"Let's gamble by making our device dependent on a part that might or might not be being stockpiled by a third party for a decade" said nobody responsible ever! (Mind you, if they were responsible, would they make a consumer desktop operating system the UI/controller?)
Based on what I have seen I highly doubt the percentage of people re-using light plastic bottles is that low.
I don't think the issue here is percentage of people so much as percentage of bottles. We do this kind of re-use all the time, but the reality is our recycle bin is absolutely full to overflowing with plastic bottles at the end of the week anyway.
I agree with your solutions BTW, I just felt the lead sentence placed the emphasis on the wrong group. Realistically, there's a problem in (most of) the US in terms of emphasizing recycling over reuse, with little incentive given to return bottles to the supermarkets that sold them (who wouldn't know what to do with them if we did.)
Used to be that "socialist" was the term to mean "Anything the government does that I don't like." Now, presumably because word "Fascist" has become important again, that seems to be taking on the role, either because people are treating it as an expletive, or because it's a word whose power supporters of strongly nationalist and racist, authoritarian, violent governments want diluted.
Either way, calling ban on certain types of products that cause very real harm "fascist" is ridiculous and stupid. Stop it.
The fact one regulator sees a company as not disobeying its rules has no bearing on what other regulators do. TfL probably doesn't get to determine what pay and benefits taxi drivers receive. It's quite conceivable that Uber will be sued and effectively shut down by other parts of the UK government if it doesn't conform to the laws in that area.
Alsup is actually one of the most respected, non-corporate, judges in the US at the moment, and has a tendency to end up with the more difficult cases. He most certainly does seek the input of experts, and even - in the Oracle vs Google case, for example - took the effort to learn programming so he'd have a better understanding of the case.
Your criticisms are severely misplaced. I'd like to find some way to hold the fossil fuel industry to account too, but if Alsup of all people is saying this path is a no-go, then we should find alternatives.
On Windows, starting a process is expensive for two reasons
OK, but how often is Chrome starting new processes? At worse, it may create a couple when you create a new tab, or perhaps have a web page with an IFRAME on it (I don't know, I'm guessing at this point, and my guesses are worst case scenarios, Chrome probably doesn't even do that.)
On any system, RAM owned by a process and not shared with other processes is expensive, particularly if it causes cached disk sectors to get evicted to make room or (worse) leads to swapping.
I dispute how you're wording this as it's "Technically correct, but really misleading." RAM owned by a process that's not shared with another process is "expensive" in the sense that it means more RAM Is being used, but the question is actually "Does this model lead to more RAM being used?"
Somewhere (maybe this thread, I'm not sure) someone posted what these processes actually do, and it looks to me as if the same amount of RAM as would be if the processes were collapsed into one with one memory space - minus the tiny inefficiencies produced by page boundaries and having your own stack, obviously, and the latter may happen anyway if the collapsed process would need multiple threads. There may be some shared libraries that would store the same information in all processes, but that would say volumes about the shared libraries in question more than Chrome's memory model.
Ultimately, we're looking at minor memory increases in exchange for massive security improvements. Is that a good idea? I'd say yes.
The (non-mobile) P3 hadn't been updated for seven years when Windows 7 came into being. And it's doubtful any devices were built in 2009 that ran Windows 7, which at the time was a new, untested, operating system.
I would assume you wouldn't see an MRI or other safety critical device running Windows that run Windows 7 for several years after 2009, probably 2012 or later. And it's hard for me to imagine that anyone would manufacture a device after 2012 that used a chip that most probably wasn't even in production at that point - using older hardware is one thing, but using discontinued hardware with no support from the manufacturer is quite another. Where are you going to get the chips? eBay?
you specifically said commercial users have to start paying
No, I didn't. I've read it three times now, nowhere does I say that. For fucks sake, the word "commercial" appears only once, in a sentence that only an idiot would claim means I'm saying commercial users will pay.
You never explained what "wrong" means or what misunderstanding means
No, it was just blatantly obvious from the fact I said that so many are "convinced that this means that commercial users of Java will now have to start paying". Given there was no other cases where I was describing a belief, there was no chance of it being misunderstood.
Next time read what you're replying to. And for fuck sake, doubling down and pretending it said what you pretended it said, to the point of making an easily verifiably false claim about the words I'd used, is really, really, dumb.
I suspect it would have done that anyway though. Episodes 1-3 were intended to "rhyme" with Episodes 4-6. It was less obvious than 7-8-second-half-of-8, but that's in part because there was a lot of (non-plot related) stuff in the first three (midichlorians, Jar Jar Binks, etc) that distracted people from what was happening underneath. But yeah, it was also because Abrams and, to a lesser extent, Johnson, wanted to also duplicate the way the OT movies rhymed with each other.
It's not commercial users of Java. It's commercial support of java. You're free to keep using OpenJDK. If you want long term patches instead of upgrading to the latest OpenJDK, or commercial support... welp, someone has to pay for those things
Did you hit the reply to the wrong post, or are you just in the habit of pointing out things that are actually known to the person you're telling, and central to the point they're making?
Also it's doubtful the decryption took anything like as long for Turning and his team to do as the figuring out how to decrypt in the first place. Unless this device is an amazing AI that can figure out all by itself how encryption and decryption works, it's a little dubious to make the grand claims they're making for it,
...in which case they're even more stupid, because that would be undermining absolutely everything about Java on behalf of the corporation that promotes it.
That'd be like the W3C updating their website on behalf of Microsoft so it only works under Internet Explorer.
The fact a tech website like this is full of users convinced that this means that commercial users of Java will now have to start paying is VERY bad news for Java. It re-enforces the feeling most people have that Oracle's takeover means Java is ceasing to be an open, free, technology, that was already a gut feeling most had when they started suing Google.
Despite being such a promising platform, between the poor and over ideological stewardship of James Gosling and his successors, and Oracle's malignant behavior over licensing, it's a system fewer and fewer people will want anything to do with.
People may be "wrong" about what this announcement means, but it doesn't matter: Their misunderstandings re-enforce a negative narrative about the platform, and we're seeing another nail in its coffin.
If you come across a product that is only compatible with "Oracle Java" you back away as the product is almost certainly written by incompetents. Actually, "almost certain" is being polite. There's absolutely no logical reason for something written in Java to require Oracle's implementation and that's something every Java developer knows.
It's not unreadable. I don't know anyone who prefers it, they just find it acceptable, and useful in an environment in which you're getting large numbers of tweets. There's nothing particularly wrong with Schwartz's thread, it's easy to follow and he imparts the relevant information pretty well. It works well in context.
TBH looking at the comments you've made in this thread, it sounds like there's pretty much nothing that could be done at Twitter that you'd like. And that's fine! Really, it is! But what I don't get is the hostile attitude towards its users combined with an "It can't be done, this is all wrong, anyone who uses it is an idiot" theme. Your own comment about 140 characters should be a red flag that you haven't used the system and should be uncomfortable evaluating its effectiveness based upon a description and a few examples.
It feels like someone screaming "How am I supposed to read news on that small screen? I'll stick to broadsheet newsprint thank you very much, anyone who uses their *snort* telephone to communicate is an imbecile!"
The GP was was referring to threads. Twitter, incidentally, had the 140 character restriction upped to 280 over a year ago. It is, indeed, possible for a thead (a linked chain, and yes, Twitter does the linking) of (up to) 280 character tweets to constitute in-depth coverage.
Yeah, I assume you're talking ENIACs and stuff, but even in the relatively modern age persistent storage wasn't really a feature of most home computers for several years. Many hobbyists bought disk drives, but there was no storage built in to computers like the VIC 20/Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and so on. Many (oddly, not including the 6502 Commodore home computers - I'm not counting the PET as the latter) came with the ability to hook up to a cassette recorder, but that was it - anything more advanced required buying additional hardware.
It seems to be that if the thing at least includes RAM and the ability to execute programs from RAM, is Turing complete, and has the ability to communicate in both directions with a user, it ought to be classed as a computer given the common usage of the term.
Yes, Epiphany is pretty old, most distributions don't bother showing it because it's pretty much the Internet Explorer of the GNU/Linux world.
Someone presumably forgot to tell GNOME's developers that there already are tools to download Firefox built-in to most distributions, so the need for a Firefox download tool like IE in GNOME is tiny.
Anecdotes aren't data. But even so, your example is precisely backwards - Tesla started with 90% automation, so obviously it created jobs. Comparing it to another time in history is dubious because it presumes the situation is the same back then.
If you're going to assert that jobs are really being lost to automation, rather than come up with a dubious and poorly thought out anecdote, look at the data instead. Is there more automation than 30 years ago? Are there fewer jobs per capita?
A reasonable person would say that "automation" is, by itself, a unicorn. It's not automation, it's an improvement in productivity. And thus far, every improvement in productivity has resulted in the creation, not the destruction, of jobs, and that's been true since the industrial revolution started.
Complaints about automation sound suspiciously similar to the complaints about immigration, albeit slightly more justified (machines don't need feeding or housing or cable TV); but they're particularly daft considering almost every private sector job in existence in the modern era owes its existence to automation, because if it wasn't for, for example, the Roberts Loom, making fabric in quantity wouldn't have been cost effective.
I'm no history buff but I don't think that's true. In fact as I recall most of the early settlers were asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution.
I think I know the guys you're talking about. Are they the ones that insisted on imposing their Abrahamic religion - a kinda tortured version that was used to justify misogynist and racist behavior - on those already here, started imposing their own laws on everyone, and then got murderous and rapey and genocidal with the people who already lived here?
Because if so, it's no wonder the Trumpies are scared of immigrants!
Slashdot Mirror
"Let's gamble by making our device dependent on a part that might or might not be being stockpiled by a third party for a decade" said nobody responsible ever! (Mind you, if they were responsible, would they make a consumer desktop operating system the UI/controller?)
I don't think the issue here is percentage of people so much as percentage of bottles. We do this kind of re-use all the time, but the reality is our recycle bin is absolutely full to overflowing with plastic bottles at the end of the week anyway.
I agree with your solutions BTW, I just felt the lead sentence placed the emphasis on the wrong group. Realistically, there's a problem in (most of) the US in terms of emphasizing recycling over reuse, with little incentive given to return bottles to the supermarkets that sold them (who wouldn't know what to do with them if we did.)
Used to be that "socialist" was the term to mean "Anything the government does that I don't like." Now, presumably because word "Fascist" has become important again, that seems to be taking on the role, either because people are treating it as an expletive, or because it's a word whose power supporters of strongly nationalist and racist, authoritarian, violent governments want diluted.
Either way, calling ban on certain types of products that cause very real harm "fascist" is ridiculous and stupid. Stop it.
The fact one regulator sees a company as not disobeying its rules has no bearing on what other regulators do. TfL probably doesn't get to determine what pay and benefits taxi drivers receive. It's quite conceivable that Uber will be sued and effectively shut down by other parts of the UK government if it doesn't conform to the laws in that area.
Alsup is actually one of the most respected, non-corporate, judges in the US at the moment, and has a tendency to end up with the more difficult cases. He most certainly does seek the input of experts, and even - in the Oracle vs Google case, for example - took the effort to learn programming so he'd have a better understanding of the case.
Your criticisms are severely misplaced. I'd like to find some way to hold the fossil fuel industry to account too, but if Alsup of all people is saying this path is a no-go, then we should find alternatives.
I'm not sure promoting him to CEO counts as "appalling treatment", especially when he clearly wasn't qualified.
OK, but how often is Chrome starting new processes? At worse, it may create a couple when you create a new tab, or perhaps have a web page with an IFRAME on it (I don't know, I'm guessing at this point, and my guesses are worst case scenarios, Chrome probably doesn't even do that.)
I dispute how you're wording this as it's "Technically correct, but really misleading." RAM owned by a process that's not shared with another process is "expensive" in the sense that it means more RAM Is being used, but the question is actually "Does this model lead to more RAM being used?"
Somewhere (maybe this thread, I'm not sure) someone posted what these processes actually do, and it looks to me as if the same amount of RAM as would be if the processes were collapsed into one with one memory space - minus the tiny inefficiencies produced by page boundaries and having your own stack, obviously, and the latter may happen anyway if the collapsed process would need multiple threads. There may be some shared libraries that would store the same information in all processes, but that would say volumes about the shared libraries in question more than Chrome's memory model.
Ultimately, we're looking at minor memory increases in exchange for massive security improvements. Is that a good idea? I'd say yes.
The (non-mobile) P3 hadn't been updated for seven years when Windows 7 came into being. And it's doubtful any devices were built in 2009 that ran Windows 7, which at the time was a new, untested, operating system.
I would assume you wouldn't see an MRI or other safety critical device running Windows that run Windows 7 for several years after 2009, probably 2012 or later. And it's hard for me to imagine that anyone would manufacture a device after 2012 that used a chip that most probably wasn't even in production at that point - using older hardware is one thing, but using discontinued hardware with no support from the manufacturer is quite another. Where are you going to get the chips? eBay?
No, I didn't. I've read it three times now, nowhere does I say that. For fucks sake, the word "commercial" appears only once, in a sentence that only an idiot would claim means I'm saying commercial users will pay.
No, it was just blatantly obvious from the fact I said that so many are "convinced that this means that commercial users of Java will now have to start paying". Given there was no other cases where I was describing a belief, there was no chance of it being misunderstood.
Next time read what you're replying to. And for fuck sake, doubling down and pretending it said what you pretended it said, to the point of making an easily verifiably false claim about the words I'd used, is really, really, dumb.
I suspect it would have done that anyway though. Episodes 1-3 were intended to "rhyme" with Episodes 4-6. It was less obvious than 7-8-second-half-of-8, but that's in part because there was a lot of (non-plot related) stuff in the first three (midichlorians, Jar Jar Binks, etc) that distracted people from what was happening underneath. But yeah, it was also because Abrams and, to a lesser extent, Johnson, wanted to also duplicate the way the OT movies rhymed with each other.
Did you hit the reply to the wrong post, or are you just in the habit of pointing out things that are actually known to the person you're telling, and central to the point they're making?
While I have a gut feeling we're getting away from the analogy, the fact is I'm so in agreement with your central point I don't care. Fuck the W3C.
Also it's doubtful the decryption took anything like as long for Turning and his team to do as the figuring out how to decrypt in the first place. Unless this device is an amazing AI that can figure out all by itself how encryption and decryption works, it's a little dubious to make the grand claims they're making for it,
That'd be like the W3C updating their website on behalf of Microsoft so it only works under Internet Explorer.
The fact a tech website like this is full of users convinced that this means that commercial users of Java will now have to start paying is VERY bad news for Java. It re-enforces the feeling most people have that Oracle's takeover means Java is ceasing to be an open, free, technology, that was already a gut feeling most had when they started suing Google.
Despite being such a promising platform, between the poor and over ideological stewardship of James Gosling and his successors, and Oracle's malignant behavior over licensing, it's a system fewer and fewer people will want anything to do with.
People may be "wrong" about what this announcement means, but it doesn't matter: Their misunderstandings re-enforce a negative narrative about the platform, and we're seeing another nail in its coffin.
If you come across a product that is only compatible with "Oracle Java" you back away as the product is almost certainly written by incompetents. Actually, "almost certain" is being polite. There's absolutely no logical reason for something written in Java to require Oracle's implementation and that's something every Java developer knows.
It's not unreadable. I don't know anyone who prefers it, they just find it acceptable, and useful in an environment in which you're getting large numbers of tweets. There's nothing particularly wrong with Schwartz's thread, it's easy to follow and he imparts the relevant information pretty well. It works well in context.
TBH looking at the comments you've made in this thread, it sounds like there's pretty much nothing that could be done at Twitter that you'd like. And that's fine! Really, it is! But what I don't get is the hostile attitude towards its users combined with an "It can't be done, this is all wrong, anyone who uses it is an idiot" theme. Your own comment about 140 characters should be a red flag that you haven't used the system and should be uncomfortable evaluating its effectiveness based upon a description and a few examples.
It feels like someone screaming "How am I supposed to read news on that small screen? I'll stick to broadsheet newsprint thank you very much, anyone who uses their *snort* telephone to communicate is an imbecile!"
See also: the medium is the message.
Isn't "The Voice" a singing competition? It's not impossible to envisage someone streaming that with no intention of watching the video.
The GP was was referring to threads. Twitter, incidentally, had the 140 character restriction upped to 280 over a year ago. It is, indeed, possible for a thead (a linked chain, and yes, Twitter does the linking) of (up to) 280 character tweets to constitute in-depth coverage.
As a brief example (this one's not very in depth, but it gives you an example of how the format works), here's the guy with the pony tail who used to run Sun describing how those RX Discount cards work.
Yeah, I assume you're talking ENIACs and stuff, but even in the relatively modern age persistent storage wasn't really a feature of most home computers for several years. Many hobbyists bought disk drives, but there was no storage built in to computers like the VIC 20/Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and so on. Many (oddly, not including the 6502 Commodore home computers - I'm not counting the PET as the latter) came with the ability to hook up to a cassette recorder, but that was it - anything more advanced required buying additional hardware.
It seems to be that if the thing at least includes RAM and the ability to execute programs from RAM, is Turing complete, and has the ability to communicate in both directions with a user, it ought to be classed as a computer given the common usage of the term.
Yes, Epiphany is pretty old, most distributions don't bother showing it because it's pretty much the Internet Explorer of the GNU/Linux world.
Someone presumably forgot to tell GNOME's developers that there already are tools to download Firefox built-in to most distributions, so the need for a Firefox download tool like IE in GNOME is tiny.
Is it possible that Slashdot has been bought out by someone who has a grudge against Big Yoga?
It might be from a bank's point of view, that is, it's less likely to go bankrupt than Moviepass.
Anecdotes aren't data. But even so, your example is precisely backwards - Tesla started with 90% automation, so obviously it created jobs. Comparing it to another time in history is dubious because it presumes the situation is the same back then.
If you're going to assert that jobs are really being lost to automation, rather than come up with a dubious and poorly thought out anecdote, look at the data instead. Is there more automation than 30 years ago? Are there fewer jobs per capita?
A reasonable person would say that "automation" is, by itself, a unicorn. It's not automation, it's an improvement in productivity. And thus far, every improvement in productivity has resulted in the creation, not the destruction, of jobs, and that's been true since the industrial revolution started.
Complaints about automation sound suspiciously similar to the complaints about immigration, albeit slightly more justified (machines don't need feeding or housing or cable TV); but they're particularly daft considering almost every private sector job in existence in the modern era owes its existence to automation, because if it wasn't for, for example, the Roberts Loom, making fabric in quantity wouldn't have been cost effective.
I think I know the guys you're talking about. Are they the ones that insisted on imposing their Abrahamic religion - a kinda tortured version that was used to justify misogynist and racist behavior - on those already here, started imposing their own laws on everyone, and then got murderous and rapey and genocidal with the people who already lived here?
Because if so, it's no wonder the Trumpies are scared of immigrants!