For sufficiently large tolerances on "approximately", or when taking "no other processes" sufficiently literally, sure. For industrial-strength batch, round robin is the worst possible scheduler short of apparent malice.
Consider four tasks requiring N minutes of CPU each. Under round-robin, these will each finish after 4N minutes. Average time to complete: 4N minutes. You simply cannot make that average time any worse... unless you have other contention. Then it gets worse. Fast. GP mentioned how that operates in a specific circumstance; there are lots of ways. Hunt up thrashing for the classic examples.
But that's OK, free people only need to be exposed to sufficient information, chosen by our Good Leaders. Who needs the aggravation of knowing the bad parts?
Re:Apple is going to make a killing...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
And one of the FreeBSD founders emphatically (his word was "hallelujah") agrees with you . He made his case and asked them to hire him.
I'm not exactly thrilled about Bootcamp. Why? 1)I don't want to dedicate 20-30GB to a disk partition for a host OS I'm not going to use except for gaming and 1-2 Windows-only apps I need.
You don't need 20-30GB. Apple say 5G minimum to (free space - 5G) max. XP itself takes about 1.5, and needs about 2.5 during install. Ok, you're not exactly thrilled, to tell the truth neither am I — it's a neat trick, I'm smirking, but thrilled? — but... why does the need to use hard drive space for your apps have any effect on that?
The guy tripped my BS detector. Even if 98% turns out to be accurate considering all *possible* inputs, it's so misleading that "misleading" really doesn't cover it. And I still don't believe the 98%. Maybe the Huffman coding imprecision costs 2%, but that's not all there is to it by a long shot.
Unless you mean "pretty much the same" in the same way as that guy who pointed out that all human languages would look "pretty much the same" to a space alien, I don't get how you put the bwt in with the count-and-distance coders.
Most researchers of aggression agree that severe aggressive
and violent behavior seldom occurs unless there is a convergence
of multiple predisposing and precipitating factors such as
neurophysiological abnormalities, poor child rearing, socioeconomic
deprivation, poor peer relations, attitudes and beliefs supporting
aggression, drug and alcohol abuse, frustration and provocation,
and other factors.
Now, several things strike me about this list. For starters, exposure to actual violence — seeing an actual crime committed, say an abusive parent — is nowhere on this list. And the list makes no mention at all of the child's native personality.
And when it's pointed out to the study's author that it might just be that children who are not drawn to violence will spend less time watching violent television than children who are drawn to violence, does he say his study shows otherwise?
No.
He says
It is more plausible
his way. Perhaps you can see why the Judge was unimpressed.
Once people get used to the idea that something should Just Work(TM)
And that they don't have to be afraid to open an email from their niece... that one's gonna be hard. Most people don't like getting as angry as they're going to get when they wrap their heads around that one.
Cowards and criminals and pornsuckers can use tools, too. Cowards, at least, have us badly outnumbered. This is news?
Idiots can use tools, too, with results every bit as horrific as the criminals' and cowards'. That's news?
Your posted argument runs: Freenet
is truly anonymous (but you stipulate that's not bad for the sake of this argument)
allow[s] speech to be distributed only among a select few people
allow[s] you to say whatever you like
And that's it. Those characteristics alone — you list no others — produce the consequences you mention, and justify the use of words like "Gestapo". You think so? Really?
Waaait. Damn it, they fooled me! The Beta has BUGS? I'm calling my lawyer.
And it'll stay free. They say so on their web site and in email to beta testers. You know enough to post details about their beta, but you don't know that? Something's wrong here, Elmer. Whatever Microsoft's paying you, it's too much.
Is that a sufficient argument against patents? Sure, the effects described are bad, and you can see them operate today. But — and I'm not sure how much I believe this, the thought just occurred to me — it has a good effect too: if one person can do it, it's an invention whose time has come, and the patent means everybody has ~20 years of serious incentive to find even an incrementally better different route. Whether anyone or no one can, the patent effect has authoritatively answered a very interesting question.
It's the "supporting Linux" part that gives me the giggles. Believe anything out of a Microsoft mouth on the subject of Linux? The giggles are getting uncontrollable.
They may not be in trouble, but they're definitely having to do things they'd very much rather not do.
I'm curious to know what you think of the argument that patents protect the little guy — look what happened to the weed whacker. Unless I've been misled, that guy had the quintessential patentable idea, absolutely obvious in hindsight and quite clearly not obvious to anybody beforehand; and the large companies simply stole it.
Standard qualifications for actual programmers: one part detective, one part historian, one part clairvoyant.
Working on IBM mainframes, I used to tell people I read manuals for a living. IBM have seriously good manuals.
A little math helps sometimes, but for the vast majority of practical problems the math is done; graph theory and Markov chains were fun, but I never needed them. More important is a feel for what's going on under the covers of your runtime library; Knuth's belief that you really need to start with assembler seems exceedingly strange to most people today, but in real life that's the nitty-gritty, not math. Maybe not start there, but until you understand at least one you don't really grok computers.
IT can be a real challenge; a good admin deserves serious respect. If you sit in front of a screenful of code and you don't feel your brain engaging, IT could be a good way to go.
Substitute "corporations" for "means of production" and ask yourself what a fascist government has left to be for after you eliminate that against list.
Just because they have done Bad Things(TM) in the past doesn't give anyone the right to do Bad Things(TM) to them in the present
This is the penalty phase of their antitrust trial. This is MS corporate whining it's not faaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrr at the extent of their punishment.
cheering and hoping for injustice against your opponents is borderline facism
No, it's intemperate mockery.
Racist, totalitarian, militant... you can be all of those and not be fascist. The defining characteristic of fascism is the notion that government exists to serve corporations.
Lots of people have pointed out the wrongness: in a choice between
arguing on behalf of people they've never met, and
just ignoring them, switching to those nice people who don't have any trouble getting their email through,
you get no points for guessing what people are going to do.
The bad part isn't whether it works or not. The bad part is the policy itself: charging for inbound email. What's wrong with spammers? What's wrong with Ed Whitacre? What's wrong with these guys here? Same thing. Everybody else pays, not to do business with them, but simply to do business on the same Internet with them.
It doesn't look much like a straw man because it isn't one. You just picked different market-tested codewords for your desire to gut publicly-funded projects. All are based on the premise that government lacks the power or the competence or the right to choose and fund projects for public benefit — which is so ignorant it's difficult to find even a coherent objection, let alone a diplomatic one.
In support of "power", here's the first-named power of Congress. As a starter kit on "competence", who funded the development of the Internet Protocol? Who decided to make it a DoD standard, and when? As for "right", see the post you responded to: whether you like it or not, your logic applies to every public project from research through schools and libraries to parks and roads and sewers. You get to choose your response here:
no public project should ever be funded,
you personally get to approve every single project, or
chosen representatives get to decide.
And those are just the most blatant of the flaws in your premises. Like the theocrats who recognize no distinction between "legal" and "moral", or their siamese twins the authoritarians who recognize none between "power" and "right", the economic neocons have lost the distinction between "price" and "value" just as their siamese twins the libertarians have done with "guards" and "government".
And there's a word for those who refuse to make such distinctions. It's "Orwellian". You already know the word for those who are simply unable.
Right. It's much more important that private institutions do all research, because any activity private investors could conceivably turn a profit on must never be publicly funded. The government has an awful track record of picking winners, and they should just stop looking for any. This commie pinko liberal notion of learning things and then just giving away the knowledge has got to stop. It's stealing from the widows, the orphans, the honest folk who invest in the American Dream!
Slashdot Mirror
Consider four tasks requiring N minutes of CPU each. Under round-robin, these will each finish after 4N minutes. Average time to complete: 4N minutes. You simply cannot make that average time any worse... unless you have other contention. Then it gets worse. Fast. GP mentioned how that operates in a specific circumstance; there are lots of ways. Hunt up thrashing for the classic examples.
But that's OK, free people only need to be exposed to sufficient information, chosen by our Good Leaders. Who needs the aggravation of knowing the bad parts?
And one of the FreeBSD founders emphatically (his word was "hallelujah") agrees with you . He made his case and asked them to hire him.
Unless you mean "pretty much the same" in the same way as that guy who pointed out that all human languages would look "pretty much the same" to a space alien, I don't get how you put the bwt in with the count-and-distance coders.
And when it's pointed out to the study's author that it might just be that children who are not drawn to violence will spend less time watching violent television than children who are drawn to violence, does he say his study shows otherwise?
No.
He says
his way. Perhaps you can see why the Judge was unimpressed.You think I'm making this up, don't you.
Jim
First time in my life I ever wanted to bookmark a /. post.
If gzip gets 98% of what's possible, then what the hell are bzip2 and 7zip doing?
And that they don't have to be afraid to open an email from their niece... that one's gonna be hard. Most people don't like getting as angry as they're going to get when they wrap their heads around that one.
Lord, how the wheel does turn.
Cowards and criminals and pornsuckers can use tools, too. Cowards, at least, have us badly outnumbered. This is news?
Idiots can use tools, too, with results every bit as horrific as the criminals' and cowards'. That's news?
Your posted argument runs: Freenet
And that's it. Those characteristics alone — you list no others — produce the consequences you mention, and justify the use of words like "Gestapo". You think so? Really?
And it'll stay free. They say so on their web site and in email to beta testers. You know enough to post details about their beta, but you don't know that? Something's wrong here, Elmer. Whatever Microsoft's paying you, it's too much.
Is that a sufficient argument against patents? Sure, the effects described are bad, and you can see them operate today. But — and I'm not sure how much I believe this, the thought just occurred to me — it has a good effect too: if one person can do it, it's an invention whose time has come, and the patent means everybody has ~20 years of serious incentive to find even an incrementally better different route. Whether anyone or no one can, the patent effect has authoritatively answered a very interesting question.
It's the "supporting Linux" part that gives me the giggles. Believe anything out of a Microsoft mouth on the subject of Linux? The giggles are getting uncontrollable.
They may not be in trouble, but they're definitely having to do things they'd very much rather not do.
You're trolling for "funny" mods, right?
I'm curious to know what you think of the argument that patents protect the little guy — look what happened to the weed whacker. Unless I've been misled, that guy had the quintessential patentable idea, absolutely obvious in hindsight and quite clearly not obvious to anybody beforehand; and the large companies simply stole it.
Working on IBM mainframes, I used to tell people I read manuals for a living. IBM have seriously good manuals.
A little math helps sometimes, but for the vast majority of practical problems the math is done; graph theory and Markov chains were fun, but I never needed them. More important is a feel for what's going on under the covers of your runtime library; Knuth's belief that you really need to start with assembler seems exceedingly strange to most people today, but in real life that's the nitty-gritty, not math. Maybe not start there, but until you understand at least one you don't really grok computers.
IT can be a real challenge; a good admin deserves serious respect. If you sit in front of a screenful of code and you don't feel your brain engaging, IT could be a good way to go.
Substitute "corporations" for "means of production" and ask yourself what a fascist government has left to be for after you eliminate that against list.
This is the penalty phase of their antitrust trial. This is MS corporate whining it's not faaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrr at the extent of their punishment.
No, it's intemperate mockery.
Racist, totalitarian, militant ... you can be all of those and not be fascist. The defining characteristic of fascism is the notion that government exists to serve corporations.
Lots of people have pointed out the wrongness: in a choice between
you get no points for guessing what people are going to do.
The bad part isn't whether it works or not. The bad part is the policy itself: charging for inbound email. What's wrong with spammers? What's wrong with Ed Whitacre? What's wrong with these guys here? Same thing. Everybody else pays, not to do business with them, but simply to do business on the same Internet with them.
didn't intend to mod this...
In support of "power", here's the first-named power of Congress. As a starter kit on "competence", who funded the development of the Internet Protocol? Who decided to make it a DoD standard, and when? As for "right", see the post you responded to: whether you like it or not, your logic applies to every public project from research through schools and libraries to parks and roads and sewers. You get to choose your response here:
And those are just the most blatant of the flaws in your premises. Like the theocrats who recognize no distinction between "legal" and "moral", or their siamese twins the authoritarians who recognize none between "power" and "right", the economic neocons have lost the distinction between "price" and "value" just as their siamese twins the libertarians have done with "guards" and "government".
And there's a word for those who refuse to make such distinctions. It's "Orwellian". You already know the word for those who are simply unable.
Have a double-plus-good day.
Right. It's much more important that private institutions do all research, because any activity private investors could conceivably turn a profit on must never be publicly funded. The government has an awful track record of picking winners, and they should just stop looking for any. This commie pinko liberal notion of learning things and then just giving away the knowledge has got to stop. It's stealing from the widows, the orphans, the honest folk who invest in the American Dream!