I personally think that copies which exist only in RAM should not be considered copies at all
Computer geeks are really very much like lawyers, you know? For example, were that the law, I think battery-backed RAM drives would fly off the shelves soon after.
FWIW, I'm posting from a small town in Nebraska. I'm very sympathetic to farmers' needs. There just has to be some way to keep their equipment out of the hands of soccer moms. I believe the only reason you don't see people picking up their kids in front loaders is because no one's thought of it yet.
That doesn't matter. You're giving her your honest answer in a way that allows her to save face. If she calls you on the color, tell her maybe it's the cut. If the cut is identical to another you like, tell her it's the fabric. If she insists, just say you don't like it but you're a guy and aren't really sure why.
I've thought about taxing vehicles relative to whether they're registered for farm, commercial, or personal use, with substantial penalties for mis-registration. Impressions?
You fail to mention the most feared question of all though: "Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?"
Correct answer: "nah, but I don't like the color", which simultaneously tells her you don't like it and tells her it's the fault of the clothes and certainly not her. Amateur.
I have an extremely attractive girlfriend. I've asked people, and other people think she's moderately attractive
Let me get this straight: you asked people if your girlfriend was pretty? Either you're a shallow ass or an insecure ass, or some combination of the two. I don't know if anyone else thinks my wife is pretty and I don't care.
I have a wife and 4 kids, with the youngest being in a child car seat. I routinely have all the kids in my sedan when I pick them up from school and snag the rugrat from the babysitter on the way home. When we go somewhere as a family, we pile into my wife's minivan where we end up with an empty seat and a trunk big enough to pack a week's luggage for all of us.
I am acutely aware of "the family angle" and it's not nearly as dire as you make it out. I can't imagine downgrading the Sienna to an SUV that would be vastly larger and infinitely harder to maneuver in a parking lot.
Forcing car companies to make vehicles that people don't want to buy isn't going to do anybody any good.
The problem is that everyone's been convinced that they want stupid vehicles. I have no problem whatsoever with a pickup or SUV loaded down with tools and supplies as it drives off to a farm or construction site. I'm not so keen on picking my kids up from school and having to weave through the forest of moms in their Canyoneros. That's just dumb by any metric.
I'm about as pro-free market as you can get, but I don't really have a better solution for getting Detroit to make sane vehicles. As a country, we have to get over this (provably incorrect) notion that "big" automatically implies "good".
And using a Prius to haul equipment or materials or to tow a trailer is equally stupid.
The local home store will rent you a pickup for $17 for 75 minutes. Unless you're one of the tiny minority who actual needs a pickup in everyday life, that makes a lot more sense than maintaining one yourself.
While I use Linux at home, I don't have experience making images for multiple machines for it like I do windows, so you may be right about the difference in the way Linux operates and the way Windows operates which could make my point moot, but I don't think so.
No, he's right. Again, since Linux does hardware detection at boot instead of at installation, cloning it is pretty much a matter of backing up the source system and restoring it to the target, then booting to make sure it worked.
No, I really don't have any idea why it's not doing a better caching job, unless it has a substantially lower threshold for the amount of data it'll cache from one file (so as not to crowd out other processes with gigs of transient data). This is on FreeBSD 7-STABLE and a UFS2 filesystem, BTW. There isn't anything running on the machine that would be likely to flush() data with any regularity, ie no databases or anything.
In a sense, I guess using TMPFS explicitly told the OS, "hey, I'm serious: keep this whole thing in RAM!" In our case, the whole process goes something like:
Copy a file from the fileserver to a local filesystem.
Process it and send the results to another machine.
Delete the local copy.
In the absolute worst case scenario with TMPFS and our setup, I'd lose the local copy that I'd just pulled off the fileserver. I can live with that risk.:-)
Actually, memcpy in and of itself is slow. Hand writing your own asm version of memcpy using extended cpu functions is a lot faster as memcpy itself is usually kept basic enough to work on any cpu, including the older cpu's without MMX, SSE, etc.
glibc contains specific implementations for sparc32, powerpc32, powerpc64, i386, i586, cris, i860, rs6000, and m68k. I don't know where you got your idea.
If you wrote a program that used 8+ gigs of memory that means you're an incompetent code monkey.
I have an hourly job that processes about 8GB of input data files. We found that copying the data to a tmpfs filesystem instead of leaving it on a HDD cut the work time from 20 minutes to about 30 seconds because the job necessarily requires an enormous number of random seek()s. Since mmap()ing a file on tmpfs is roughly identical to read()ing the whole file into RAM, I guess that makes me an incompetent code monkey.
Of course, my boss who got a 40x speedup in exchange for $250 worth of RAM might see things differently from your inexperienced little self. Sometimes the Real World throws pretty big datasets at you.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm just saying that he doesn't have the right to expect that people will pay him for his work. That's not the same at all as condoning piracy. Perhaps he worked very, very hard to write an awful book that no one wants, either to buy or to pirate. Does he still deserve income for it?
The opposite of "piracy" isn't "sales". The old (and still true) argument is that many people will copy for the sake of copying, whether or not they have any intention of using the book/music/software. In the absence of evidence that pirated copies are the same as lost sales, the only defensible position is that no one wanted to buy a copy.
One of these asstard professors actually forced people to hand in the back cover of their book with the final exam or take a zero grade, in order to make sure that there were no second-hand books on the market.
On behalf of students everywhere, I hope you gave him an appropriately hard kick in the nuts after graduation.
It takes time to fold cloth napkins into abstract shapes, often years. If I made such an investment of my time, I would hope that it would generate some income for several years, rather than just get copied by spotty-faced freeloaders.
If you want to write a book, then write a book. Just don't pretend that the world owes you income for having done it.
Please read the following carefully: WinFS was an abstraction layer THAT WAS GOING TO RUN ATOP NTFS
So it took them 16 years (1991 to 1997) to release a library with "filesystem" right in the name that didn't even include a filesystem? That's not exactly a bragging right.
For an encore, maybe they can announce WinDB (which is a report generator that runs on top of SQL Server), then deliver it in 2025 as a plugin to Paint.
Whoever did this must have willfully wanted to destroy the website and its content. Deleting data in this manner is far beyond vandalism or criminal mischief.
You know, it occurs to me that these hackers might be fictional.
Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. Yes, fry the hacker for destroying someone else's work for giggles. However, this is a known danger for Internet-facing servers, and not taking that into account when designing a backup plan deserves ridicule.
In real life, muggers are scum who deserve whatever punishment they get. However, walking through the hood with your wallet dragging along on a string a block behind you doesn't get you a lot of sympathy when it gets stolen.
But they weren't doing government contracting. The produced a good that was purchased by the government. There's a very big difference.
If you're talking about dress shoes or tires, sure. When the government is your company's sole customer, then you are a de facto government contractor.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally think that copies which exist only in RAM should not be considered copies at all
Computer geeks are really very much like lawyers, you know? For example, were that the law, I think battery-backed RAM drives would fly off the shelves soon after.
FWIW, I'm posting from a small town in Nebraska. I'm very sympathetic to farmers' needs. There just has to be some way to keep their equipment out of the hands of soccer moms. I believe the only reason you don't see people picking up their kids in front loaders is because no one's thought of it yet.
That doesn't matter. You're giving her your honest answer in a way that allows her to save face. If she calls you on the color, tell her maybe it's the cut. If the cut is identical to another you like, tell her it's the fabric. If she insists, just say you don't like it but you're a guy and aren't really sure why.
I've thought about taxing vehicles relative to whether they're registered for farm, commercial, or personal use, with substantial penalties for mis-registration. Impressions?
You fail to mention the most feared question of all though: "Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?"
Correct answer: "nah, but I don't like the color", which simultaneously tells her you don't like it and tells her it's the fault of the clothes and certainly not her. Amateur.
You have nothing to gain if the machine says 'yes, he's telling the truth'
Not exactly. She: "do you really love me?" He: "sure! The machine even said so!"
I have an extremely attractive girlfriend. I've asked people, and other people think she's moderately attractive
Let me get this straight: you asked people if your girlfriend was pretty? Either you're a shallow ass or an insecure ass, or some combination of the two. I don't know if anyone else thinks my wife is pretty and I don't care.
He knows attractiveness better than people with both interference from emotional attachments
You speak as though they're different.
I have a wife and 4 kids, with the youngest being in a child car seat. I routinely have all the kids in my sedan when I pick them up from school and snag the rugrat from the babysitter on the way home. When we go somewhere as a family, we pile into my wife's minivan where we end up with an empty seat and a trunk big enough to pack a week's luggage for all of us.
I am acutely aware of "the family angle" and it's not nearly as dire as you make it out. I can't imagine downgrading the Sienna to an SUV that would be vastly larger and infinitely harder to maneuver in a parking lot.
Forcing car companies to make vehicles that people don't want to buy isn't going to do anybody any good.
The problem is that everyone's been convinced that they want stupid vehicles. I have no problem whatsoever with a pickup or SUV loaded down with tools and supplies as it drives off to a farm or construction site. I'm not so keen on picking my kids up from school and having to weave through the forest of moms in their Canyoneros. That's just dumb by any metric.
I'm about as pro-free market as you can get, but I don't really have a better solution for getting Detroit to make sane vehicles. As a country, we have to get over this (provably incorrect) notion that "big" automatically implies "good".
And using a Prius to haul equipment or materials or to tow a trailer is equally stupid.
The local home store will rent you a pickup for $17 for 75 minutes. Unless you're one of the tiny minority who actual needs a pickup in everyday life, that makes a lot more sense than maintaining one yourself.
You're not supposed to hear the Brown Note.
While I use Linux at home, I don't have experience making images for multiple machines for it like I do windows, so you may be right about the difference in the way Linux operates and the way Windows operates which could make my point moot, but I don't think so.
No, he's right. Again, since Linux does hardware detection at boot instead of at installation, cloning it is pretty much a matter of backing up the source system and restoring it to the target, then booting to make sure it worked.
No, I really don't have any idea why it's not doing a better caching job, unless it has a substantially lower threshold for the amount of data it'll cache from one file (so as not to crowd out other processes with gigs of transient data). This is on FreeBSD 7-STABLE and a UFS2 filesystem, BTW. There isn't anything running on the machine that would be likely to flush() data with any regularity, ie no databases or anything.
In a sense, I guess using TMPFS explicitly told the OS, "hey, I'm serious: keep this whole thing in RAM!" In our case, the whole process goes something like:
In the absolute worst case scenario with TMPFS and our setup, I'd lose the local copy that I'd just pulled off the fileserver. I can live with that risk. :-)
Honestly, you're inventing a conversation that I wasn't having. I don't know why you keep doing that.
Actually, memcpy in and of itself is slow. Hand writing your own asm version of memcpy using extended cpu functions is a lot faster as memcpy itself is usually kept basic enough to work on any cpu, including the older cpu's without MMX, SSE, etc.
glibc contains specific implementations for sparc32, powerpc32, powerpc64, i386, i586, cris, i860, rs6000, and m68k. I don't know where you got your idea.
If you wrote a program that used 8+ gigs of memory that means you're an incompetent code monkey.
I have an hourly job that processes about 8GB of input data files. We found that copying the data to a tmpfs filesystem instead of leaving it on a HDD cut the work time from 20 minutes to about 30 seconds because the job necessarily requires an enormous number of random seek()s. Since mmap()ing a file on tmpfs is roughly identical to read()ing the whole file into RAM, I guess that makes me an incompetent code monkey.
Of course, my boss who got a 40x speedup in exchange for $250 worth of RAM might see things differently from your inexperienced little self. Sometimes the Real World throws pretty big datasets at you.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm just saying that he doesn't have the right to expect that people will pay him for his work. That's not the same at all as condoning piracy. Perhaps he worked very, very hard to write an awful book that no one wants, either to buy or to pirate. Does he still deserve income for it?
The opposite of "piracy" isn't "sales". The old (and still true) argument is that many people will copy for the sake of copying, whether or not they have any intention of using the book/music/software. In the absence of evidence that pirated copies are the same as lost sales, the only defensible position is that no one wanted to buy a copy.
One of these asstard professors actually forced people to hand in the back cover of their book with the final exam or take a zero grade, in order to make sure that there were no second-hand books on the market.
On behalf of students everywhere, I hope you gave him an appropriately hard kick in the nuts after graduation.
It takes time to fold cloth napkins into abstract shapes, often years. If I made such an investment of my time, I would hope that it would generate some income for several years, rather than just get copied by spotty-faced freeloaders.
If you want to write a book, then write a book. Just don't pretend that the world owes you income for having done it.
Please read the following carefully: WinFS was an abstraction layer THAT WAS GOING TO RUN ATOP NTFS
So it took them 16 years (1991 to 1997) to release a library with "filesystem" right in the name that didn't even include a filesystem? That's not exactly a bragging right.
For an encore, maybe they can announce WinDB (which is a report generator that runs on top of SQL Server), then deliver it in 2025 as a plugin to Paint.
I agree. Can we get busy picking a new word for our ideal, preferably something cooler than "geek"?
Whoever did this must have willfully wanted to destroy the website and its content. Deleting data in this manner is far beyond vandalism or criminal mischief.
You know, it occurs to me that these hackers might be fictional.
"Umm, everyone? We had, umm, hackers break in and wipe our servers. Hey look! A monkey!"
Flippancy aside, is there reason to believe the current story instead of chalking it up to an attempt to cover up a rather bad mistake?
Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. Yes, fry the hacker for destroying someone else's work for giggles. However, this is a known danger for Internet-facing servers, and not taking that into account when designing a backup plan deserves ridicule.
In real life, muggers are scum who deserve whatever punishment they get. However, walking through the hood with your wallet dragging along on a string a block behind you doesn't get you a lot of sympathy when it gets stolen.
But they weren't doing government contracting. The produced a good that was purchased by the government. There's a very big difference.
If you're talking about dress shoes or tires, sure. When the government is your company's sole customer, then you are a de facto government contractor.