Sure, adding RAM isn't a panacea, but running "san swap" can really speed (some) things greatly. The question I was addressing was all about swap - nothing else.
I do think running swap in SSD is **probably** a bad idea, especially if you can put enough RAM in to not need swap. But sure that is a pretty glib statement...
Assuming the SSD was faster at both read and write - it should speed things up. Hell just moving the swap onto a different physical disk helps. But don't. SSD have a limited life, in a different sense to spinning disks. SSD wear with writing, so if you constantly write to the same "sectors" they will fail. If you think about what's happening when the system is swapping - that's exactly what's going on. So yes, it'll help (a bit) but it's really expensive given what will happen to the SSD. Better is add RAM, so the system won't need to swap (with enough RAM you don't need swap at all).
Nobody said Mohammad was a God. I didn't even say he was a prophet, I said Muslims regard him as their most sacred prophet (try actually reading).
Why are you using the word "respect" like a "gang member" rather than a rational person? Of course you want respect - respect of your property, rights, dignity.
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else. As a trivial example, I don't care if you walk across the grass in my garden - but I don't make a habit of wilfully walking on other people's grass.
This is actually an interesting point. Quite logical, I'm with you all the way - until you suggest mocking any religion is going to bring about peace amongst religions.
I think religions need to recognise Article 18 (if memory serves) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, I am aware that many Muslims reject that on religious grounds - but not all do.
Who said Buddha was "OK"?! I'm also not saying that mocking Muhammad is only bad because of the threat of retribution. I think the problem might well be that the threat of retribution (by a minority) be being used as a justification. If that is the case, don't the opinions of the majority of Muslims matter?
Is it right to mock someone or something to cause emotional distress? Sounds a lot like the justification of the school bully to me. "I was only having a laugh... " becomes "I was only exercising my 'free speech'... ".
I'd agree you have the right to disagree with the teachings of Islam, and to publicly air those views (and I'm sure there are a lot of Muslims who'd disagree with that). All I'm saying is the right to do that is degraded if I only use it to cause offence, then in my view it's wrong. Free speech is worth protecting, it is worth defending, but I don't see it as an excuse to mock someone's religion.
For Muslims the prophets were chosen by Allah, and Mohammad was the last and most important of them. This is what makes Mohammad "their most sacred prophet". You can also cause offence of Muslims by insulting Jesus (yes, that one) though it is not as bad. (Ever wonder why Muslims don't just draw lewd pictures of Jesus to annoy us? Now you know)
No I don't, there are plenty of beliefs that seemed perfectly reasonable - until they were shown to be wrong:
Examples:
The Earth is the centre of creation The Earth is flat A man will soffocate if he travels much faster than he can on horseback
If I only respected views that seemed sensible I'd not have much respect for anything. You see it's not the BELIEFS I'm showing respect for (to?) it's the person who believes them, a fellow human being.
Well it sounds like your religious beliefs are the same as mine;-)
But, I do respect human beings. I do got out of my way to not do them harm, that includes emotional harm. If their religion is important to them, then I try and respect that. That doesn't mean agree with. So drawing a lewd/offensive image of their deity(ies) or prophet(s) is kind of "off the menu". I know it will cause them emotional distress (even if I don't quite understand why).
But I DO ask they reciprocate, they should not do me harm (physical or emotional). So the actions of Muslims on 9/11 are totally incompatible with my own world view, and can only be condemned.
But honestly, do you think the world is about to stop turning because you can't draw Mohammed in a bear suit? Can't we agree that it would be better all around if we didn't do that?
Now, assuming that it's happened, no I don't believe Muslims have the right to violent retribution. Yes I believe people threatened in this way have the right to protection.
I didn't suggest it did. I don't believe any individual as the right to end the life of any other, except when the life of another is threatened (So shooting someone who is threatening to kill another to protect the other is justified). But that doesn't make mocking the religious beliefs of Muslims right either, there are plenty of Muslims who would NEVER engage in violence, why don't they deserve respect?
For Muslims Mohammad isn't "a guy", he is their most sacred prophet. For Muslims degrading Mohammad is more akin to desecrating a grave or religious building. I'm not agreeing with their tactics, but really, a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask. If someone defiled a child's grave how would you feel about that? Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
Yeah, but can you imagine some else getting hold of the data? Sure some random cop can beat you up, but this us data - it has the potential to mess you up long after today. And we're not even talking about you doing anything immoral.
So you visit a friend at his place of work, your company might not see this visit to a "competitor" as innocent... You think they will never get the data? Is it a company car? Yeah, makes you think doesn't it?
Err, no. But it does make it more likely you'll crash and die - a sure way to avoid the ticket (or at least it's "ill effects" - the "death" thing kinda sucks though)
Actually joining up the "sightings" of the car is pretty scary. I can see huge potential for abuse of this information either in realtime or retrospectively.
I temper this approach with the "this is easy as hell and very quick". So even if I think it is something, if there is something else it could be that's really quick to try I'll ignore my "brilliance" and try that. What is amazing is how often there isn't actually one problem, but two. Also helps if you have a similar working system that you can take the components from (so you know that this or that doodah actually works).
Apple don't create the implementation of Flash (and can't). So if Apple allow Flash onto the iPhone OS then they cannot influence the quality of that implementation over time. Apple created their own implementation of HTML5, and they can improve it and maintain it over time. Apple want to be able to maintain the user experience - not because they love their customers, but because they want to keep selling iPhone OS devices: they have to remain competitive over time. Essentially Apple are alone in this "longterm thinking" other manufactures leave the software to other players, given what's happened with other players in the market we can see that Apple's approach does have advantages.
Many people think Apple are primarily interested in "App" sales - Apple see this as a side issue, and actually the AppStore is seen primarily as adding value to the iPhone OS devices (or to put it another way, the AppStore helps sell iPhone OS devices, rather than the other way around). What Apple want is that anything created in HTML5 works well on the iPhone - so buyers see the iPhone as a good choice for consuming that content.
Why does Apple really hate Flash? Well if you look at the implementations of Flash on Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows it is obvious that the Windows one gets far more love from Adobe than the other two - Apple hate that.
But if it doesn't have Mac OS X's UI then Mac OS X apps won't run...
The iPhone OS is very like Mac OS X - just doesn't have the Mac UI, and Multitasking has been (for now at least) limited. It can run "real" applications, iWork or Bento are examples. Sure it doesn't present its filesystem to the user (apps have a "sandbox" they can't write outside their own application wrapper; chalk this up to 'security').
I think you'll be surprised how "real" some of the applications will be. Assuming your application doesn't need multitasking (or can use "notifications" to mitigate the lack of multitasking - like AIM does on the iPhone, then I don't see many limits on what an application can do (within the capability of the hardware). I know you can't create a virtual machine or emulation, and I know that smutty/offensive apps are out, and recreating a built-in application is off the menu (no alternative browser). But is that what you're talking about?
For corporate users the system can be officially unlocked to allow in-house applications to be deployed (it even has provisioning tools - OK they are Mac based, but you know what I mean).
Not quite sure you'd want better optics to see me close up...
USB probably isn't as useful on the iPad as you'd think - how do you do drivers? Storage? OK, but the iPad doesn't present a filesystem for the user, so that doesn't work either.
You're arguing it should, right? I think you're arguing FOR a laptop... I suppose they could have put the camera connection kit in the pack (with the missing headphones) but then it would probably would have cost more...
I'd want a dock in the box, but you can see where this would end. Apple have put the absolute minimum in the box with the iPad, we'll have to buy the stuff we want after. Me? I don't currently care about the camera connection kit, I'd like a dock, some kind of case, oh and those headphones, though maybe not the Apple ones. I'm sure there is other stuff, but until I have one, I don't know what it is... I'm in two minds about the keyboard-dock.
Not a laptop
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Apple don't intend this to be a replacement for a laptop. You want a nice comfy keyboard, iChat and a camera? Apple make that: it's a MacBook Pro - no, seriously, it's a MacBook Pro.
A lot of people have said it feels heavy - OK, I'll accept that, not seen one, but sure it's heavy. So why does it need a camera? What you said about it being heavy is going to count double if I'm going to hold it at arm's length in front of me. Otherwise I'm either going to be in extreme close up (and trust me, I'm not the kind of person who does well in extreme close up) or a really nice view up my nose (and even Brad Pitt can't make that look good). Honestly, I'll pass on the camera - I also do work in places where cameras aren't allowed (defence and education).
Conceptually the iPad is more iPhone than Mac, I fully expect Apple will take that view. Additionally, as ALL iPads run the same OS (3G and non-3G) and it is very closely related to the iPhone OS, if the iPad wasn't protected then it would impact all devices. I also wonder if Apple want to keep their options open for adding voice calling to the iPad (a future iPad, not THIS iPad). Sure you'd not hold the thing to your face, but if wearing headsets became more socially acceptable then maybe it would make sense. Or with the addition of a camera you might use it for video calling (I think there are other usability issues to solve; it is light but how would you do it? If I hold it in front of myself my arm is going to get tired - I need to hold it at a reasonable distance. If I lay it on my lap then the poor sap I'm calling is going to get a view right up my nose - hardly the most flattering view.)
The iPad isn't a computer. It fails to meet the definition of a computer (unless you think your washing machine is a computer, your digital watch is a computer, your TV is a computer, you're getting the idea...) A computer is a device that can be programmed, the iPad can't. If I wish to create an application for the iPad I have to use Xcode on a Mac (then jump through one of two hoops) to do it. Now for me, that makes the iPad a "non-computer" like a washing machine. Sure it has more than a whiff of "computer" about it, but it isn't. This isn't a ding against the iPad - I still want one - just as I'm not about to get rid of my washing machine because it doesn't let me install Plone, both are useful, but neither are useful for creating programs. If Microsoft create a washing machine I'll be sure to not complain if they stop me installing Firefox on it.
You might think my argument is nebulous, fine, so why is the first thing a "new born" iPad does is ask to be connected to a computer running iTunes (I know it actually shows a diagram and points, but you know what I mean)? The Apple iPad doesn't want to replace your computer... and I think the washing machine is pretty safe too.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, adding RAM isn't a panacea, but running "san swap" can really speed (some) things greatly. The question I was addressing was all about swap - nothing else.
I do think running swap in SSD is **probably** a bad idea, especially if you can put enough RAM in to not need swap. But sure that is a pretty glib statement...
Yeah, especially if those sectors don't change much - an SSD isn't suitable for data that's rapidly changing.
Assuming the SSD was faster at both read and write - it should speed things up. Hell just moving the swap onto a different physical disk helps. But don't. SSD have a limited life, in a different sense to spinning disks. SSD wear with writing, so if you constantly write to the same "sectors" they will fail. If you think about what's happening when the system is swapping - that's exactly what's going on. So yes, it'll help (a bit) but it's really expensive given what will happen to the SSD. Better is add RAM, so the system won't need to swap (with enough RAM you don't need swap at all).
Neither would I, but I wouldn't defile one either. This isn't an "either/or" kind of choice, they are both immoral (and yes, taking a life is worse).
Nobody said Mohammad was a God. I didn't even say he was a prophet, I said Muslims regard him as their most sacred prophet (try actually reading).
Why are you using the word "respect" like a "gang member" rather than a rational person? Of course you want respect - respect of your property, rights, dignity.
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else. As a trivial example, I don't care if you walk across the grass in my garden - but I don't make a habit of wilfully walking on other people's grass.
This is actually an interesting point. Quite logical, I'm with you all the way - until you suggest mocking any religion is going to bring about peace amongst religions.
I think religions need to recognise Article 18 (if memory serves) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, I am aware that many Muslims reject that on religious grounds - but not all do.
Who said Buddha was "OK"?! I'm also not saying that mocking Muhammad is only bad because of the threat of retribution. I think the problem might well be that the threat of retribution (by a minority) be being used as a justification. If that is the case, don't the opinions of the majority of Muslims matter?
Is it right to mock someone or something to cause emotional distress? Sounds a lot like the justification of the school bully to me. "I was only having a laugh... " becomes "I was only exercising my 'free speech'... ".
I'd agree you have the right to disagree with the teachings of Islam, and to publicly air those views (and I'm sure there are a lot of Muslims who'd disagree with that). All I'm saying is the right to do that is degraded if I only use it to cause offence, then in my view it's wrong. Free speech is worth protecting, it is worth defending, but I don't see it as an excuse to mock someone's religion.
For Muslims the prophets were chosen by Allah, and Mohammad was the last and most important of them. This is what makes Mohammad "their most sacred prophet". You can also cause offence of Muslims by insulting Jesus (yes, that one) though it is not as bad. (Ever wonder why Muslims don't just draw lewd pictures of Jesus to annoy us? Now you know)
Not by me they don't.
No I don't, there are plenty of beliefs that seemed perfectly reasonable - until they were shown to be wrong:
Examples:
The Earth is the centre of creation
The Earth is flat
A man will soffocate if he travels much faster than he can on horseback
If I only respected views that seemed sensible I'd not have much respect for anything. You see it's not the BELIEFS I'm showing respect for (to?) it's the person who believes them, a fellow human being.
Can't we just not insult Mohammed? Seems pretty easy.
Well it sounds like your religious beliefs are the same as mine ;-)
But, I do respect human beings. I do got out of my way to not do them harm, that includes emotional harm. If their religion is important to them, then I try and respect that. That doesn't mean agree with. So drawing a lewd/offensive image of their deity(ies) or prophet(s) is kind of "off the menu". I know it will cause them emotional distress (even if I don't quite understand why).
But I DO ask they reciprocate, they should not do me harm (physical or emotional). So the actions of Muslims on 9/11 are totally incompatible with my own world view, and can only be condemned.
But honestly, do you think the world is about to stop turning because you can't draw Mohammed in a bear suit? Can't we agree that it would be better all around if we didn't do that?
Now, assuming that it's happened, no I don't believe Muslims have the right to violent retribution. Yes I believe people threatened in this way have the right to protection.
I didn't suggest it did. I don't believe any individual as the right to end the life of any other, except when the life of another is threatened (So shooting someone who is threatening to kill another to protect the other is justified). But that doesn't make mocking the religious beliefs of Muslims right either, there are plenty of Muslims who would NEVER engage in violence, why don't they deserve respect?
For Muslims Mohammad isn't "a guy", he is their most sacred prophet. For Muslims degrading Mohammad is more akin to desecrating a grave or religious building. I'm not agreeing with their tactics, but really, a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask. If someone defiled a child's grave how would you feel about that? Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
Yeah, but can you imagine some else getting hold of the data? Sure some random cop can beat you up, but this us data - it has the potential to mess you up long after today. And we're not even talking about you doing anything immoral.
So you visit a friend at his place of work, your company might not see this visit to a "competitor" as innocent... You think they will never get the data? Is it a company car? Yeah, makes you think doesn't it?
Err, no. But it does make it more likely you'll crash and die - a sure way to avoid the ticket (or at least it's "ill effects" - the "death" thing kinda sucks though)
Actually joining up the "sightings" of the car is pretty scary. I can see huge potential for abuse of this information either in realtime or retrospectively.
I temper this approach with the "this is easy as hell and very quick". So even if I think it is something, if there is something else it could be that's really quick to try I'll ignore my "brilliance" and try that. What is amazing is how often there isn't actually one problem, but two. Also helps if you have a similar working system that you can take the components from (so you know that this or that doodah actually works).
Apple don't create the implementation of Flash (and can't). So if Apple allow Flash onto the iPhone OS then they cannot influence the quality of that implementation over time. Apple created their own implementation of HTML5, and they can improve it and maintain it over time. Apple want to be able to maintain the user experience - not because they love their customers, but because they want to keep selling iPhone OS devices: they have to remain competitive over time. Essentially Apple are alone in this "longterm thinking" other manufactures leave the software to other players, given what's happened with other players in the market we can see that Apple's approach does have advantages.
Many people think Apple are primarily interested in "App" sales - Apple see this as a side issue, and actually the AppStore is seen primarily as adding value to the iPhone OS devices (or to put it another way, the AppStore helps sell iPhone OS devices, rather than the other way around). What Apple want is that anything created in HTML5 works well on the iPhone - so buyers see the iPhone as a good choice for consuming that content.
Why does Apple really hate Flash? Well if you look at the implementations of Flash on Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows it is obvious that the Windows one gets far more love from Adobe than the other two - Apple hate that.
But if it doesn't have Mac OS X's UI then Mac OS X apps won't run...
The iPhone OS is very like Mac OS X - just doesn't have the Mac UI, and Multitasking has been (for now at least) limited. It can run "real" applications, iWork or Bento are examples. Sure it doesn't present its filesystem to the user (apps have a "sandbox" they can't write outside their own application wrapper; chalk this up to 'security').
I think you'll be surprised how "real" some of the applications will be. Assuming your application doesn't need multitasking (or can use "notifications" to mitigate the lack of multitasking - like AIM does on the iPhone, then I don't see many limits on what an application can do (within the capability of the hardware). I know you can't create a virtual machine or emulation, and I know that smutty/offensive apps are out, and recreating a built-in application is off the menu (no alternative browser). But is that what you're talking about?
For corporate users the system can be officially unlocked to allow in-house applications to be deployed (it even has provisioning tools - OK they are Mac based, but you know what I mean).
Not quite sure you'd want better optics to see me close up...
USB probably isn't as useful on the iPad as you'd think - how do you do drivers? Storage? OK, but the iPad doesn't present a filesystem for the user, so that doesn't work either.
You're arguing it should, right? I think you're arguing FOR a laptop... I suppose they could have put the camera connection kit in the pack (with the missing headphones) but then it would probably would have cost more...
I'd want a dock in the box, but you can see where this would end. Apple have put the absolute minimum in the box with the iPad, we'll have to buy the stuff we want after. Me? I don't currently care about the camera connection kit, I'd like a dock, some kind of case, oh and those headphones, though maybe not the Apple ones. I'm sure there is other stuff, but until I have one, I don't know what it is... I'm in two minds about the keyboard-dock.
Apple don't intend this to be a replacement for a laptop. You want a nice comfy keyboard, iChat and a camera? Apple make that: it's a MacBook Pro - no, seriously, it's a MacBook Pro.
A lot of people have said it feels heavy - OK, I'll accept that, not seen one, but sure it's heavy. So why does it need a camera? What you said about it being heavy is going to count double if I'm going to hold it at arm's length in front of me. Otherwise I'm either going to be in extreme close up (and trust me, I'm not the kind of person who does well in extreme close up) or a really nice view up my nose (and even Brad Pitt can't make that look good). Honestly, I'll pass on the camera - I also do work in places where cameras aren't allowed (defence and education).
Conceptually the iPad is more iPhone than Mac, I fully expect Apple will take that view. Additionally, as ALL iPads run the same OS (3G and non-3G) and it is very closely related to the iPhone OS, if the iPad wasn't protected then it would impact all devices. I also wonder if Apple want to keep their options open for adding voice calling to the iPad (a future iPad, not THIS iPad). Sure you'd not hold the thing to your face, but if wearing headsets became more socially acceptable then maybe it would make sense. Or with the addition of a camera you might use it for video calling (I think there are other usability issues to solve; it is light but how would you do it? If I hold it in front of myself my arm is going to get tired - I need to hold it at a reasonable distance. If I lay it on my lap then the poor sap I'm calling is going to get a view right up my nose - hardly the most flattering view.)
The iPad isn't a computer. It fails to meet the definition of a computer (unless you think your washing machine is a computer, your digital watch is a computer, your TV is a computer, you're getting the idea...) A computer is a device that can be programmed, the iPad can't. If I wish to create an application for the iPad I have to use Xcode on a Mac (then jump through one of two hoops) to do it. Now for me, that makes the iPad a "non-computer" like a washing machine. Sure it has more than a whiff of "computer" about it, but it isn't. This isn't a ding against the iPad - I still want one - just as I'm not about to get rid of my washing machine because it doesn't let me install Plone, both are useful, but neither are useful for creating programs. If Microsoft create a washing machine I'll be sure to not complain if they stop me installing Firefox on it.
You might think my argument is nebulous, fine, so why is the first thing a "new born" iPad does is ask to be connected to a computer running iTunes (I know it actually shows a diagram and points, but you know what I mean)? The Apple iPad doesn't want to replace your computer... and I think the washing machine is pretty safe too.