The title says "... explained" and the abstract says "there is no agreed-upon explanation". Read the frigging article, it's a fluff piece saying nobody really knows what accounts for the illusion.
More than just a sliver. Look at the facts: because it happened on the Internet, because the public knew what was going on, and because of the overwhelming common interest held by proponents of the Linux legal defense, justice was speedily and accurately dispensed.
Just my way of saying, We don't have to be quite so cynical anymore. The world really is improving.
Yeah, but everybody gets tired, eventually, of correcting the same mistaken views. Especially when they're voiced from a position of ignorance but phrased like they have the weight of authority behind them. 'RTFB' was a pretty fair retort.
The essential problem with this argument is that the Invisible Hand is not omnipotent. When you refer to Linux as a market alternative you are taking tremendous liberty with the facts. GNU/Linux and Open Source are not market entities, but rather independent entities in their own right that frequently interact with capital markets.
Typically, the response here is to broaden your definition of "market" to inflate the importance of the Invisible Hand, and then switch in "capitalism" and "capital markets" as substitutes at the last minute. Don't bother.
Pointing out that capital markets behave in this or that way is all very well, and I won't argue with the thrust of your comment. But capital markets (and capitalism) are increasingly being replaced in human society by subtler and more complex patterns. I simply want to point out that there's a common apologetic for capitalism often referred to as "whatever the market will bear", and that this apologetic will not buttress capitalism for long in the face of _alternatives_, market-directed or otherwise.
This is the crux of the modern argument for capitalism. Essentially, it boils down to asking, "If we don't create artificial scarcities, how will we funnel money in our direction?" It is not an argument borne of a desire to create wealth, but rather of a desire to cadge wealth out of other people, to whatever effect, good or ill.
Any business model built upon this logic will fail catastrophically as technology alleviates scarcity. I think most people already sense this, intuitively.
Camera aside, I thought "Supremacy" was all right. I thought it was trying to be an action vehicle for a fairly standard story about a man whose past haunts him. Yeah, been done before, I know. But it was still an entertaining and fairly consistent delivery of that.
Is COH just a graphical MUD, or is there something I missed? They seem to have added a lot of cool effects to the combat. Other than that, I'm not sure what this guy "designed". Seriously. Christ, they even call the monsters "mobs". What's different?
How much more do we have to read smarmy comments like "still cool enough for this Mac user". What does it actually take to impress a Mac user, for chrissake? The word "Google"? Some colored plastic? A keynote speech by Steve Jobs.
Come on, guys, the bar is a lot higher than that. Impressing Mac users will get us nowhere.
It makes no sense, anymore, to ask only what "users" get from a thing that the Linux community provides. "User" is a holdover concept from the days of big commercial systems, expensive software, restrictive usage policies, and social engineering that accompanied the nascence of computing.
What are people getting from the proliferation of distros? Ah, well, I suspect they're getting choice, as other people have pointed out. The important part -- getting a good operating system for free -- remains fairly constant, unless you choose RedHat.
I don't know of any consumer-priced "RAID controllers" which implement RAID 0 behavior entirely in hardware. The Promise/FastTrack/VIA solutions posted here -- unless I am greatly mistaken -- implement their behavior in software drivers, which tax the CPU and provide almost no additional functionality over that built into Windows NT.
Most of these controllers are smart enough *not* to send 2 write requests onto the same bus when implementing RAID-1 behavior. Beyond that, they're essentially glorified IDE controllers.
Apart from the fact that RAID-0 can be used to turn multiple devices into one, from the operating system's point of view, there's really no compelling reason to implement RAID-0. Since write performance *can* be slower, and read performance is generally *no slower* and *sometimes* faster... well, geez, I guess in a read-only application -- at the very least -- you'll be at least as fast as a single drive. Congratulations, except you're taxing the CPU to do it, when you use this VIA/Promise crap.
RAID-0 came along at a time when LVMs were finding their way into consumer-level OSes, anyway, and large read-caches were finding their way onto consumer-level disks. It was *pure* marketing crap for geeks, the kind born after 1980 who had to look up "RAID-0" on a cheat-sheet webpage in the first place.
I love it when "experts" get indignantly righteous, especially when they're wrong. RAID 0 is strictly about spanning volumes, not performance improvements. Typically there is no performance improvement whatsoever from RAID 0 (but on cheap "RAID controllers" you'll eat CPU faster, anyway), despite whatever claims you read on the colorful box.
Wow. SVG in late 2003
on
GIMP goes SVG
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I give up, GIMP *really* is a viable Photoshop alternative, after all!
"The right thing", my ass. Rhapsody was going to run on any PowerMac! In 1996! No, 1997! No, any non-NuBus PowerMac! No, sorry, any 603/604(e)! No, just G3s! Yes, if you buy a G3 NOW it will DEFINITELY run Rhapsody! I mean Mac OS X!
Sorry, it doesn't run fully on G3 iMacs. Or G3 iBooks. But definitely on G4s! And our new Jeff Goldblum Edition G5s!
Fucking Apple. They should buy every one of their customers a new Dell to make up for their near-decade of bullshit.
Except for the CPU and chipset, Apple tracks PC architectures as hard as it can. I don't get the point of "Think Different" if all they make is PC knock-offs with an incompatible operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Even further than before.
iBrij is Invisible Browser Requests In Javascript.
The title says "... explained" and the abstract says "there is no agreed-upon explanation". Read the frigging article, it's a fluff piece saying nobody really knows what accounts for the illusion.
Fucking idiot.
n/t
Read Hardy's Jude the Obscure.
More than just a sliver. Look at the facts: because it happened on the Internet, because the public knew what was going on, and because of the overwhelming common interest held by proponents of the Linux legal defense, justice was speedily and accurately dispensed.
Just my way of saying, We don't have to be quite so cynical anymore. The world really is improving.
Yeah, but everybody gets tired, eventually, of correcting the same mistaken views. Especially when they're voiced from a position of ignorance but phrased like they have the weight of authority behind them. 'RTFB' was a pretty fair retort.
The essential problem with this argument is that the Invisible Hand is not omnipotent. When you refer to Linux as a market alternative you are taking tremendous liberty with the facts. GNU/Linux and Open Source are not market entities, but rather independent entities in their own right that frequently interact with capital markets.
Typically, the response here is to broaden your definition of "market" to inflate the importance of the Invisible Hand, and then switch in "capitalism" and "capital markets" as substitutes at the last minute. Don't bother.
Pointing out that capital markets behave in this or that way is all very well, and I won't argue with the thrust of your comment. But capital markets (and capitalism) are increasingly being replaced in human society by subtler and more complex patterns. I simply want to point out that there's a common apologetic for capitalism often referred to as "whatever the market will bear", and that this apologetic will not buttress capitalism for long in the face of _alternatives_, market-directed or otherwise.
This is the crux of the modern argument for capitalism. Essentially, it boils down to asking, "If we don't create artificial scarcities, how will we funnel money in our direction?" It is not an argument borne of a desire to create wealth, but rather of a desire to cadge wealth out of other people, to whatever effect, good or ill.
Any business model built upon this logic will fail catastrophically as technology alleviates scarcity. I think most people already sense this, intuitively.
Sounds like your father is the whole problem here. Tell him to shut the fuck up.
Camera aside, I thought "Supremacy" was all right. I thought it was trying to be an action vehicle for a fairly standard story about a man whose past haunts him. Yeah, been done before, I know. But it was still an entertaining and fairly consistent delivery of that.
Is COH just a graphical MUD, or is there something I missed? They seem to have added a lot of cool effects to the combat. Other than that, I'm not sure what this guy "designed". Seriously. Christ, they even call the monsters "mobs". What's different?
How much more do we have to read smarmy comments like "still cool enough for this Mac user". What does it actually take to impress a Mac user, for chrissake? The word "Google"? Some colored plastic? A keynote speech by Steve Jobs.
Come on, guys, the bar is a lot higher than that. Impressing Mac users will get us nowhere.
Yep. I'm getting tired of introducing my iHP-120 as "an iPod knockoff", since it kicks the iPod's ass so hard.
It makes no sense, anymore, to ask only what "users" get from a thing that the Linux community provides. "User" is a holdover concept from the days of big commercial systems, expensive software, restrictive usage policies, and social engineering that accompanied the nascence of computing.
What are people getting from the proliferation of distros? Ah, well, I suspect they're getting choice, as other people have pointed out. The important part -- getting a good operating system for free -- remains fairly constant, unless you choose RedHat.
How are you doing these days, JCR?
MJP
mjpeck@dashf.com
I don't know of any consumer-priced "RAID controllers" which implement RAID 0 behavior entirely in hardware. The Promise/FastTrack/VIA solutions posted here -- unless I am greatly mistaken -- implement their behavior in software drivers, which tax the CPU and provide almost no additional functionality over that built into Windows NT.
Most of these controllers are smart enough *not* to send 2 write requests onto the same bus when implementing RAID-1 behavior. Beyond that, they're essentially glorified IDE controllers.
Hey, kiddo, look. I don't know why you're not in summer school right now, but lay off the jellybeans.
Apart from the fact that RAID-0 can be used to turn multiple devices into one, from the operating system's point of view, there's really no compelling reason to implement RAID-0. Since write performance *can* be slower, and read performance is generally *no slower* and *sometimes* faster... well, geez, I guess in a read-only application -- at the very least -- you'll be at least as fast as a single drive. Congratulations, except you're taxing the CPU to do it, when you use this VIA/Promise crap.
RAID-0 came along at a time when LVMs were finding their way into consumer-level OSes, anyway, and large read-caches were finding their way onto consumer-level disks. It was *pure* marketing crap for geeks, the kind born after 1980 who had to look up "RAID-0" on a cheat-sheet webpage in the first place.
Hey, if you wasted a lot of time on this Promise/Fasttrack/VIA RAID shit, no need to feel bad. A lot of other people have done the same.
RAID-0 does stripe data across multiple disks, which means that it spans them. If you're having trouble with this, consult a dictionary.
Hey, don't get mad at me because you're embarrassed.
I love it when "experts" get indignantly righteous, especially when they're wrong. RAID 0 is strictly about spanning volumes, not performance improvements. Typically there is no performance improvement whatsoever from RAID 0 (but on cheap "RAID controllers" you'll eat CPU faster, anyway), despite whatever claims you read on the colorful box.
I give up, GIMP *really* is a viable Photoshop alternative, after all!
"The right thing", my ass. Rhapsody was going to run on any PowerMac! In 1996! No, 1997! No, any non-NuBus PowerMac! No, sorry, any 603/604(e)! No, just G3s! Yes, if you buy a G3 NOW it will DEFINITELY run Rhapsody! I mean Mac OS X!
Sorry, it doesn't run fully on G3 iMacs. Or G3 iBooks. But definitely on G4s! And our new Jeff Goldblum Edition G5s!
Fucking Apple. They should buy every one of their customers a new Dell to make up for their near-decade of bullshit.
Except for the CPU and chipset, Apple tracks PC architectures as hard as it can. I don't get the point of "Think Different" if all they make is PC knock-offs with an incompatible operating system.
Frightens you. A lot.
Ba-duuuummmmm!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAH
!