Every transaction is made because both participants feel it is advantageous for them to make it. If either party feels a transaction will make them a "loser", they simply will not make the transaction. Failing to be a big winner is not losing.
Of course, you can make the same statement about a condemned prisoner choosing whether to die by hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection.
I reckon we'll be banned from driving in the next 15 years.
The sheer cost and practicalities of replacing everyone's cars in that timeframe, alone, rule it out.
Think about it, if the driverless cars that are definitely coming are proven to be safer than human driven cars, which I suspect they will be, how will any government justify letting us drive?
If it were that simple, motorbikes - dramatically more dangerous than cars by any measure - would have been banned decades ago.
However, it is true that the foundation of Affirmative Action is the suspension of hiring standards in order to fill racial quotas for ethnic groups with lower mean qualifications, especially IQ. It cannot work any other way if it is to be implemented across the board in a society. If AA is enacted, it follows that most (not all) black people in highly qualified positions did not get there solely because of merit. It also follows that organizations like NASA that exist to pioneer very difficult things will be adversely impacted by AA.
"You have the qualifications AND you're $RACE" is not the same thing as "You're $RACE".
There's no inherent reason "hiring standards" need be relaxed to carry out "AA". Unless you want to try and argue that anyone of $RACE is incapable of meeting those standards.
(Not that I'm a huge supporter of "AA", but your argument against it is shit.)
They make almost nothing on drive sales, they make huge margins on the software
A year or two ago I used to work for a company that used NetApp storage. NetApp would charge us a bit over US$1000 for a 1TB SATA drive. The retail price of a 1TB "Nearline SAS" (essentially identical to NetApp's drive) was about $250 (which already had a pretty sweet profit margin built into it, I'm sure, since a "normal" 1TB SATA drive was under $100 at the time).
(Of course, NetApp was still noticably cheaper than EMC.)
The "intent" may not have been to sell drives, but they unquestionably make an enormous amount of profit doing so.
His viewpoint makes perfect sense too, a fetus is a human being and under natural conditions (without interference) it will be born. To abort a fetus is the equivalent to murder since it is killing new life that would without interference be born with full rights.
A birth from conception is *far* from guaranteed, a millions of traumatised women who suffered miscarriages are sure to attest.
The idea that it is the extension of the mother is honestly silly, there is nothing scientific that supports it.
You mean other than the minor fact it's the mother's body providing everything the foetus needs to survive ?
From a biological perspective, a foetus is little more than a parasite until the day it's born.
You know, if you'd stop your hating on Christians and take a true secular look on America you'd come to realize that America really isn't all that Christian to begin with.
I guess that's why we've seen so many non-Christian US Presidents over the last couple of centuries.
So where is the opposition? The restriction is only there to offset the restrictions enabled by copyright. Without copyrights restrictions, this counter is moot.
No, the restriction is there to ensure access to *source code*.
For example, if everyone has free access to program X, then there is no need for programmers to waste duplicate effort and they can create cool new program Y instead.
The vast, vast amount of duplicated functionality and wheel reinvention in the OSS world suggests this idea is bunk.
Didn't RMS say something like: If there were no copyright, the GPL wouldn't be needed.
I doubt it, since he would have spent a few seconds thinking about it and realised that without Copyright, the GPL (and what it does) wouldn't be _possible_.
Both deduplication and conventional compression are a questionable idea on a file server which has many clients.
Dedupe is not compression.
Further, both of them are inherently quite useful in the typical fileserving scenario, which is dominated by reads, limited by IO, and not even remotely constrained by CPU.
Yeah right. I'll wait for real usage numbers rather than "the vendor selling this stuff to me says it's fucking awesome".
It sounds fairly similar to NetApp's dedupe. Which means there no reason it should hurt performance, and every chance it will improve performance.
Re:Windows ME did not have DOS.
on
FreeDOS 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
One of the reasons Windows ME had such stability issues was because they removed DOS from it and replaced it with an emulator. While Windows 95 and 98 were essentially the Windows GUI on top of glorified DOS internals, Windows ME was an attempt to move away from DOS entirely while keeping the GUI. The intention was to ultimately elimiate the legacy DOS internals outright.
As of Windows 3.0, much of the DOS functionality was replaced by Windows (once it loaded). This increased more in 3.1[1], and by the time of Windows 9x/Me, DOS was basically a bootloader and 16-bit compatibility shim, with essentially all "real" OS functionality in Windows. There's bugger all architectural difference between Windows 95 and Windows Me.
But this failed miserably. This failure resulted in their subsequent low-cost home OS, XP Home, to be based on the NT line instead of the DOS/9x line. If ME had been successful, the Windows home line might still have been 9x-based possibly until SP2 or Vista/7, when security started becoming a visibly major issue.
No, it wouldn't. The idea that there was any desire in Microsoft to keep DOS-based Windows alive for longer than absolutely necessary is laughable. Everyone recognised the limitations imposed by the DOS legacy, and no-one wanted to be constrained by them. Most people were amazed Windows Me was released (though the rationale probably was: if you've spent money on an insurance policy, you may as well cash in on it).
After the IBM/Microsoft "divorce", brought on by the unexpected success of Windows 3.0, the plan was for Windows 95 (nee: 4.0) to be the end of the DOS-based Windows line, replaced by NT-based Windows (as a 0.1 update to NT 4.0, eventually realised as a.1 update to Windows 2000 - XP) in the mid-'90s (keeping in mind Windows 95 was a good 12-18 months late, itself requiring an interim release of Windows 3.11 (incorporating some of the Windows 95 development work) to bridge that gap). Windows 98 was filler product released because of delays in the Windows NT development process meant that consumer hardware capabilities (particularly USB and larger hard disks) were outpacing the capabilities of the retail-channel Windows 95. Hence the reason Windows 98 offers little over the last OEM releases (OSR2.5) of Windows 95 (+IE4) and Windows Me (really just a last squeeze of the teat) relatively even less.
_Before_ "divorce", the "original" original plan was for the OS/2 2.x line (developed mostly by IBM, later to become "Warp", then eComStation) to replace DOS-based Windows for consumer computers and the new-from-scratch OS/2 "NT" (developed solely by Microsoft, renamed after the split as Windows NT, for obvious reasons) to become the "professional" grade OS for business computers.
You totally miss my point. Yes, if I'm at work, restrict me to your hearts content, I don't care. But on my personal device, stay the hell out of my way. If I mess things up, TFB for me, I will have to deal with the consequences of my actions (and BTW, in all probability learn something in the process). See this link to see how people can actually die because of hand-holding software, an extreme case yes, but in principle, an appropriate comparison.
Then why do you want your hand held by FreeDOS ? Surely the only way you compute is by flipping switches and watching flashing lights.
OS/2 in 4MB of RAM was something a masochist might do. 8-12 MB was pretty much a requirement if you wanted to actually exercise any of that pre-emptive multitasking. At least until something locked up the SIQ.
But I don't enter my computers in hacking contests. It's interesting how this has not manifested itself in the wild.
It hasn't manifested itself in the wild because most "exploits" in the wild have nothing to do with unknown OS vulnerabilities (or, indeed, any OS vulnerabilities).
But it is the only country in the world where German, French, British and Swiss drug companies profit on their R&D.
Then why haven't they all packed up and moved to the USA to only sell their products there, if every other country is (somehow) forcing them to sell their products at a loss ?
Personally I think we should pass a bill putting out a call for Pharma companies to relocate to the US and simply close their foreign branches so your socialized systems can't dictate prices to them.
Can you perhaps point to the existing law(s) forcing "Pharma companies" to currently sell their products in those socialist hellholes ?
I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
You seem to have misunderstood that the primary reason for commenting code is not to explain how the it works, but why it is there, what it is trying to achieve and how it interacts with any other bits of code.
Obviously you're misinformed, since a gentle overclock, say a few hundred Mhz, is well within the average chip capacity, with no appreciable impact on chip lifespan compared to the gain.
Such a small overclock will also have no appreciable impact on performance, either, outside of benchmarks.
On the iPad things are instant. Nothing stutters when you scroll, nothing "loads" other than massive apps, they just open instantly.
Wow, you must have a different iPad to me.
On my iPad, ever since IOS 5, everything has been noticably slower, with lag just about everywhere in the interface, from resizing to rotating to scrolling.
The routine driving situation I hate the most is the light that turns yellow when I'm 3 to 4 seconds away from the intersection. Got to make a split second judgment on whether I can stop in time, and whether the vehicle behind me can also.
When approaching any controlled intersection at speed, you should pick a go/no-go point should the light change well before you get to it. Then you don't have to worry about "making a split-second decision", because you've already made it after having time to think.
(I do agree that longer yellows are a better solution than cameras, however.)
Still, it would most likely be your own fault. But with Google driverless car it doesn't matter if you're a good driver and drive carefully or not, because you could get killed anyway. I know it's not always your own fault, but you can affect that. With driverless you cannot.
You have as much control over whether a Google driverless car causes you to crash as you do over whether any human-piloted car causing you to crash.
The original statement I responded to was (emphasis mine):
Distro maintainers can pre-make beautiful, elegant and very usable desktops that suit individual needs without compromising on stability, compatibility or security. Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.
Ie: the poster is touting a reason to choose Linux over Windows is the option of bespoke distributions.
However, the end user has no way of knowing which of the zillion Linux distributions out there is actually going to "suit their individual needs" without going out and testing them. A process that would need to take a week or more each to be even vaguely meaningful. The same rationale holds true for any sort of extensive individualised customisation.
Therefore, IF the large number of variants (or extensive customisability) is going to be touted as an advantage, the implicit requirement to either intelligently choose a variant (or extensively customise an existing one) means sacrificing being "immediately productive".
In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.
You sound like the sales guy from $LARGE_STORAGE_VENDOR who came around last week trying to convince us we should use his product. "This is how much better our product is." "You get everything you need included." "It's incredibly flexible." Etc.
So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.
If you insist on "holding them to task", please try to understand CONTEXT before shooting off on some straw man rant. Try to keep the "Linux is teh awesome" sales pitch down as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you can make the same statement about a condemned prisoner choosing whether to die by hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection.
The sheer cost and practicalities of replacing everyone's cars in that timeframe, alone, rule it out.
If it were that simple, motorbikes - dramatically more dangerous than cars by any measure - would have been banned decades ago.
"You have the qualifications AND you're $RACE" is not the same thing as "You're $RACE".
There's no inherent reason "hiring standards" need be relaxed to carry out "AA". Unless you want to try and argue that anyone of $RACE is incapable of meeting those standards.
(Not that I'm a huge supporter of "AA", but your argument against it is shit.)
A year or two ago I used to work for a company that used NetApp storage. NetApp would charge us a bit over US$1000 for a 1TB SATA drive. The retail price of a 1TB "Nearline SAS" (essentially identical to NetApp's drive) was about $250 (which already had a pretty sweet profit margin built into it, I'm sure, since a "normal" 1TB SATA drive was under $100 at the time).
(Of course, NetApp was still noticably cheaper than EMC.)
The "intent" may not have been to sell drives, but they unquestionably make an enormous amount of profit doing so.
A birth from conception is *far* from guaranteed, a millions of traumatised women who suffered miscarriages are sure to attest.
You mean other than the minor fact it's the mother's body providing everything the foetus needs to survive ?
From a biological perspective, a foetus is little more than a parasite until the day it's born.
I guess that's why we've seen so many non-Christian US Presidents over the last couple of centuries.
No, the restriction is there to ensure access to *source code*.
The vast, vast amount of duplicated functionality and wheel reinvention in the OSS world suggests this idea is bunk.
I doubt it, since he would have spent a few seconds thinking about it and realised that without Copyright, the GPL (and what it does) wouldn't be _possible_.
Dedupe is not compression.
Further, both of them are inherently quite useful in the typical fileserving scenario, which is dominated by reads, limited by IO, and not even remotely constrained by CPU.
It sounds fairly similar to NetApp's dedupe. Which means there no reason it should hurt performance, and every chance it will improve performance.
As of Windows 3.0, much of the DOS functionality was replaced by Windows (once it loaded). This increased more in 3.1[1], and by the time of Windows 9x/Me, DOS was basically a bootloader and 16-bit compatibility shim, with essentially all "real" OS functionality in Windows. There's bugger all architectural difference between Windows 95 and Windows Me.
No, it wouldn't. The idea that there was any desire in Microsoft to keep DOS-based Windows alive for longer than absolutely necessary is laughable. Everyone recognised the limitations imposed by the DOS legacy, and no-one wanted to be constrained by them. Most people were amazed Windows Me was released (though the rationale probably was: if you've spent money on an insurance policy, you may as well cash in on it).
After the IBM/Microsoft "divorce", brought on by the unexpected success of Windows 3.0, the plan was for Windows 95 (nee: 4.0) to be the end of the DOS-based Windows line, replaced by NT-based Windows (as a 0.1 update to NT 4.0, eventually realised as a .1 update to Windows 2000 - XP) in the mid-'90s (keeping in mind Windows 95 was a good 12-18 months late, itself requiring an interim release of Windows 3.11 (incorporating some of the Windows 95 development work) to bridge that gap). Windows 98 was filler product released because of delays in the Windows NT development process meant that consumer hardware capabilities (particularly USB and larger hard disks) were outpacing the capabilities of the retail-channel Windows 95. Hence the reason Windows 98 offers little over the last OEM releases (OSR2.5) of Windows 95 (+IE4) and Windows Me (really just a last squeeze of the teat) relatively even less.
_Before_ "divorce", the "original" original plan was for the OS/2 2.x line (developed mostly by IBM, later to become "Warp", then eComStation) to replace DOS-based Windows for consumer computers and the new-from-scratch OS/2 "NT" (developed solely by Microsoft, renamed after the split as Windows NT, for obvious reasons) to become the "professional" grade OS for business computers.
Then why do you want your hand held by FreeDOS ? Surely the only way you compute is by flipping switches and watching flashing lights.
OS/2 in 4MB of RAM was something a masochist might do. 8-12 MB was pretty much a requirement if you wanted to actually exercise any of that pre-emptive multitasking. At least until something locked up the SIQ.
It hasn't manifested itself in the wild because most "exploits" in the wild have nothing to do with unknown OS vulnerabilities (or, indeed, any OS vulnerabilities).
You mean other than the massive expense of essentially running two entire Windows development processes in parallel ?
Then why haven't they all packed up and moved to the USA to only sell their products there, if every other country is (somehow) forcing them to sell their products at a loss ?
Do you not use "advances" developed outside of the USA, on "principle" ?
Can you perhaps point to the existing law(s) forcing "Pharma companies" to currently sell their products in those socialist hellholes ?
You seem to have misunderstood that the primary reason for commenting code is not to explain how the it works, but why it is there, what it is trying to achieve and how it interacts with any other bits of code.
Such a small overclock will also have no appreciable impact on performance, either, outside of benchmarks.
Wow, you must have a different iPad to me.
On my iPad, ever since IOS 5, everything has been noticably slower, with lag just about everywhere in the interface, from resizing to rotating to scrolling.
What ? How do you propose the OS know whether or not Safari is running "arbitrary" code ?
When approaching any controlled intersection at speed, you should pick a go/no-go point should the light change well before you get to it. Then you don't have to worry about "making a split-second decision", because you've already made it after having time to think.
(I do agree that longer yellows are a better solution than cameras, however.)
You have as much control over whether a Google driverless car causes you to crash as you do over whether any human-piloted car causing you to crash.
No, it's not. You are ignoring the context.
The original statement I responded to was (emphasis mine):
Ie: the poster is touting a reason to choose Linux over Windows is the option of bespoke distributions.
However, the end user has no way of knowing which of the zillion Linux distributions out there is actually going to "suit their individual needs" without going out and testing them. A process that would need to take a week or more each to be even vaguely meaningful. The same rationale holds true for any sort of extensive individualised customisation.
Therefore, IF the large number of variants (or extensive customisability) is going to be touted as an advantage, the implicit requirement to either intelligently choose a variant (or extensively customise an existing one) means sacrificing being "immediately productive".
You sound like the sales guy from $LARGE_STORAGE_VENDOR who came around last week trying to convince us we should use his product. "This is how much better our product is." "You get everything you need included." "It's incredibly flexible." Etc.
If you insist on "holding them to task", please try to understand CONTEXT before shooting off on some straw man rant. Try to keep the "Linux is teh awesome" sales pitch down as well.