As a guy in his mid forties this is very true. The first time you go to a doctor that's younger than you, or get pulled over by a cop that's younger than you and have to call him "sir", you feel it.
You call policemen "sir"?! Where I come from, the policemen call members of the public "sir". It may be said in a sardonic way, and they don't really sound like they mean it, but at least it's there. You're right about them getting younger though - there was one on the news recently reporting on a twit in a Porsche who'd managed to get it submerged to the point where just the tips of the wiper blades were breaking the surface. (Wipers still running despite the water.) I'd swear he (the policeman) was about 12.
As a man in my mid fifties, I call my doctor "Charlie".
This is an arbitrary SQL injection vulnerability. According to the advisory, it is in the very core of the Active Record. Anyone who has ever programmed for RoR has definitely used the following:
Post.find_by_id(params[:id])
This is the standard way of finding a DB record by ID, and advised like this in all RoR books. It is one of the most fundamental calls in the whole framework.
Not true - the more natural (and non-vulnerable) way to write this is:
Post.find(params[:id])
and that's the way normally recommended in books on the subject.
Why does putting a driver in user space require a performance hit?
It has in every microkernel attempt so far, or do you have a way to do it that no one else has thought of?
I meant the question to be taken literally - that is, not as an assertion that it doesn't or shouldn't, but as a request for an explanation of why it does.
Linux let's you write drivers in the user space if you want to. A lot of scanner drivers are written in the userspace. So if you're willing to take the performance hit, there is no reason to not do so, even in Linux.
Perhaps the difference here is that Linux lets you put them in userspace, but this system (like the GEC 4000 series from the '70s) has them all like that?
Why does putting a driver in user space require a performance hit?
The rest of it rings true, but this is just too far fetched. Ethernet cables are like wire coat hangers - they breed. I try to keep them confined to my study/shed, but they have to be purged regularly to stop them taking over the house.
Just try to see if web2py works well, it's similar.
Just taken a look at both, and apart from the fact that they both involve Python they appear to be totally different beasts. One is a web-based IDE and the other is a web application development framework. Where's the overlap?
I did much the same for my father. He was continually getting his Windows PC totally overloaded with malware (possibly assisted by grandsons from another branch of the family who liked to play on it).
After recovering it a couple of times I simply scrubbed it and installed Debian. It does everything he needs and has reduced the support calls to pretty much nothing.
He is quite unaware of what operating system he is using - he just needs to be able to access the web, read his e-mails and write some letters.
I see you just posted this a few minutes ago, so you really have no excuse for not reading the other posts near yours.
I didn't see any other nearby posts covering downloads and photocopiers.
If you do a linear interpolation do determine remaining battery life, then your result will be off badly. This may explain why some cheaply made devices have very bad assumptions about how much power remains.
Sorry - I can't find anywhere in my posting where I said anything about doing linear interpolation to determine battery life. (Perhaps it's you who is guilty of extrapolating from what I did say?)
Battery life is obviously more complex, and depends not just on how long the machine has been on, but also how hard it is working. It's intrinsically more speculative, because you don't know how heavy the future loading will be. Nonetheless, I suspect a better estimate than tends currently to be provided could be achieved by recording actual performance over a number of discharge cycles and then predicting from those.
I've yet to see calculus applied by any programming.
How does your laptop computer calculate remaining battery life?
How does your browser calculate remaining download time?
Neither of these seems an obvious application for calculus. Both can be done very simply with a trivial calculation, but for some odd reason they very seldom are.
For the download one, the calculation simply is, "How much of the download is done? How long did it take? Assume the rest will happen at the same rate and extrapolate."
I itch to re-write the firmware in our photocopier at school, which estimates the time for a job right at the beginning (always a bit optimistically), and then simply counts down, ignoring the progress which it's made. This leads to it estimating, say, 25 mins for a job, and then counting down over the next 25 mins, with the result that when it has done 80% of the job its estimated time remaining reaches zero and stays there for the remaining 6 and a bit minutes. It would be trivial to re-write this code properly, and I hate the fact that I can't do it.
How do you get to the "newbie software selection dialog"?
It appears by default as part of the installation process if you take all the default choices.
One of the options is "Desktop environment" (or words to that effect) and if you tick it you get (up until now) Gnome installed and running by default.
A more meaningful question would have been, "How do you avoid this software selection dialogue?"
The "Better email!" target is the one they need to work on first.
Every time I have to correspond with someone with a BT/Yahoo e-mail account I have to explain to them how to check their spam folders for lost messages. They always find other ones there too which Yahoo's dreadful spam filter has consigned there without consultation or good reason.
BT/Yahoo e-mail should come with a health warning.
I don't know. I'd have to look carefully. I'm under the impression that Debian Stable is quite old, and that the desktops that are available are also quite old.
Errr, well, yes... that's what you asked for. You can't have it both ways. If you specify that you want only bug-fixes and not new functionality, you can't then complain when you get just bug fixes and no new functionality.
The current Debian Stable (Squeeze) is a very capable distribution, and whilst it doesn't have the very latest versions of Gnome and KDE (as per your specification) they are more than modern enough for everyday use.
Well then it's not really "your" device is it? In the 80s (not end of the century as you first falsely-claimed),
Please learn to read the thread - I made no claim about any centuries.
the PCs were purchased-and-owned by the company. Just like typewriters & telephones were purchased-and-owned by the company.
And yes I remember that time. Secretaries, accountants, engineers didn't go out, buy Wangs or Apples or PCs, and then carry them in via their car. The office bought and supplied and owned them. So it was NOT bring "your" own device.
Clearly you don't remember it that well. People really did go out and buy such things and bring them in in their cars. And even if your contention were correct (as it was in some cases), it was still very much a case of BYOD.
You may be surprised to learn that many of today's "your own" devices are bought and paid for by employers - just the same as last time round.
Whether the item is actually the property of the company or the personal property of the individual isn't really relevant. In both cases, the individual suddenly has ownership of the device (in the sense of control). Hence the wisdom in noticing the similarity.
IBM was the reason for MS's dominance, because "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"
Doesn't follow at all. You'll notice I said "MS-DOS" and not "MS". There was a choice of three different operating systems to run on the IBM PC at launch, so you could have run any of them and still been buying IBM. What gave MS-DOS the edge was that early adopters wanted to run Lotus 1-2-3. MS-DOS was so badly written that Lotus had to work around it, particularly for driving the screen, which led to the position that it was difficult to use anything else.
Just because you're too young to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen young padawan. We're talking about a time long before anything like NT4 (or even any kind of NT) existed.
Typically the PCs in question ran DOS, with first Visicalc and then Lotus 1-2-3 as the killer app which had to run (which, incidentally, is what tied the market in to MS-DOS).
Long ago, towards the end of the last century, desktop computers were BYOD
No they weren't. Stop talking utter rubbish.
I presume then that you weren't there at the time? Desktop computers when they first appeared were indeed a kind of BYOD, although obviously people didn't actually carry them around with them. What did happen though was individual departments/individuals made a business case to buy their own PCs, and then suddenly could do what they wanted, rather than what the high priests of the computer room told them they could do. It led to chaos in many cases, but it also greatly empowered end users (and stripped the high priests of much of their power). Obviously there was then a follow on as all the PCs were brought under computer control, but to deny that PCs were BYOD is just silly.
HOWEVER, and here's the paradox: if not all stars have orbiting planets, then the number of stars with orbiting planets is less than infinite, ie, finite.
Bzzzt! Fail - thanks for playing.
Once you start playing with infinite numbers you have to be very careful with concepts like "less than" or "more than". Just because you can demonstrate that one set is in some way smaller than another infinite set does *not* demonstrate that the smaller one is finite.
Consider the set of natural numbers - 1,2,3,4 etc. This is infinite. Then consider the set of even natural numbers - 2,4,6,8 etc. Clearly there are members of the first set which are not members of the second set, and so one might be tempted to conclude that the second set is in some way smaller, and therefore by your argument, finite.
In fact one can set up a one-to-one mapping between the two sets:
12 24 36
etc. and thus both sets have precisely the same (infinite) number of members.
As this is such a fundamental and obvious failure in Ubuntu and the WDTVLive, has this been fixed yet?
If you want a useful answer to this question you'll need to clarify it a bit.
What do you mean by "select a network device too quickly"? The only thing it brings to mind is going into your local computer bits store and grabbing the first NIC on the shelf.
Likewise, "BAM, that's it". What sort of problem symptoms do you observe?
I'd avoid using "anymore" at all. It's a relatively new word (you won't find it in a 30 year old paper dictionary) and it adds nothing because it means exactly the same as the two words "any more" meant before.
Compare this with, for instance, "everyday" and "every day". "everyday" is often mis-used, but it does at least have a different meaning from "every day".
"He went to visit his mother every day."
"He went shopping for everyday provisions."
John
Slashdot Mirror
As a guy in his mid forties this is very true. The first time you go to a doctor that's younger than you, or get pulled over by a cop that's younger than you and have to call him "sir", you feel it.
You call policemen "sir"?! Where I come from, the policemen call members of the public "sir". It may be said in a sardonic way, and they don't really sound like they mean it, but at least it's there. You're right about them getting younger though - there was one on the news recently reporting on a twit in a Porsche who'd managed to get it submerged to the point where just the tips of the wiper blades were breaking the surface. (Wipers still running despite the water.) I'd swear he (the policeman) was about 12.
As a man in my mid fifties, I call my doctor "Charlie".
This is an arbitrary SQL injection vulnerability. According to the advisory, it is in the very core of the Active Record. Anyone who has ever programmed for RoR has definitely used the following:
Post.find_by_id(params[:id])
This is the standard way of finding a DB record by ID, and advised like this in all RoR books. It is one of the most fundamental calls in the whole framework.
Not true - the more natural (and non-vulnerable) way to write this is:
Post.find(params[:id])
and that's the way normally recommended in books on the subject.
Why does putting a driver in user space require a performance hit?
It has in every microkernel attempt so far, or do you have a way to do it that no one else has thought of?
I meant the question to be taken literally - that is, not as an assertion that it doesn't or shouldn't, but as a request for an explanation of why it does.
Linux let's you write drivers in the user space if you want to. A lot of scanner drivers are written in the userspace. So if you're willing to take the performance hit, there is no reason to not do so, even in Linux.
Perhaps the difference here is that Linux lets you put them in userspace, but this system (like the GEC 4000 series from the '70s) has them all like that?
Why does putting a driver in user space require a performance hit?
I can't find a spare ethernet cable
The rest of it rings true, but this is just too far fetched. Ethernet cables are like wire coat hangers - they breed. I try to keep them confined to my study/shed, but they have to be purged regularly to stop them taking over the house.
Presumably that can be calculated fairly easily from your ID?
Just try to see if web2py works well, it's similar.
Just taken a look at both, and apart from the fact that they both involve Python they appear to be totally different beasts. One is a web-based IDE and the other is a web application development framework. Where's the overlap?
I did much the same for my father. He was continually getting his Windows PC totally overloaded with malware (possibly assisted by grandsons from another branch of the family who liked to play on it).
After recovering it a couple of times I simply scrubbed it and installed Debian. It does everything he needs and has reduced the support calls to pretty much nothing.
He is quite unaware of what operating system he is using - he just needs to be able to access the web, read his e-mails and write some letters.
I see you just posted this a few minutes ago, so you really have no excuse for not reading the other posts near yours.
I didn't see any other nearby posts covering downloads and photocopiers.
If you do a linear interpolation do determine remaining battery life, then your result will be off badly. This may explain why some cheaply made devices have very bad assumptions about how much power remains.
Sorry - I can't find anywhere in my posting where I said anything about doing linear interpolation to determine battery life. (Perhaps it's you who is guilty of extrapolating from what I did say?)
Battery life is obviously more complex, and depends not just on how long the machine has been on, but also how hard it is working. It's intrinsically more speculative, because you don't know how heavy the future loading will be. Nonetheless, I suspect a better estimate than tends currently to be provided could be achieved by recording actual performance over a number of discharge cycles and then predicting from those.
I've yet to see calculus applied by any programming.
How does your laptop computer calculate remaining battery life?
How does your browser calculate remaining download time?
Neither of these seems an obvious application for calculus. Both can be done very simply with a trivial calculation, but for some odd reason they very seldom are.
For the download one, the calculation simply is, "How much of the download is done? How long did it take? Assume the rest will happen at the same rate and extrapolate."
I itch to re-write the firmware in our photocopier at school, which estimates the time for a job right at the beginning (always a bit optimistically), and then simply counts down, ignoring the progress which it's made. This leads to it estimating, say, 25 mins for a job, and then counting down over the next 25 mins, with the result that when it has done 80% of the job its estimated time remaining reaches zero and stays there for the remaining 6 and a bit minutes. It would be trivial to re-write this code properly, and I hate the fact that I can't do it.
Kyocera - step forward in shame.
How do you get to the "newbie software selection dialog"?
It appears by default as part of the installation process if you take all the default choices.
One of the options is "Desktop environment" (or words to that effect) and if you tick it you get (up until now) Gnome installed and running by default.
A more meaningful question would have been, "How do you avoid this software selection dialogue?"
The "Better email!" target is the one they need to work on first.
Every time I have to correspond with someone with a BT/Yahoo e-mail account I have to explain to them how to check their spam folders for lost messages. They always find other ones there too which Yahoo's dreadful spam filter has consigned there without consultation or good reason.
BT/Yahoo e-mail should come with a health warning.
I don't know. I'd have to look carefully. I'm under the impression that Debian Stable is quite old, and that the desktops that are available are also quite old.
Errr, well, yes... that's what you asked for. You can't have it both ways. If you specify that you want only bug-fixes and not new functionality, you can't then complain when you get just bug fixes and no new functionality.
The current Debian Stable (Squeeze) is a very capable distribution, and whilst it doesn't have the very latest versions of Gnome and KDE (as per your specification) they are more than modern enough for everyday use.
Well then it's not really "your" device is it? In the 80s (not end of the century as you first falsely-claimed),
Please learn to read the thread - I made no claim about any centuries.
the PCs were purchased-and-owned by the company. Just like typewriters & telephones were purchased-and-owned by the company.
And yes I remember that time. Secretaries, accountants, engineers didn't go out, buy Wangs or Apples or PCs, and then carry them in via their car. The office bought and supplied and owned them. So it was NOT bring "your" own device.
Clearly you don't remember it that well. People really did go out and buy such things and bring them in in their cars. And even if your contention were correct (as it was in some cases), it was still very much a case of BYOD.
You may be surprised to learn that many of today's "your own" devices are bought and paid for by employers - just the same as last time round.
Whether the item is actually the property of the company or the personal property of the individual isn't really relevant. In both cases, the individual suddenly has ownership of the device (in the sense of control). Hence the wisdom in noticing the similarity.
Gratuitous and silly insults snipped.
IBM was the reason for MS's dominance, because "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"
Doesn't follow at all. You'll notice I said "MS-DOS" and not "MS". There was a choice of three different operating systems to run on the IBM PC at launch, so you could have run any of them and still been buying IBM. What gave MS-DOS the edge was that early adopters wanted to run Lotus 1-2-3. MS-DOS was so badly written that Lotus had to work around it, particularly for driving the screen, which led to the position that it was difficult to use anything else.
Just because you're too young to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen young padawan. We're talking about a time long before anything like NT4 (or even any kind of NT) existed.
Typically the PCs in question ran DOS, with first Visicalc and then Lotus 1-2-3 as the killer app which had to run (which, incidentally, is what tied the market in to MS-DOS).
Long ago, towards the end of the last century, desktop computers were BYOD
No they weren't. Stop talking utter rubbish.
I presume then that you weren't there at the time? Desktop computers when they first appeared were indeed a kind of BYOD, although obviously people didn't actually carry them around with them. What did happen though was individual departments/individuals made a business case to buy their own PCs, and then suddenly could do what they wanted, rather than what the high priests of the computer room told them they could do. It led to chaos in many cases, but it also greatly empowered end users (and stripped the high priests of much of their power). Obviously there was then a follow on as all the PCs were brought under computer control, but to deny that PCs were BYOD is just silly.
Considering you have a pretty low slashdot id
That's not a low slashdot id,...
No - a Harrier is noisy enough, but a Vulcan balancing on its tail is quite terrifying.
making the most noise I've ever heard from a plane.
Clearly never stood under a hovering Vulcan bomber then?
Plus most people won't put them back up and they get ran over and damaged.
You mean the way people never put the nozzles back in the pump at filling stations and leave them draped across the ground? That irritates me too.
HOWEVER, and here's the paradox: if not all stars have orbiting planets, then the number of stars with orbiting planets is less than infinite, ie, finite.
Bzzzt! Fail - thanks for playing.
Once you start playing with infinite numbers you have to be very careful with concepts like "less than" or "more than". Just because you can demonstrate that one set is in some way smaller than another infinite set does *not* demonstrate that the smaller one is finite.
Consider the set of natural numbers - 1,2,3,4 etc. This is infinite. Then consider the set of even natural numbers - 2,4,6,8 etc. Clearly there are members of the first set which are not members of the second set, and so one might be tempted to conclude that the second set is in some way smaller, and therefore by your argument, finite.
In fact one can set up a one-to-one mapping between the two sets:
12
24
36
etc. and thus both sets have precisely the same (infinite) number of members.
As this is such a fundamental and obvious failure in Ubuntu and the WDTVLive, has this been fixed yet?
If you want a useful answer to this question you'll need to clarify it a bit.
What do you mean by "select a network device too quickly"? The only thing it brings to mind is going into your local computer bits store and grabbing the first NIC on the shelf.
Likewise, "BAM, that's it". What sort of problem symptoms do you observe?
Keen to help, but more information needed.
Has this changed.
Yes - a long time ago.
I'd avoid using "anymore" at all. It's a relatively new word (you won't find it in a 30 year old paper dictionary) and it adds nothing because it means exactly the same as the two words "any more" meant before. Compare this with, for instance, "everyday" and "every day". "everyday" is often mis-used, but it does at least have a different meaning from "every day". "He went to visit his mother every day." "He went shopping for everyday provisions." John