And on the other hand, you don't actually need a DB-oriented file system to attach search keywords to a file. You just need a user interface that lets you declare associations between keywords and files. Whether those associations are explicitly in the filesystem, as in BeFS, or whether they can be added in a separate database, as in Spotlight, is an implementation detail.
Making Spotlight use its own DB is fine - if all you care about is using Spotlight. But if the DB were built into the filesystem (or at least made an OS-level component) then other applications could make use of the search capabilities as well.
The current file system isn't just a hierarchy. It provides UNIX hard links, so there is no single location a file has to be in. If I create a hard link to a file it looks like two files, but it's really one.
And how is that easier than a DB-oriented filesystem where any set of search keywords can be attached to a file?
Case in point,in this forum my right to free speech and redress of grievances has been stifled for political dissent.
For one thing, you obviously have not been "stifled", otherwise how would I have seen your post? For another, read the damn Bill of Rights. Amendment I starts with the words "Congress shall make no law..."; it doesn't say a damned thing about Slashdot or any other privately owned and operated forum. The First Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on the government, not on the people.
So they made an improvement to DOS... how does that mean it's NOT DOS? So DOS now supports more then 8 characters... that makes it not DOS? When your Linux operating system has a new bash feature it didn't used to have.. does that make it no longer bash?!?!
Do you understand the difference between an OS and a command shell? DOS is an OS. It has a command shell called COMMAND. Windows is an OS. It has a command shell called CMD. Linux (or GNU/Linux or whatever) is an OS. It has a command shell called bash. You are comparing command shells, not OSes. It so happens that, yes, CMD looks and works a lot like COMMAND with some changes. This does not mean that Windows is DOS.
What I'm wondering is what is broken with the whole directory/folder design?
What's broken about it is that a single hierarchical classification scheme may not always be appropriate for a given body of data. Suppose I have a whole bunch of documents. They're all about different products - ProductA, ProductB, etc. Meanwhile, some of them are proposals, some are degisn docs, some are marketing literature, etc. I want to be able to sift through these documents in various ways. What's the best hierarchy to use? Product type first, then document type (proposal/design/etc)? Or the other way around? What happens when I want "all proposals on ProductA or ProductC for North American markets"? Where in the hierarchy do I look? Meanwhile, if each file were in a database, with search keywords, I could find anything I wanted just as easily as anything else - there's no predetermined hierarchy that makes it easier to find some things than others.
Intel knows a thing or about RISC chips. Intel manufacturing PPCs is far more probable than Apple jumping to x86.
Well, Intel's x86 chips are RISC, under the skin. Hmm. What if Intel just sorta peeled away the x86 translation and directly exposed the underlying micro-ops? Might be a relatively easy way for Intel to supply a "true RISC" CPU for Apple, that might even outperform the x86 version (though it's highly doubtful that Intel would ever let that happen).
Depends on how the tax is structured. If you just put a flat tax on gasoline, yes that is unfair. But if you tax by efficiency of the vehicle, and set a zero tax level at something reasonable like a 1.5L engine, then the impact should be small,
But people with 1.5L engines will already be paying less tax, 'cause they'll be using less gas. The people who'll be hit by the tax are those with Suburbans and Range Rovers, and Porsches and Ferraris, not to mention people with pleasure boats and yachts - you know how much fuel those things use?
Well then we could just stick with the current situation - which is, people being homeless because they can't find someone else to value their skills (which were valuable 2 years ago thanks to the college education they got).
And how is your solution going to help these people? Have you got some spare land they could homestead?
learn how to make our own subsistence crops, raise our own chickens and build our own shelters?
If that's the kind of society you want, then fine, but IMO it's nonsense. You want people to spend 12-15 hours a day scratching out a subsistence existence for themselves, like medieval serfs, with no help from the gains that a division-of-labor society can provide? That's your glorious vision of the future? No thanks.
But then it has no meaning as there is not a single capitalist country in the world.
By that reasoning, the word "red" has no meaning, as "redness" is not a physical quality of nature, but a symbol for the subjective experience of certain wavelengths of light. The fact that there's no "real" red in nature does not invalidate the significance of "red" as a human concept. The meaning of "capitalism" is even less intangible, as we humans could implement a truly capitalist state, if we wanted to.
What they should be saying is 'we need more software developers (computer science grads) or we need more System administrators (computer information system grads)'.
No, what they really oughta be saying is that we need more software engineers. Anyone can learn to cobble together a hacked-up mess of code. But to engineer a software system - elicit and gather requirements, develop a meaningful and understandable specification, and create and communicate a design, using best-practice constructs and techniques, that meets that specification and fulfills those requirements (and can be shown to do so) - those are the people that the industry desperately needs, and what the schools should be teaching.
You started out okay, but then you said "From The Fucking Article, " is that really necessary?... Ya'll should think about what your acronyms stand for before using them everywhere.
Y'all should become more familiar with/. mores before pontificating like this. It is virtually de rigeur on/. to write "TFA" when referring to an article in this fashion.
I don't know about other vehicles, but Saturn has had CVTs in their VUEs for quite some time now - and being a VUE owner, I can quite definitively tell you they are not hybrid vehicles.
Various Audi models of the previous generation were also available with CVT. The new models are not available in the US with CVT yet (not compatible with Quattro, and all of the new models currently sold in the US are Quattros).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it got tired of watching Terrance & Philip all the time, with their weird flapping heads.
Do you want your DEMOCRACY to SPURT not just DRIBBLE!?!? Would that special someone like your DEMOCRACY to be BIGGER and LONGER?!?!
And on the other hand, you don't actually need a DB-oriented file system to attach search keywords to a file. You just need a user interface that lets you declare associations between keywords and files. Whether those associations are explicitly in the filesystem, as in BeFS, or whether they can be added in a separate database, as in Spotlight, is an implementation detail.
Making Spotlight use its own DB is fine - if all you care about is using Spotlight. But if the DB were built into the filesystem (or at least made an OS-level component) then other applications could make use of the search capabilities as well.
The current file system isn't just a hierarchy. It provides UNIX hard links, so there is no single location a file has to be in. If I create a hard link to a file it looks like two files, but it's really one.
And how is that easier than a DB-oriented filesystem where any set of search keywords can be attached to a file?
Case in point,in this forum my right to free speech and redress of grievances has been stifled for political dissent.
For one thing, you obviously have not been "stifled", otherwise how would I have seen your post? For another, read the damn Bill of Rights. Amendment I starts with the words "Congress shall make no law..."; it doesn't say a damned thing about Slashdot or any other privately owned and operated forum. The First Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on the government, not on the people.
So they made an improvement to DOS... how does that mean it's NOT DOS? So DOS now supports more then 8 characters... that makes it not DOS? When your Linux operating system has a new bash feature it didn't used to have.. does that make it no longer bash?!?!
Do you understand the difference between an OS and a command shell? DOS is an OS. It has a command shell called COMMAND. Windows is an OS. It has a command shell called CMD. Linux (or GNU/Linux or whatever) is an OS. It has a command shell called bash. You are comparing command shells, not OSes. It so happens that, yes, CMD looks and works a lot like COMMAND with some changes. This does not mean that Windows is DOS.
What I'm wondering is what is broken with the whole directory/folder design?
What's broken about it is that a single hierarchical classification scheme may not always be appropriate for a given body of data. Suppose I have a whole bunch of documents. They're all about different products - ProductA, ProductB, etc. Meanwhile, some of them are proposals, some are degisn docs, some are marketing literature, etc. I want to be able to sift through these documents in various ways. What's the best hierarchy to use? Product type first, then document type (proposal/design/etc)? Or the other way around? What happens when I want "all proposals on ProductA or ProductC for North American markets"? Where in the hierarchy do I look? Meanwhile, if each file were in a database, with search keywords, I could find anything I wanted just as easily as anything else - there's no predetermined hierarchy that makes it easier to find some things than others.
Think about what Win2k gave us! Plug and Play, protected memory (when apps crash, the OS survives), NTFS, and USB support
Actually, protected address spaces and NTFS were around long before Win2K, all the way back to the first versions of NT.
Intel knows a thing or about RISC chips. Intel manufacturing PPCs is far more probable than Apple jumping to x86.
Well, Intel's x86 chips are RISC, under the skin. Hmm. What if Intel just sorta peeled away the x86 translation and directly exposed the underlying micro-ops? Might be a relatively easy way for Intel to supply a "true RISC" CPU for Apple, that might even outperform the x86 version (though it's highly doubtful that Intel would ever let that happen).
Depends on how the tax is structured. If you just put a flat tax on gasoline, yes that is unfair. But if you tax by efficiency of the vehicle, and set a zero tax level at something reasonable like a 1.5L engine, then the impact should be small,
But people with 1.5L engines will already be paying less tax, 'cause they'll be using less gas. The people who'll be hit by the tax are those with Suburbans and Range Rovers, and Porsches and Ferraris, not to mention people with pleasure boats and yachts - you know how much fuel those things use?
I just bought a Mini, and I'm not happy about this, if it turns out to be true.
That's OK, you'll be happier with a Mini Cabrio anyway.
Well then we could just stick with the current situation - which is, people being homeless because they can't find someone else to value their skills (which were valuable 2 years ago thanks to the college education they got).
And how is your solution going to help these people? Have you got some spare land they could homestead?
learn how to make our own subsistence crops, raise our own chickens and build our own shelters?
If that's the kind of society you want, then fine, but IMO it's nonsense. You want people to spend 12-15 hours a day scratching out a subsistence existence for themselves, like medieval serfs, with no help from the gains that a division-of-labor society can provide? That's your glorious vision of the future? No thanks.
But then it has no meaning as there is not a single capitalist country in the world.
By that reasoning, the word "red" has no meaning, as "redness" is not a physical quality of nature, but a symbol for the subjective experience of certain wavelengths of light. The fact that there's no "real" red in nature does not invalidate the significance of "red" as a human concept. The meaning of "capitalism" is even less intangible, as we humans could implement a truly capitalist state, if we wanted to.
What they should be saying is 'we need more software developers (computer science grads) or we need more System administrators (computer information system grads)'.
No, what they really oughta be saying is that we need more software engineers. Anyone can learn to cobble together a hacked-up mess of code. But to engineer a software system - elicit and gather requirements, develop a meaningful and understandable specification, and create and communicate a design, using best-practice constructs and techniques, that meets that specification and fulfills those requirements (and can be shown to do so) - those are the people that the industry desperately needs, and what the schools should be teaching.
The fears you highlight are not uncommon, but they are unfounded. Companies from Japan are not making very good cars.
So who's going to be the new W.E. Deming who goes over to India and teaches them how to kick our asses?
Simple. You'd spend more time doing things you want to do instead of laboring for someone else's profits and grand visions of the world.
Well, then, who's going to provide the food, housing, and shelter?
I am not an economist, but it seems rational that any (capitalist) government would want a labour force larger than the number of jobs available
Any economy in which the government dictates the terms is by definition not capitalist.
Property is an artificial construct of law.
So is murder. What's your point?
The UK is planning on replacing its current submarines with new ones. Can you imagine the US already having the same subs in action?
What's your point? That the UK might have some newer subs than ours? Are you worried about a submarine attack from the UK?
We should applaud the nations of Europe when they decide to invest in modern military hardware. Every dime they spend is a dime we don't have to.
But I wouldn't say to my mom "ohh hey did you read the fucking article in the times today about that guy?"
Uh, huh - and does your mother post on /. much?
Anyway, I thought they all had tractors in Texas nowadays, what with all that oil.
Well, you gotta keep somethin' around that you can shoot!
You started out okay, but then you said "From The Fucking Article, " is that really necessary?... Ya'll should think about what your acronyms stand for before using them everywhere.
Y'all should become more familiar with /. mores before pontificating like this. It is virtually de rigeur on /. to write "TFA" when referring to an article in this fashion.
I don't know about other vehicles, but Saturn has had CVTs in their VUEs for quite some time now - and being a VUE owner, I can quite definitively tell you they are not hybrid vehicles.
Various Audi models of the previous generation were also available with CVT. The new models are not available in the US with CVT yet (not compatible with Quattro, and all of the new models currently sold in the US are Quattros).
A better system would be to provide a living wage (as opposed to the welfare dirty word)
If you wanna give away money to the non-working poor, just say so. No need for the doublespeak. "Wages" are paid for work.