had fun, sort of, reducing the config file to its minimum.
Okay, the options are a mess, but you could find out which one you need by google.
I have this feeling that most of the stuff that you complain is hard to configure with Apache, that you couldn't do this with the lightweight stuff at all.
For simple stuff, what is so difficult about setting a port and a base directory?
Probably the developers of sql server didn't undestand how to get the best from a hyperthreading architecture. There's a big difference between 'real' threads and 'pseudo' (time-sliced) threads. I'm betting it's the software that's at fault here and not Intel's architecture.
Maybe start by betting your Karma, Mr. AC?AFAIK intel-HT is intended to improve the felt performance of users e.g. in front of a GUI by reducing response time. There has to be a catch, because if it was so easy, everyone would have done it before instead of painstakingly optimizing the CPU.
You must be kidding, losing 4% of ones profit is not fun for a company.
It's gonna get real crowded in the world if we're all immortal.
Don't worry, we'll just kill each other like we did before. Or go into stasis... just integrate the terms of the Taylor series ;-)
Joe Random, hacker, reading slashdot:
rootkit.. bad
microsoft.. good
hacker.. head explodes
So how do you write tests for ..
- applications that are a constantly moving target "this would be cool to have"
- applications where the moving-targetness lies in the presentation, while at the same time some customers bitch about any change in presentation
- applications with changing data sets - you can run your tests fine on the standardized data set, but then when it hits the real-world data, all you can say is "Sorry my application is perfect, it just doesn't work with with that data.".
"Drinking at the table" - I can see it now:
- your character loses another five hitpoints: drink a glass of vodka
- your character gets hit by a spell of confusion: drink 2 glasses of vodka
- your character gets hit by a fireball: drink one glass of pepper tequila.
- you drop below the table: your character dies
Actually results are mixed; and they even seem to indicate that Linux seems to excel at nothing but quick process startup (which is cool if you do lots of shell scripting, maybe compiling too)
9 45599
According to the benchmarks published there
- at most OS jobs like threading/process creation, Singularity is at least twice as fast as linux, Linux is very fast at process creation, while XP is good at threads
- in File Operations FreeBSD and Linux beat XP and Singularity at random reads
- in File Operations XP beats Linux and Singularity at sequential reads, with the exception of FreeBSD being fastest if blocksize is high(and very bad for small blocksize)
- linux executable sizes are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
Please bear in mind that a benchmark does not tell whether the "slower" OS actually invested more time in doing some smart stuff that pays off in some other way. In particular, I would not be surprised if an experimental OS like Singularity did less.
partial repost from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167223&cid=13
Well, just name the next kernel 2.9 or 2.6.66.1 just to make fun of SCO ;-)
Well ok, RAID does not improve latency when you are reading that special random single byte and then send the drives to sleep again, but it does improve the latency required to fetch a big chunk of data of fixed size. You also would have the option to choose smaller drives with faster head positioning. Of course in the real world, better drive parameter often have to be purchased hand in hand with a bigger drive.
Results are mixed;
According to the benchmarks published there
- at most OS jobs like threading/process creation, Singularity is at least twice as fast as linux, Linux is very fast at process creation, while XP is good at threads
- in File Operations FreeBSD and Linux beat XP and Singularity at random reads
- in File Operations XP beats Linux and Singularity at sequential reads, with the exception of FreeBSD being fastest if blocksize is high(and very bad for small blocksize)
- linux executable size are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
Please bear in mind that a benchmark does not it tell whether the "slower" OS actually invested more time in doing some smart stuff that pays off in some other way.
You perhaps meant to say: "I honestly wonder what Hollywood-approved historians will think of this time period, say, one hundred years from now. Think of how we view the Western European ..
I will go to leds when they meet my budget....just a matter of time.
Or the time of matter, since you can't measure both due to Heisenberg.
Just send a married couple, two gays, two lesbians, the Pope and Darl McBride on the mission.
Since no one loves Darl, and the Pope loves everyone but does not have sex, relationships are stable.
These are not the mars exploration drones you are looking for.