Isn't adding more brightness than what the author originally intended..
As mentioned before, THE AUTHORS ARE THE ONES WHO ADDED THE FEATURE!!!!!! CHRIST!!!11ONEONE
..somewhat akin to pressing the "Mega-Bass" button on your stereo..
NOT EVEN REMOTELY!!!!! I write a bit of electronic music, so I know the general mecahanics of production. The closest analogue I can come up with is running audio through an expander (or a compressor set to a ratio < 1. same thing). What does that do? Expands the dynamic range...DOINK! Even then, the effects aren't comparable because light just behaves differently. Vision has a much higher dynamic range; the contrast ratio of the eye is around 1,000,000:1 over time.
..to get more bass than the musician originally intended?
Once again, VALVE IS THE BLOODY MUSICIAN!
I think that striving for accuracy and balance of the elements is probably more important than striving for the maximum ____ your system can deliver.
I think you're talking out of your ass. Actually, I know it.
Note to mods: If you have not seen Lost Coast, you might mistake this as a troll. If you have, you will realize the parent is flamebait. The lighting is, in technical terms, fucking amazing.
I was both poking fun at the parent and using my reply as a vehicle for Perl one-line obfuscatory hotness. Please to be grounding yourself contextually in future endeavors, effendi.
I believe it became the idiom because x < 10 is more efficient than x <= 9. Generally, the simpler the exit test, the tighter the loop. for (x=10; x != 0; x--) is, I think, as efficient as you can get without unrolling.
Yeah, the guy essentially tried to teach the kid basic arithmetic by handing him a calculator, then was shocked when he couldn't pass the test without it.
Perl isn't "complicated." It's just that C is retarded. I mean, really, in the "real world," you will never have to make a starry background. Perl (and especially Ruby) allow the perfect mixture of very high- and high-level elements. In fact, in Ruby, you can mix in modules and polymorphically redefine derived classes in the same function if you were so inclined.
And, *no*, you do not have to understand anything about rendering black or whatever. No Fourier transforms or 11-dimension existentialism either. (The only "strings" for you are scalars!)
Anyway, your code in Perl: perl -e'while(){print int rand 99.99?" ":"."}'
No, problem not solved. All LockTight does is add a keybind to dump you to the screensaver. You still have to have the "Require password to wake this computer from sleep or screensaver" box checked in Security. I do not wan't locking linked with sleep and screensaver functionality! After working as a sysadmin for a couple years, I developed the habit of "ctrl+alt+del, Enter"ing before I got up so as not to leave root accessable to passers by. Why the hell can't I do this with my powerbook? If I'm working with it at home and don't care about locking, I still have to type in the damn password everytime I wake it from sleep, negating the utility of having a near-instant wake up.
This is the 2'nd most annoying thing about my powerbook. The first is their brain damaged choice of fn key location, but at least that can be worked around.
P4EEs outperformed their non-EE bretheren, especially with heavily cache-constained apps. Also, the early EEs had L3 cache, which is slower than L2. I think the current high end one has 2MB of L2 and no L3. Anyways, the EE came about because the Athlons were kicking their asses on the high end. Simple solution: add more cache to speed things up. Just a case of Intel using their vast production capacity to plug holes in their crap architecture.
Yes, you can fill up your machine with RAM to the point where RAM isn't an issue...today. A few years ago 128MB was the standard and 256 was considered good. Currently, I wouldn't even build a computer with less than 512. 1 gig min if you are running games. 1 gig if you are running OSX. The machine I'm writing this on has 2gigs. My development laptop from work has 768 - I am constantly swapping on that. The amount of RAM you will find useful will always increase as time goes on, and will never, ever go down. Same with cache.
If I could replace all my main memory with cache, I'd do it in a second, because the cache is stupidly faster and performance would increase by a factor of stupid. The problem there is that your die will end up the size of a pizza, and the chips will cost 20k each. It's not that you've hit a point of diminishing returns with cache, it's that you can't fit the entire memory footprint of an app inside 2m, 4m, or even 8m, which is the point at which everything REALLY gets sped up. That is the point where there is no additional value from cache.
Random thought: Additional unused memory can serve as a page cache for the hard drive. I sure don't mind that at all.
I keep being tempted to buy a Mini but I know that I'd probably really like the Mac and then be unhappy that I didn't buy the Power Mac G5 Quad Core (which I should just break down and do anyway...)
That's what happened to me, though I got a 12" Powerbook. The quad core is overkill for just about everything - the dual proc/cores already are pretty sick fast.
Development costs skyrocket; everyone moves their company to India. The current slapshod kick-it-out-the-door environment exists because it's an economic optimum. If people need bullet-proof software, they can grab a consultant, add contract stipulations, and pay out the nose for it.
And God forbid you write something general purpose like an OS. People always use the engineer building a bridge analogy. The problem with that is that the bridge is built for the span that it crosses. You cannot buy shrinkwrap bridges and arbitrarily place them between things. That would be silly.
Holding software devs to the same level of accountability as doctors and civil engineers, a level where the failure coditions result death and dismemberment, is just ignorant. How would you even begin to deal with library stuff like the zlib double-free? Can I sue a doctor for misdiagnosing me because a prevailing medical opinion at the time was wrong? Blargh.
The thing is that mature Object/Relational systems do this kind of thing already. Why should I have to bother to downgrade to a system where portability has to be hand-coded? Seems primitive to me.
Yeah, they do that after you supply a bunch of xml to configure them. ActiveRecord requires zero configuration if you follow the conventions. If you want the db naming abstracted, add a function to the model and don't rename it. It hasn't already been defined in a config file somewhere, so you're not repeating yourself. This isn't primitive, it's a design decision. Hell, I don't even think I've ever renamed a column outside of the early design phase.
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base; end #that's it!
I would be interested to know what DB-agnostic means. Having been dealing with relational databases for 20 years, I don't think such a thing exists.
This is bullshit nitpickery. You were just talking about your other preferred ORM(s), so you know how they work. Create an abstract api that maps to a subset of SQL functionality, then deal with the DB-specific weirdness on a driver-specific level. No, they don't work 100% of the time on all DBs, but they are about a billion times more portable than concatinating strings to form queries. There's a reason the ORMs have become prominent: they work, and they suck less than hand-hacking everything.
If a column name changes, you can just add a function to the model under the old name. Hell, you can do that beforehand if you actually want that level of indirection - nobody is stopping you. As for being fiddly, Rails can script out all your schema changes and fire them off repeatably via Rake in a DB-agnostic manner.
Sane legacy schemas (usually) only require a little more work. If your column naming doesnt follow the conventions, then you can just override the convention in the model definition. I had a problem before with the Oracle driver because you couldn't specify the primary key sequence name on a per-table level, but this was fixed recently.
Rails' caching system gets around most performance problems. The templating system allows you to cache partials, which are sub-templates used for recurring page elements. Using slashdot's front page as an example, you could update the fortune at the bottom with every page view and still keep the other expensive-to-generate page elements in cache. This is the primary reason it was beating Java in certain benchmarks.
That and you might actually get a chance to architect it. I maintain a large web app, and hate the fact that I can't go in redesign anything (everything).
Quantum computing opens up some interesting possibilities, but if a hypothetical Quantum computer in the year 2015 could search 1x10^23 keys per second (more than that massive distributed Internet project a while ago), it would still take millions of years on average.
Actually, quantum computers can factor a large prime instantly if they're "wide" enough (eq a 1024 qubit quantum box will haxxor your 1024 bit pub key)
Slashdot Mirror
How in the hell did this get modded up?
..somewhat akin to pressing the "Mega-Bass" button on your stereo..
..to get more bass than the musician originally intended?
Isn't adding more brightness than what the author originally intended..
As mentioned before, THE AUTHORS ARE THE ONES WHO ADDED THE FEATURE!!!!!! CHRIST!!!11ONEONE
NOT EVEN REMOTELY!!!!! I write a bit of electronic music, so I know the general mecahanics of production. The closest analogue I can come up with is running audio through an expander (or a compressor set to a ratio < 1. same thing). What does that do? Expands the dynamic range...DOINK! Even then, the effects aren't comparable because light just behaves differently. Vision has a much higher dynamic range; the contrast ratio of the eye is around 1,000,000:1 over time.
Once again, VALVE IS THE BLOODY MUSICIAN!
I think that striving for accuracy and balance of the elements is probably more important than striving for the maximum ____ your system can deliver.
I think you're talking out of your ass. Actually, I know it.
Note to mods: If you have not seen Lost Coast, you might mistake this as a troll. If you have, you will realize the parent is flamebait. The lighting is, in technical terms, fucking amazing.
Consult your pineal gland
So, reality is just a continuation of Buddhas? Or, wait, no, Buddha is the continuation!
*ascends into the light*
I was both poking fun at the parent and using my reply as a vehicle for Perl one-line obfuscatory hotness. Please to be grounding yourself contextually in future endeavors, effendi.
I believe it became the idiom because x < 10 is more efficient than x <= 9. Generally, the simpler the exit test, the tighter the loop. for (x=10; x != 0; x--) is, I think, as efficient as you can get without unrolling.
Yeah, the guy essentially tried to teach the kid basic arithmetic by handing him a calculator, then was shocked when he couldn't pass the test without it.
Perl isn't "complicated." It's just that C is retarded. I mean, really, in the "real world," you will never have to make a starry background. Perl (and especially Ruby) allow the perfect mixture of very high- and high-level elements. In fact, in Ruby, you can mix in modules and polymorphically redefine derived classes in the same function if you were so inclined.
And, *no*, you do not have to understand anything about rendering black or whatever. No Fourier transforms or 11-dimension existentialism either. (The only "strings" for you are scalars!)
Anyway, your code in Perl:
perl -e'while(){print int rand 99.99?" ":"."}'
Written in a term, by the way.
No, problem not solved. All LockTight does is add a keybind to dump you to the screensaver. You still have to have the "Require password to wake this computer from sleep or screensaver" box checked in Security. I do not wan't locking linked with sleep and screensaver functionality! After working as a sysadmin for a couple years, I developed the habit of "ctrl+alt+del, Enter"ing before I got up so as not to leave root accessable to passers by. Why the hell can't I do this with my powerbook? If I'm working with it at home and don't care about locking, I still have to type in the damn password everytime I wake it from sleep, negating the utility of having a near-instant wake up.
This is the 2'nd most annoying thing about my powerbook. The first is their brain damaged choice of fn key location, but at least that can be worked around.
P4EEs outperformed their non-EE bretheren, especially with heavily cache-constained apps. Also, the early EEs had L3 cache, which is slower than L2. I think the current high end one has 2MB of L2 and no L3. Anyways, the EE came about because the Athlons were kicking their asses on the high end. Simple solution: add more cache to speed things up. Just a case of Intel using their vast production capacity to plug holes in their crap architecture.
Yes, you can fill up your machine with RAM to the point where RAM isn't an issue...today. A few years ago 128MB was the standard and 256 was considered good. Currently, I wouldn't even build a computer with less than 512. 1 gig min if you are running games. 1 gig if you are running OSX. The machine I'm writing this on has 2gigs. My development laptop from work has 768 - I am constantly swapping on that. The amount of RAM you will find useful will always increase as time goes on, and will never, ever go down. Same with cache.
If I could replace all my main memory with cache, I'd do it in a second, because the cache is stupidly faster and performance would increase by a factor of stupid. The problem there is that your die will end up the size of a pizza, and the chips will cost 20k each. It's not that you've hit a point of diminishing returns with cache, it's that you can't fit the entire memory footprint of an app inside 2m, 4m, or even 8m, which is the point at which everything REALLY gets sped up. That is the point where there is no additional value from cache.
Random thought: Additional unused memory can serve as a page cache for the hard drive. I sure don't mind that at all.
Pentium 3 would be closer to the truth.
No. That's like saying we've hit the point of diminishing returns on RAM.
I keep being tempted to buy a Mini but I know that I'd probably really like the Mac and then be unhappy that I didn't buy the Power Mac G5 Quad Core (which I should just break down and do anyway...)
That's what happened to me, though I got a 12" Powerbook. The quad core is overkill for just about everything - the dual proc/cores already are pretty sick fast.
The present invention simplifies the data modeling process
Wait, this is supposed to cover XML?
Development costs skyrocket; everyone moves their company to India. The current slapshod kick-it-out-the-door environment exists because it's an economic optimum. If people need bullet-proof software, they can grab a consultant, add contract stipulations, and pay out the nose for it.
And God forbid you write something general purpose like an OS. People always use the engineer building a bridge analogy. The problem with that is that the bridge is built for the span that it crosses. You cannot buy shrinkwrap bridges and arbitrarily place them between things. That would be silly.
Holding software devs to the same level of accountability as doctors and civil engineers, a level where the failure coditions result death and dismemberment, is just ignorant. How would you even begin to deal with library stuff like the zlib double-free? Can I sue a doctor for misdiagnosing me because a prevailing medical opinion at the time was wrong? Blargh.
The thing is that mature Object/Relational systems do this kind of thing already. Why should I have to bother to downgrade to a system where portability has to be hand-coded? Seems primitive to me.
Yeah, they do that after you supply a bunch of xml to configure them. ActiveRecord requires zero configuration if you follow the conventions. If you want the db naming abstracted, add a function to the model and don't rename it. It hasn't already been defined in a config file somewhere, so you're not repeating yourself. This isn't primitive, it's a design decision. Hell, I don't even think I've ever renamed a column outside of the early design phase.
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base; end #that's it!
I would be interested to know what DB-agnostic means. Having been dealing with relational databases for 20 years, I don't think such a thing exists.
This is bullshit nitpickery. You were just talking about your other preferred ORM(s), so you know how they work. Create an abstract api that maps to a subset of SQL functionality, then deal with the DB-specific weirdness on a driver-specific level. No, they don't work 100% of the time on all DBs, but they are about a billion times more portable than concatinating strings to form queries. There's a reason the ORMs have become prominent: they work, and they suck less than hand-hacking everything.
LDS = Latter Day Saints = Mormons
If a column name changes, you can just add a function to the model under the old name. Hell, you can do that beforehand if you actually want that level of indirection - nobody is stopping you. As for being fiddly, Rails can script out all your schema changes and fire them off repeatably via Rake in a DB-agnostic manner.
Sane legacy schemas (usually) only require a little more work. If your column naming doesnt follow the conventions, then you can just override the convention in the model definition. I had a problem before with the Oracle driver because you couldn't specify the primary key sequence name on a per-table level, but this was fixed recently.
Rails' caching system gets around most performance problems. The templating system allows you to cache partials, which are sub-templates used for recurring page elements. Using slashdot's front page as an example, you could update the fortune at the bottom with every page view and still keep the other expensive-to-generate page elements in cache. This is the primary reason it was beating Java in certain benchmarks.
That and you might actually get a chance to architect it. I maintain a large web app, and hate the fact that I can't go in redesign anything (everything).
Rails has web service functionality built in, so it's probably good for that. The devil is always in the details, of course
The problem here is that IE *is* the standard.
Actually, quantum computers can factor a large prime instantly if they're "wide" enough (eq a 1024 qubit quantum box will haxxor your 1024 bit pub key)