And not only read the source, but re-run the source yourself.
Or write your own program to validate the output of the first.
Even a "simple" proof that sums a long list of numbers would be unfeasible for a human to add up and check, yet we would all feel comfortable writing a program (or a set of programs, each doing the assessment slightly differently) to sum up the numbers and compare the result.
While longer and larger the proof in TFA is not really any different.
I've always been amazed that on Win7 the Explorer program is unable to handle long paths. It gets even weirder when you discover that it can create some, but can't delete them. On numerous occasions I've had to resort to using Robocopy to/MIR an empty folder to the long path to remove it from the file system. On reflection, it would have been easier just to boot into Linux.
So you're saying that change through political means will result in a better outcome than technical ones?
Good luck with the upcoming election, I've got a hunch Trump's gonna win:)
I know you're being facetious regarding "secret plans to rule the world" and it made me chuckle, but let's bring it back down to earth with a more realistic example:
Here in the UK the home secretary is trying to pass legislation that would give the local police unrestricted access to all home internet access records kept by the ISPs. I can see the logic as to why they want this power, but in my opinion it is too much power for the national intelligence agencies, let alone the local police. It's mind boggling to think that a Cold War (risking MAD of all things) was fought over the right to "privacy" and "freedom" (or at least that's what came out of the propaganda machine in the West) and there was much ado about protecting the privacy of library book loan records at the time, which is in my opinion the simplest comparison to the privacy of online internet records.
So, anyway, while I have written letters to Ms May and my local MP, and I have voted in all of my elections, there is actually nothing else more that I can do....except implement technical means to circumvent the snooping: just using a very simple VPN to another country allows me to "shift jurisdiction" as to who has my internet browsing records, and the worst case is that it is now a different police force than the one that can barge into my home at 5am with their weapons drawn.
Of course I'm now technically breaking the law, but in my case I think my actions are just. But even that's not really appropriate for the end game, and I fear that after pushing on for some time trying to change the system through peaceful lawful means, my only other option will be to leave and find somewhere else to live. There is no way a rebellion here in the UK could succeed, and I've read too much to know that even uttering any desire to start one is a very bad idea. The whole situation sucks.
"It's a fact that a super-cheapass PC these days can run a whole bunch of virtual machines each more powerful than a PC of not that long ago."
But now that nearly all modern CPUs have been infiltrated with side-band chips (see "vPro" and "SIMFIRE" etc...) it is extremely difficult to put together a trusted computing platform.
Those older systems, provided they are powerful enough to do the job, may have more value (for some tasks) than many realise.
"Create an admin user then create another unprivileged account. Use this account to do your work."
Excellent advice, but please note that everyone should do this all the time anyway.
Yes, badly written software will create hassles along the way. Usually they can be fixed by granting write permissions to the specific "Program Files" folder(s) that the misbehaving software is expecting.
Let's not forget how easy it is to do this. And with modern computing and network infrastructure it's actually pretty easy to get good performance in case your site becomes more successful than you possibly imagined.
I remember reading some of the early posts here about the hardware and software running Slashdot back when it was very popular. I would imagine, with hardware advances, and the decline in the site's popularity, that it's now running on some very modest hardware.
Anyway, my point was: go start your own!!!! When it comes to websites, the more the merrier!!!
The poster was using the definition of "replicate" in the sense that a perfect exact copy can be made.
Your comparison to a wooden log is invalid: that log is not being replicated, it is being divided. You certainly do not end up with more timber than you started with.
I've run old laptops for 5+ years after the battery could no longer hold even a 5 minutes charge. They were still extremely useful computers and were valued by the family up until the day they truly broke: screen cracked, hinge, keyboard without any spares available, or just the slow agonizing death of old-age computing.
"is precisely one of the things NTFS permissions were designed to not allow, I would assume."
You are kind of right: the new OS honors the permissions in the first instance, but is actually able to change them and give itself access.
This is as simple as taking ownership of the drive for the current user, and replacing permissions on child objects that don't inherit. However, doing this requires a complete traversal of the entire folder structure with a lot of IO to update the ACLs.
So in practice, you wanted to quickly grab a couple of files? But really you have to wait (a few hours sometimes) for you to get permission to access what you want.
Points well made, thanks, I'll do some research into those technologies.
However, adding abstration does not go hand-in-hand with performance. They're almost diametrically opposite objectives.
If indeed these frameworks can achieve incredible performance in the browser, then my experience tells me this will only happen via direct support from the browser developers. Which as you very correctly allude to, can only happen via a widely adopted framework.
But you have now defeated the entire point of this discussion: node.js, "use the same language on the client side and server backend"!
Please do not misunderstand me, I am well aware of the complexity that currently pervades modern in-browser "app" development.
It just frustrates me that we are making extremely complicated programs to work around a plethora of shortfalls in the architecture and design limitations of this platform. Speak to an assembler developer from the 80s. Yes, lots of chips to choose from. A lot of work was required for performance. But the key point is that they programs **did** perform extremely well.
Contrast that to today: gob-loads of complexity, but very very little to gain for it.
I do not buy that the price of a "web app" or "cloud program" or the next big "2.0 thing" is exceedingly complex software.
"and can be serving other requests in the meantime."
Kind of.
The point that everyone seems to forget is that at the end of the day the "work must be done". It doesn't necessarily matter if you do it via some fancy non-blocking IO framework, or multiple threads, the WORK MUST BE DONE.
Please try to remember that.
Node.js is no magic silver bullet, not by any measure!
Slashdot Mirror
And not only read the source, but re-run the source yourself.
Or write your own program to validate the output of the first.
Even a "simple" proof that sums a long list of numbers would be unfeasible for a human to add up and check, yet we would all feel comfortable writing a program (or a set of programs, each doing the assessment slightly differently) to sum up the numbers and compare the result.
While longer and larger the proof in TFA is not really any different.
"Is it possible to demonstrate a proof through brute force?"
Yes.
Prove that the number of unique permutations of the first 3 natural numbers greater than 0 is 6.
Proof:
1 2 3
1 3 2
2 1 3
2 3 1
3 1 2
3 2 1
QED
I've always been amazed that on Win7 the Explorer program is unable to handle long paths. It gets even weirder when you discover that it can create some, but can't delete them. On numerous occasions I've had to resort to using Robocopy to /MIR an empty folder to the long path to remove it from the file system. On reflection, it would have been easier just to boot into Linux.
"We have to make a better world, because making a better fortress of solitude is harder than making a better bunker buster."
Amen to that!
So you're saying that change through political means will result in a better outcome than technical ones?
Good luck with the upcoming election, I've got a hunch Trump's gonna win :)
I know you're being facetious regarding "secret plans to rule the world" and it made me chuckle, but let's bring it back down to earth with a more realistic example:
Here in the UK the home secretary is trying to pass legislation that would give the local police unrestricted access to all home internet access records kept by the ISPs. I can see the logic as to why they want this power, but in my opinion it is too much power for the national intelligence agencies, let alone the local police. It's mind boggling to think that a Cold War (risking MAD of all things) was fought over the right to "privacy" and "freedom" (or at least that's what came out of the propaganda machine in the West) and there was much ado about protecting the privacy of library book loan records at the time, which is in my opinion the simplest comparison to the privacy of online internet records.
So, anyway, while I have written letters to Ms May and my local MP, and I have voted in all of my elections, there is actually nothing else more that I can do. ...except implement technical means to circumvent the snooping: just using a very simple VPN to another country allows me to "shift jurisdiction" as to who has my internet browsing records, and the worst case is that it is now a different police force than the one that can barge into my home at 5am with their weapons drawn.
Of course I'm now technically breaking the law, but in my case I think my actions are just. But even that's not really appropriate for the end game, and I fear that after pushing on for some time trying to change the system through peaceful lawful means, my only other option will be to leave and find somewhere else to live. There is no way a rebellion here in the UK could succeed, and I've read too much to know that even uttering any desire to start one is a very bad idea. The whole situation sucks.
"It's a fact that a super-cheapass PC these days can run a whole bunch of virtual machines each more powerful than a PC of not that long ago."
But now that nearly all modern CPUs have been infiltrated with side-band chips (see "vPro" and "SIMFIRE" etc...) it is extremely difficult to put together a trusted computing platform.
Those older systems, provided they are powerful enough to do the job, may have more value (for some tasks) than many realise.
"Create an admin user then create another unprivileged account. Use this account to do your work."
Excellent advice, but please note that everyone should do this all the time anyway.
Yes, badly written software will create hassles along the way. Usually they can be fixed by granting write permissions to the specific "Program Files" folder(s) that the misbehaving software is expecting.
First they came for the Optional Updates, and I did not speak out...
"Do they trust traffic signal? You know, that one that shows red to stop and green to drive. It is controlled by AI."
In South Africa the common slang term for a traffic light is "Robot".
I think it's kind of cute :)
"then go find one more to your liking."
Or start your own.
Let's not forget how easy it is to do this. And with modern computing and network infrastructure it's actually pretty easy to get good performance in case your site becomes more successful than you possibly imagined.
I remember reading some of the early posts here about the hardware and software running Slashdot back when it was very popular. I would imagine, with hardware advances, and the decline in the site's popularity, that it's now running on some very modest hardware.
Anyway, my point was: go start your own!!!! When it comes to websites, the more the merrier!!!
Like this? :)
Sorry mate, you're wrong.
The poster was using the definition of "replicate" in the sense that a perfect exact copy can be made.
Your comparison to a wooden log is invalid: that log is not being replicated, it is being divided. You certainly do not end up with more timber than you started with.
Do you see the difference?
"to resell, repackage, repair, or alter an ebook in any way."
Which is hilariously ludicrous when you reflect on the advantages of digital media over analogue!
"is windows 7 the Alamo until they stop releasing security patches for it?"
Yes, why yes it is. And probably a wee bit beyond then as well.
I've run old laptops for 5+ years after the battery could no longer hold even a 5 minutes charge. They were still extremely useful computers and were valued by the family up until the day they truly broke: screen cracked, hinge, keyboard without any spares available, or just the slow agonizing death of old-age computing.
"they have achieved their desired percent penetration."
Just the tip?
"is precisely one of the things NTFS permissions were designed to not allow, I would assume."
You are kind of right: the new OS honors the permissions in the first instance, but is actually able to change them and give itself access.
This is as simple as taking ownership of the drive for the current user, and replacing permissions on child objects that don't inherit. However, doing this requires a complete traversal of the entire folder structure with a lot of IO to update the ACLs.
So in practice, you wanted to quickly grab a couple of files? But really you have to wait (a few hours sometimes) for you to get permission to access what you want.
As the GP wrote: easier to use Linux.
Points well made, thanks, I'll do some research into those technologies.
However, adding abstration does not go hand-in-hand with performance. They're almost diametrically opposite objectives.
If indeed these frameworks can achieve incredible performance in the browser, then my experience tells me this will only happen via direct support from the browser developers. Which as you very correctly allude to, can only happen via a widely adopted framework.
Interesting times, thanks.
But you have now defeated the entire point of this discussion: node.js, "use the same language on the client side and server backend"!
Please do not misunderstand me, I am well aware of the complexity that currently pervades modern in-browser "app" development.
It just frustrates me that we are making extremely complicated programs to work around a plethora of shortfalls in the architecture and design limitations of this platform. Speak to an assembler developer from the 80s. Yes, lots of chips to choose from. A lot of work was required for performance. But the key point is that they programs **did** perform extremely well.
Contrast that to today: gob-loads of complexity, but very very little to gain for it.
I do not buy that the price of a "web app" or "cloud program" or the next big "2.0 thing" is exceedingly complex software.
Am happy to debate, please enlighten me!!
"and can be serving other requests in the meantime."
Kind of.
The point that everyone seems to forget is that at the end of the day the "work must be done". It doesn't necessarily matter if you do it via some fancy non-blocking IO framework, or multiple threads, the WORK MUST BE DONE.
Please try to remember that.
Node.js is no magic silver bullet, not by any measure!
Good post, but with all due respect, using C# to achieve this was the wrong choice to start with.
So of course moving to node.js felt wonderful!!!
"you can write open APIs that enables your frontend to render in OpenGL, Canvas as well as HTML."
So which one do you choose? And why?
"While JavaScript is gaining more features from C++ in each release"
When you want to develop stable code, this is not actually the benefit you are claiming it to be...
"1) use JS everywhere: back-end (including the DB) and front-end."
I understand what you are saying, and I've read a good load of posts in this forum claiming the same...
But I must ask why??
While the language syntax might be the same, the object model, pattern, and coding structure of what you are trying to do is **entirely different**!!!
For this reason along I simply do not understand the benefits...
Sure it's easy to optimise code:
Just replace:
do something 100 times {
do something 100 times {
do something 100 times {
actuallyDoIt();
}
}
}
With:
JustDoIt1000000Times();
Or peer deeper and:
DontDoItAtAll(); ...amazing!!