Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
I don't see how a polygraph can't help someone questioning a subject. Maybe you misunderstand how they are actually used. You should be more worried about the examiner than the machine, it's just a tool, but he has many more tricks to make you trip up. Remember, a machine can't say you're guilty (or lying), but it can help someone catch you.
Is that rhetorical sarcasm or something? How could something INTENDED to be used an online storage be as BAD as gmailfs? Some karma whore just got +4 insightful for providing a summary of gmailfs and not answering your f'ing question, WTF?
This would most likely be served via WebDAV, so YES, it could be 1000x better than gmailfs. I really don't understand how you think it could be worse, or even on par for that matter. FTP would be a step up from that hack.
Time to whore it up.. I didn't write this spooge, your brethren at wikipedia did.
"The WebDAV protocol allows "Intercreativity," making the Web a readable and writable medium, in line with Tim Berners-Lee's original vision.[1] It allows users to create, change and move documents on a remote server (typically a web server or "web share"). This is useful for authoring the documents that a web server serves, but it can also be used for storing files on the web, so that the files can be accessed from anywhere."
Will it have backup abilities? WTF? You either uploaded a file to it, thus implying you had access to it, enabling you to back it up. Or you can download the file from it, thus implying you have access to it, enabling you to back it up.
WOW, well that's just grand if all everyone wanted to do was keep immutable copies of their documents on the Internet. That's a pretty ignorant notion considering Google itself has an array of online office productivity apps.
It will either need a separate backup solution, or bidirectional replication like Apple's iDisk. I'm betting replication. Last time I checked, Google apps couldn't access WebDAV documents. It's too damned obvious, and Google is chock full of Apple users. Synced online storage + online apps == DUH. They had to have been holding out for this, their own competing storage service.
Sun clinges to solaris like if it was a tecnical miracle and hey, look at linux, they aint that much different and that counts at the market.
I think this is exactly why Sun is having trouble.. They are so horrible at marketing their stuff everyone thinks it's just like Dell but different, or just like Linux but different. I hate to say it, but the only way to show Solaris's value is going to be getting dirty with Linux, and that isn't going to be very popular in some crowds. Look at Apple's Mac/PC ads for instance. Same thing there, everyone thought (thinks?) Apple hardware was just the same as Dells but more expensive, and that OS X was Windows without the apps. Works though, once you hit a certain threshold, word of mouth takes over and stomps out the ignorance.
The result of seven isn't a bug, but the interface is all wrong for that result, IMO. The calculator should either display the immediate results, or display the entire operation it's about to analyze. It should be clear what route it's taking at least. 'Scientific' mode confusingly displays only the last number entered, but performs the whole series of entries with "proper" order of operations" There's a "proper" order of operations, and there's the order of operations I give it.
Standard mode at least shows the interim results when the next operator is pressed. There should be few surprises that this result isn't refactored with "proper" order of operations. Scientific however... gah, what were they thinking? Not showing interim results is supposed to be a hint that the thing is not going to perform commands in the order I gave it? That's rough.
I honestly think a reliance on user-generated content is a sign the social aspect is seriously broke. If the virt world doesn't facilitate communicating about the real world, fake world crap is the answer.
Home COULD work, but they need to add some very basic stuff first.
Consoles haven't had IM or chatroom features for a long time even thought they've been steadily building up multiplayer online games. From what I understand, Xbox Live has some kind if chat room features too, but I think it's based on inviting people from your friends list. Prior to Home, you could do the same on PSN. I think the more mature, older gamers don't like the idea of adding random strangers we play games with to a "friends" list, much less chatting with them.
I think what they really need is something like IRC. Home should establish some kind of GAME RELATED context, not fake bowling alley / mall. I occasionally want to talk about feature X in game Y.. even if the expert on the subject has a whiney voice and is fifteen years younger than I. Or what about coop campaign, how to older gamers do this? I don't live in a dorm full of friends who buy video games. Rather than building a list of fake "friends", I'd rather team up with someone at random, on the spot, when I felt like it. Home really makes that difficult. Why is there no way to tell Home, "I have these games, put me in these rooms." Let me just talk with other people who own the same games or are interested in them. I don't care what the freaking visual content is - add it LATER.
Once they fix the social, and technical aspects, the visual stuff should be secondary. Sell addon content & advertise to a social system that works first. Who TF is going to go into Home... for the sake of buying virtual crap and ads? Ah, anyway, it fills a gaping hole in console gaming, so don't count it out yet.
Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.
Consoles need chatrooms & more public socializing. Virt world == 3D chatroom. Fix the social, add 3D, monetize.
But whatever, twitter is *hip* right now, I should be quite.
I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.
blog, rss?
There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch
If there is any value in microblogging at all, I think that's it.
Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web.
Gosh... need I say anything here?;)
but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post.
When I want to read other people's brain farts (or cut my own), I go to Slashdot or other forums;) I guess I might be interested in what my friends are doing now and then, and we rarely write full emails back and forth.
I'm not saying it's useless, but it is the cheapest form of communication, short text messages, and it's broadcast publicly. I don't see how the real value isn't going to be very far and few between with that model. At least a blog encourages SOME level of forethought. Sure many people speak less freely on them, but.. maybe that's a good thing?
The reason why the GPL works the way it does for libraries is because how C works. In C using a library starts with "#include "
So... define the prototypes and constants yourself then? It's fairly simply to discover the interface of an open source library after all. I'm fairly sure it's the dependancies themselves, not in the details of how things are compiled. Even better, don't GPL the freaking header files. I don't think this is the real problem.
If the GPL has one big flaw its really the weirdness that it based around C-like, instead of having a more meaningful way to being applied to all software.
I don't know what you're talking about, it already is more abstract then you make it out to be. What dependancies on C are there? Look, I'm by no means advocating the GPL, I some of it is pushing it, like the "anti-tivoization" crud. I guess I can understand their intent though.. you can't do what you want with the software if the only device it runs on disallows your modifications. It breaks the spirit of the GPL... kind of I guess. But what GPL software is there on a Tivo you can't run on a PC? Ehh.. I'm not crazy about it, but whatever.
GPL v2
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
I still don't understand how this prevents me from distributing proprietary, closed source software linking against unmodified GPL libraries. It's pretty f'ed up to consider linking against a shared library a derivation of that library. Even then, as long as you don't distribute your "derivative" with the library you'd be fine. I think this was originally to protect against someone trying to 'extend' a GPL program in some evil way, and distribute the whole deal with non-GPL extensions intact. This is obviously NOT what most people linking closed software to GPL shared libraries are doing; shared libs are MEANT to be used exactly like that. Ahh beats me. I think free, free, and open source software are all just dandy, but I disagree with FSF and OSI's methods of promoting their ideals. They make it really hard to be on their side sometimes.
I think it's fair to consider time to resume from hibernation when talking about boot times. On some systems, hibernation (or "Safe Sleep") is automatic, anytime the system sleeps. Because of that, portable devices can have very high hibernation resume to cold boot ratios. Honestly, I can't think of a good reason there shouldn't be many more sleep/hibernation resumes than cold boots for any PC, unless the OS really sucks at doing it, or the user is a masochist. - NOT reasons to discount it for systems that do it well.
Anyway, especially for portables, hibernation resume time at least should be highly relevant. Cold booting a PC should be up there with jumpstarting a car nowadays. As in, as long as it's a somewhat reasonable time, who cares. If you have to do it often, you have greater problems.
That is, shifting the responsibility for the schedule of the whole project to the lower levels.
#1 reason I want to fly Pushing scheduling for two projects that involve restarting _all_ in house OLTP apps & DBs (config change) and related servers (monthly, patching) onto a UNIX SA. Might not sound so scary if we weren't processing financial transactions Me: Everything is redundant right? Dev: Sometimes Mgmt: Do it with no downtime, everything is magically redundant, push your easy button dumbass
Average uptime on servers: 2 years Time with company: less than one year
Me: This clearly hasn't been done before, and I'm not so sure I should be testing our redundancy in the process Mgmt: Hey dumbass, a new partner goes live next week, don't fcsk it up
Other reasons i have seen for stress and frustration: bad information system infrastructure. For example everybody handle backups himself.
So true. Letting everyone do backups is the same as nobody doing backups. Every SA thinks they can do backups, but miss the entire point of it. It's not about 'doing' backups. That part is like putting parachutes on a plane or life preservers on a ship. The difference between a team of SAs and a backup admin is how they answer this one question.
How safe are we? ---------------- We have some parachutes I think our seats float We're not really flying that high Sharks don't like shallow water If you roll in the air, it'll soften the impact We can all swim Haven't lost anyone yet ------ vs. ------ We have thirty passengers on board, sixty parachutes, forty life preservers and four life rafts a flare gun, a map, a swiss army knife, and Chuck Norris. You will not lose anyone
Well, if you actually did research this instead of googling for ten seconds, you'd know this blog entry doesn't prove you right. That blog is just a fairly shallow comparison of FAT and EXT.
Fragmentation thus only becomes an issue on ths latter type of system when a disk is so full that there just aren't any gaps a large file can be put into without splitting it up. So long as the disk is less than about 80% full, this is unlikely to happen.
Linux EXT filesystems can fragment, and the only way to fix that is by moving everything off then back onto the disk. 80% is a complete guess, it has more to do with the number of files in the filesystem and how fast they grow.
The second scatters files all over the disk so there's plenty of free space if the file's size changes. It can also re-arrange files on-the-fly, since it has plenty of empty space to shuffle around.
That would be called defragmenting, if it is indeed true anyway.
Every filesystem can become fragmented, EXTs, NTFS, ZFS, and so on, and on...
I know you're trying to make Windows look better then it actually is, but you got to look at yourself and what you're doing.
A tool to check for and reduce filesystem fragmentation is a feature. You can pretend all you want, but your EXT filesystem can become fragmented, and if it happens, you will have no tool to diagnose the problem. Doing a full filesystem restore is the only fix. How much of a problem fragmentation is depends on the filesystem implementation. There are plenty of real disk usage patterns that lead to fragmentation quicker than others, and at least Windows has some recourse when it happens.
Trying to explain why git is better than svn is like trying to explain why svn is better than cvs. To someone who has never used it, they simply can't imagine anything better. I've actually been in the position of advocating svn over cvs and been shot down with arguments much the same as you are making now (that cvs has almost everything svn has).
Well this is a little different, one uses an entirely different model than the other two doesn't it?
I think it all depends on what features you intend to leverage. I don't remember asking "which is better". I asked if git has real benefits for small teams also, or if SVN (or CVS) are just as good. Git sounds like it's really designed for large teams of strangers on the Internet, I could understand if that doesn't immediately benefit small teams. I'm just asking. At work, we migrated our CVS repository to SVN so we can host it from Apache with Active Directory providing authentication. It was a brain dead simple decision for us. No more shell accounts for everyone and his brother on the VCS server, Apache, flexible authentication methods. None of that had to do with SVN being a better or worse VCS than CVS. Those are reasons a business might migrate from CVS to SVN, certainly not a small team or even a huge team of kernel hackers for that matter. Well, lack of shell accounts might make SVN hosting services more freely available to the small teams, sort of an indirect benefit.
Everything on the client side that svn does, git does better. I want to list more actual use cases, but this post keeps getting too long. So Instead I'm going to encourage you to experiment with git svn at work, or on one of your personal projects. You'll mess up a couple times at first, but the productivity you gain after a few days will be well worth it. I've converted a couple people at work, and they seem happy. Personally my productivity has doubled or even tripled, although I cannot guarantee that will be the case for everyone.
I'll try to play with it at work I guess.
Another benefit is that as you are working, you can add your current work without committing and diff that version against any new changes you make.
This is the kind of stuff I was asking for. You don't need to carry a repository around on your laptop to track all your offline changes. I think that would benefit small teams, even individual users like me. I suppose I should have said DVCS and CVCS as instead of git and svn. I was interested in any specific advantages of git though. I'm looking at it from a high level you know, connection methods, offline availability, workflows, etc. You talked me into trying it at least, but I suppose I should check out other DVCS systems too.
All of those problems go away when you can easily merge, because then branches cease to be painful - but then I've found that the best merges Git makes are the ones you get from rebaseing or cherry-picking, which SVN cannot do.
When was the last time you used SVN? Everything you just said is very confusing, 1.5 came out over a year ago and seems to have most of the features you say it does not.
Suppose you are a contributor to a large project, and you want to add a complicated feature, and to present it to the other developers in a way that makes it easy for them to read your changes, verify that they are correct, and understand why you made each change.
If you present all of your changes as a single patch (or commit), they may find that it is too much to digest all at once.
If you present them with the entire history of your work, complete with mistakes, corrections, and dead ends, they may be overwhelmed.
Just seems a little superficial to me:\ A single patch is too much, the actual VCS history is too much, so the ideal is offering a doctored up change history? Wouldn't the end result be more interesting? I think good source comments with other documentation would be easier to understand and more proper than reviewing the change history of someone's patch. Since when was how someone's patch was developed more important than what was developed? Isn't diving into the VCS to find reasons for something being just a sign that the code wasn't documented properly? So, yes, we dive into VCS history to solve preexisting documentation problems, but when it comes to accepting someone else's patch, isn't that the time to simply demand good comments and or documentation?
I like what I've heard of DVCS systems so far, but I don't see what the mad rush to git is all about. Maybe it just makes more sense in the OSS context where a bunch of strangers are working on a project, wherever, whenever they want to. *shrugs*
Unfortunately, the problem with earlier SCM's is that in creating state H they try to merge both D and G into F. They forget that D was already merged into E, and try to merge it in again. This obviously causes problems; either conflicts; or even worse, mysterious code duplication or deletion.
To work around this, many coders made scripts that recorded the previous merge point through automated tags or other magic. Unfortunately, the diagram I showed above is a relatively simple case. The history graph can be much more complicated, and simple scripts will break.
Git solves all of this by knowing the topology of the ancestry diagram. It knows exactly what has been previously merged, and what hasn't. This means when multiple branches are merging between themselves it "just works".
With subversion, don't you merge a specific range of revisions, such as "C->G" in your example? Also, while maybe not as nice as git's merging, isn't subversion 1.5's merge-tracking exactly what you're talking about? Now the range of revisions doesn't need to be specified, AFAIK. source
I'd love to hear from anyone who has both git and svn experience. I't be interesting to know if there are any features that would benefit smallish teams, or if subversion has more or less been keeping up in that area.
One more "I only know git because when I was looking at code versioning systems it looked cooler than CVS" post is gonna make me throw up.
The US Senate, SAA runs MS-SQL clusters, Oracle on Unix, and I believe DB2 on their mainframe. 30 something exchange servers too.
Put that in your govt/DoD systems pipe and smoke it.;)
These projects all pretty much have site licensing...so, you roll a new Oracle install whenever you need it.
Well, if we're talking govt/DoD, then you'd know they have site licensing for a great many things. The govt is probably the reason most commercial software companies even offer a site licensing deals.
All software can be argued to have bugs, so "not buggy" means "not unreasonably buggy" in most contexts.
If you've ever dealt with Vmotion or really any VMWare product then you wouldn't be saying it's not buggy.
I do work with these, and I can't agree with you. Nothing this complex will be perfect, and VMWare has bugs like any other complex piece of software, but what makes you call it buggy? What definition of buggy are YOU using?
Other VM solutions sure do compete with VMWare, but "less buggy" is not an angle they can attack by any means. I think the same is true of Microsoft's enterprise software products. Some call them buggy, but I want to know what they're calling the competition after that ridiculous redefinition of "buggy".:)
Thanks for that. I see that half of their coolest ten are all Linux. Not run on Linux, but ARE Linux!
...and two of them are just different versions of Ubuntu. WTF?
How about OpenSolaris for Christ's sake? The first Sun supported Solaris LIVE CD for desktops, had it's initial 2008.05 release and a new 2008.11 release this year. That's just not as cool as Ubuntu, and... newer Ubuntu I guess. What in 2008 did these Linux distros do that rates being in a top 10 OSS list anyway? OpenSolaris had it's _FIRST_ release at least, I would expect that at a minimum. Two f'ing Ubuntu's...
I wish slashdot would quit posting interesting summaries of mediocre websites and stories.
(c) transmitting, by the server process to each client process, the positions of less than all of the avatars that are not associated with the client process; and
Not necessarily--I don't think that most games implement fallout of excess avatars. (Especially shooters.) Both because that's unfair to players to do with their enemies, and because they have a fairly limited scope of the number of avatars that can be present on screen anyways.
It just says less than all avatars. Like, only the ones in front of and within a certain distance (like other poster said), or only avatars in same building you are. Even in an MMO, you don't want to be in a position where avatars you SHOULD see can't be displayed right?
QuakeWorld certainly did send every single player location to each client, regardless of location or visibility, but that may have been changed after it was open sourced. OTOH, I'm fairly certain that Starsiege Tribes, published in '98, was heavily optimized for modem connections, and sent only player data from the same indoor structure you were in unless they (or you) stood near the doorway. Maybe someone more familiar with the technology in that game could correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Apple takes away option to install individual software updates 2. There are fifty more "Apple is so Fischer Price", "Mac don't give you the same level of control as Linux" etc posts in every Apple related article 3. Linux and Windows systems don't check firmware levels before updates at all. AFAIK, Solaris patches don't even automatically check firmware levels or block installs, but I might be wrong. 4 Well, yes, the update should've checked first. Apple must have assumed body would uncheck the firmware update but still install the system update. Assume == Ass
I don't see defensive Apple zealots, in fact, here are ALL the posts above, including yours..
Yet another FW update that bricks machines.
So, when you discouvered your Mac had what you thought was a hardware failure, who talked you back from the ledge? Are you in therapy?
Hi, I'm a Mac! Look at me, I can update myself! Hi, I'm a PC! Wow look at that, he's updating himself! So how's the update going, Mac? Hello? Hello? Hellooooo!
Haha:-D
Apple zealots defending this lack of testing to their death. Imagine the trolls that would be out if this were a Vista update;-)
I know which system slashtarded trolls mostly support, and it's not Vista either. It's the one system that doesn't get idiotic comments like all the above, because updates _neeeeeever_ break it, and bad things just don't happen to it (that Slashdot reports). Quit making the rest of that community look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
hi dave
do a google search with the phrase:
"is ploygraph testing valid?"
the first page pretty much blows your comments
right out of the water.
aint google great regards,
mike
From the first page in a Google query for "is polygraph testing valid?"
http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html
Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
I don't see how a polygraph can't help someone questioning a subject. Maybe you misunderstand how they are actually used. You should be more worried about the examiner than the machine, it's just a tool, but he has many more tricks to make you trip up. Remember, a machine can't say you're guilty (or lying), but it can help someone catch you.
I wonder if this will be as good as gmailfs.
Is that rhetorical sarcasm or something?
How could something INTENDED to be used an online storage be as BAD as gmailfs?
Some karma whore just got +4 insightful for providing a summary of gmailfs and not answering your f'ing question, WTF?
This would most likely be served via WebDAV, so YES, it could be 1000x better than gmailfs.
I really don't understand how you think it could be worse, or even on par for that matter. FTP would be a step up from that hack.
Time to whore it up.. I didn't write this spooge, your brethren at wikipedia did.
"The WebDAV protocol allows "Intercreativity," making the Web a readable and writable medium, in line with Tim Berners-Lee's original vision.[1] It allows users to create, change and move documents on a remote server (typically a web server or "web share"). This is useful for authoring the documents that a web server serves, but it can also be used for storing files on the web, so that the files can be accessed from anywhere."
Will it have backup abilities? WTF? You either uploaded a file to it, thus implying you had access to it, enabling you to back it up. Or you can download the file from it, thus implying you have access to it, enabling you to back it up.
WOW, well that's just grand if all everyone wanted to do was keep immutable copies of their documents on the Internet.
That's a pretty ignorant notion considering Google itself has an array of online office productivity apps.
It will either need a separate backup solution, or bidirectional replication like Apple's iDisk. I'm betting replication.
Last time I checked, Google apps couldn't access WebDAV documents. It's too damned obvious, and Google is chock full of Apple users. Synced online storage + online apps == DUH. They had to have been holding out for this, their own competing storage service.
And daddy has nothing to do with that?
Yeah.
Torvalds has kids too, but they will be karate champions AND penguin hackers.
HOHO, take THAT!
(here is to hoping you have a sense of humor)
ROFL @ thinking 19 & 16 year old children are swayed one inch by their father's will :)
Sun clinges to solaris like if it was a tecnical miracle and hey, look at linux, they aint that much different and that counts at the market.
I think this is exactly why Sun is having trouble.. They are so horrible at marketing their stuff everyone thinks it's just like Dell but different, or just like Linux but different. I hate to say it, but the only way to show Solaris's value is going to be getting dirty with Linux, and that isn't going to be very popular in some crowds. Look at Apple's Mac/PC ads for instance. Same thing there, everyone thought (thinks?) Apple hardware was just the same as Dells but more expensive, and that OS X was Windows without the apps. Works though, once you hit a certain threshold, word of mouth takes over and stomps out the ignorance.
I think you're seriously undervaluing Solaris. Killing it wouldn't be doing anyone any favors.
The result of seven isn't a bug, but the interface is all wrong for that result, IMO. The calculator should either display the immediate results, or display the entire operation it's about to analyze. It should be clear what route it's taking at least. 'Scientific' mode confusingly displays only the last number entered, but performs the whole series of entries with "proper" order of operations" There's a "proper" order of operations, and there's the order of operations I give it.
Standard mode at least shows the interim results when the next operator is pressed. There should be few surprises that this result isn't refactored with "proper" order of operations. Scientific however... gah, what were they thinking? Not showing interim results is supposed to be a hint that the thing is not going to perform commands in the order I gave it? That's rough.
Sorry, replying to myself
I honestly think a reliance on user-generated content is a sign the social aspect is seriously broke. If the virt world doesn't facilitate communicating about the real world, fake world crap is the answer.
Home COULD work, but they need to add some very basic stuff first.
Consoles haven't had IM or chatroom features for a long time even thought they've been steadily building up multiplayer online games.
From what I understand, Xbox Live has some kind if chat room features too, but I think it's based on inviting people from your friends list. Prior to Home, you could do the same on PSN. I think the more mature, older gamers don't like the idea of adding random strangers we play games with to a "friends" list, much less chatting with them.
I think what they really need is something like IRC. Home should establish some kind of GAME RELATED context, not fake bowling alley / mall. I occasionally want to talk about feature X in game Y.. even if the expert on the subject has a whiney voice and is fifteen years younger than I. Or what about coop campaign, how to older gamers do this? I don't live in a dorm full of friends who buy video games. Rather than building a list of fake "friends", I'd rather team up with someone at random, on the spot, when I felt like it. Home really makes that difficult. Why is there no way to tell Home, "I have these games, put me in these rooms." Let me just talk with other people who own the same games or are interested in them. I don't care what the freaking visual content is - add it LATER.
Once they fix the social, and technical aspects, the visual stuff should be secondary. Sell addon content & advertise to a social system that works first. Who TF is going to go into Home... for the sake of buying virtual crap and ads? Ah, anyway, it fills a gaping hole in console gaming, so don't count it out yet.
Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.
Consoles need chatrooms & more public socializing. Virt world == 3D chatroom. Fix the social, add 3D, monetize.
Ugh... mailing lists and RSS.
But whatever, twitter is *hip* right now, I should be quite.
I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.
blog, rss?
There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch
If there is any value in microblogging at all, I think that's it.
Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web.
Gosh... need I say anything here? ;)
but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post.
When I want to read other people's brain farts (or cut my own), I go to Slashdot or other forums ;)
I guess I might be interested in what my friends are doing now and then, and we rarely write full emails back and forth.
I'm not saying it's useless, but it is the cheapest form of communication, short text messages, and it's broadcast publicly. I don't see how the real value isn't going to be very far and few between with that model. At least a blog encourages SOME level of forethought. Sure many people speak less freely on them, but.. maybe that's a good thing?
To nitpick...
Maxtor bought Quantum HDD in 2000.
The reason why the GPL works the way it does for libraries is because how C works. In C using a library starts with "#include "
So... define the prototypes and constants yourself then? It's fairly simply to discover the interface of an open source library after all. I'm fairly sure it's the dependancies themselves, not in the details of how things are compiled. Even better, don't GPL the freaking header files. I don't think this is the real problem.
If the GPL has one big flaw its really the weirdness that it based around C-like, instead of having a more meaningful way to being applied to all software.
I don't know what you're talking about, it already is more abstract then you make it out to be. What dependancies on C are there? Look, I'm by no means advocating the GPL, I some of it is pushing it, like the "anti-tivoization" crud. I guess I can understand their intent though.. you can't do what you want with the software if the only device it runs on disallows your modifications. It breaks the spirit of the GPL... kind of I guess. But what GPL software is there on a Tivo you can't run on a PC? Ehh.. I'm not crazy about it, but whatever.
GPL v2
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
I still don't understand how this prevents me from distributing proprietary, closed source software linking against unmodified GPL libraries. It's pretty f'ed up to consider linking against a shared library a derivation of that library. Even then, as long as you don't distribute your "derivative" with the library you'd be fine. I think this was originally to protect against someone trying to 'extend' a GPL program in some evil way, and distribute the whole deal with non-GPL extensions intact. This is obviously NOT what most people linking closed software to GPL shared libraries are doing; shared libs are MEANT to be used exactly like that. Ahh beats me. I think free, free, and open source software are all just dandy, but I disagree with FSF and OSI's methods of promoting their ideals. They make it really hard to be on their side sometimes.
I think it's fair to consider time to resume from hibernation when talking about boot times. On some systems, hibernation (or "Safe Sleep") is automatic, anytime the system sleeps. Because of that, portable devices can have very high hibernation resume to cold boot ratios. Honestly, I can't think of a good reason there shouldn't be many more sleep/hibernation resumes than cold boots for any PC, unless the OS really sucks at doing it, or the user is a masochist. - NOT reasons to discount it for systems that do it well.
Anyway, especially for portables, hibernation resume time at least should be highly relevant. Cold booting a PC should be up there with jumpstarting a car nowadays. As in, as long as it's a somewhat reasonable time, who cares. If you have to do it often, you have greater problems.
+1
Thank you, I don't feel so alone.
That is, shifting the responsibility for the schedule of the whole project to the lower levels.
#1 reason I want to fly
Pushing scheduling for two projects that involve restarting _all_ in house OLTP apps & DBs (config change) and related servers (monthly, patching) onto a UNIX SA. Might not sound so scary if we weren't processing financial transactions
Me: Everything is redundant right?
Dev: Sometimes
Mgmt: Do it with no downtime, everything is magically redundant, push your easy button dumbass
Average uptime on servers: 2 years
Time with company: less than one year
Me: This clearly hasn't been done before, and I'm not so sure I should be testing our redundancy in the process
Mgmt: Hey dumbass, a new partner goes live next week, don't fcsk it up
Other reasons i have seen for stress and frustration: bad information system infrastructure. For example everybody handle backups himself.
So true. Letting everyone do backups is the same as nobody doing backups. Every SA thinks they can do backups, but miss the entire point of it. It's not about 'doing' backups. That part is like putting parachutes on a plane or life preservers on a ship. The difference between a team of SAs and a backup admin is how they answer this one question.
How safe are we?
----------------
We have some parachutes
I think our seats float
We're not really flying that high
Sharks don't like shallow water
If you roll in the air, it'll soften the impact
We can all swim
Haven't lost anyone yet
------ vs. ------
We have thirty passengers on board, sixty parachutes, forty life preservers
and four life rafts
a flare gun, a map, a swiss army knife, and Chuck Norris.
You will not lose anyone
Well, if you actually did research this instead of googling for ten seconds, you'd know this blog entry doesn't prove you right.
That blog is just a fairly shallow comparison of FAT and EXT.
Fragmentation thus only becomes an issue on ths latter type of system when a disk is so full that there just aren't any gaps a large file can be put into without splitting it up. So long as the disk is less than about 80% full, this is unlikely to happen.
Linux EXT filesystems can fragment, and the only way to fix that is by moving everything off then back onto the disk. 80% is a complete guess, it has more to do with the number of files in the filesystem and how fast they grow.
The second scatters files all over the disk so there's plenty of free space if the file's size changes. It can also re-arrange files on-the-fly, since it has plenty of empty space to shuffle around.
That would be called defragmenting, if it is indeed true anyway.
Every filesystem can become fragmented, EXTs, NTFS, ZFS, and so on, and on...
I know you're trying to make Windows look better then it actually is, but you got to look at yourself and what you're doing.
A tool to check for and reduce filesystem fragmentation is a feature. You can pretend all you want, but your EXT filesystem can become fragmented, and if it happens, you will have no tool to diagnose the problem. Doing a full filesystem restore is the only fix. How much of a problem fragmentation is depends on the filesystem implementation. There are plenty of real disk usage patterns that lead to fragmentation quicker than others, and at least Windows has some recourse when it happens.
Trying to explain why git is better than svn is like trying to explain why svn is better than cvs. To someone who has never used it, they simply can't imagine anything better. I've actually been in the position of advocating svn over cvs and been shot down with arguments much the same as you are making now (that cvs has almost everything svn has).
Well this is a little different, one uses an entirely different model than the other two doesn't it?
I think it all depends on what features you intend to leverage. I don't remember asking "which is better". I asked if git has real benefits for small teams also, or if SVN (or CVS) are just as good. Git sounds like it's really designed for large teams of strangers on the Internet, I could understand if that doesn't immediately benefit small teams. I'm just asking. At work, we migrated our CVS repository to SVN so we can host it from Apache with Active Directory providing authentication. It was a brain dead simple decision for us. No more shell accounts for everyone and his brother on the VCS server, Apache, flexible authentication methods. None of that had to do with SVN being a better or worse VCS than CVS.
Those are reasons a business might migrate from CVS to SVN, certainly not a small team or even a huge team of kernel hackers for that matter. Well, lack of shell accounts might make SVN hosting services more freely available to the small teams, sort of an indirect benefit.
Everything on the client side that svn does, git does better. I want to list more actual use cases, but this post keeps getting too long. So Instead I'm going to encourage you to experiment with git svn at work, or on one of your personal projects. You'll mess up a couple times at first, but the productivity you gain after a few days will be well worth it. I've converted a couple people at work, and they seem happy. Personally my productivity has doubled or even tripled, although I cannot guarantee that will be the case for everyone.
I'll try to play with it at work I guess.
Another benefit is that as you are working, you can add your current work without committing and diff that version against any new changes you make.
This is the kind of stuff I was asking for. You don't need to carry a repository around on your laptop to track all your offline changes. I think that would benefit small teams, even individual users like me. I suppose I should have said DVCS and CVCS as instead of git and svn. I was interested in any specific advantages of git though. I'm looking at it from a high level you know, connection methods, offline availability, workflows, etc. You talked me into trying it at least, but I suppose I should check out other DVCS systems too.
All of those problems go away when you can easily merge, because then branches cease to be painful - but then I've found that the best merges Git makes are the ones you get from rebaseing or cherry-picking, which SVN cannot do.
When was the last time you used SVN? Everything you just said is very confusing, 1.5 came out over a year ago and seems to have most of the features you say it does not.
http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.5_releasenotes.html
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn-book.html#svn.branchmerge.cherrypicking
As for rebasing, this is the first I've heard of it. It sounds interesting, but I don't really understand the problem it was meant to solve.
From http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#using-git-rebase
Suppose you are a contributor to a large project, and you want to add a complicated feature, and to present it to the other developers in a way that makes it easy for them to read your changes, verify that they are correct, and understand why you made each change.
If you present all of your changes as a single patch (or commit), they may find that it is too much to digest all at once.
If you present them with the entire history of your work, complete with mistakes, corrections, and dead ends, they may be overwhelmed.
Just seems a little superficial to me :\ A single patch is too much, the actual VCS history is too much, so the ideal is offering a doctored up change history?
Wouldn't the end result be more interesting? I think good source comments with other documentation would be easier to understand and more proper than reviewing the change history of someone's patch.
Since when was how someone's patch was developed more important than what was developed? Isn't diving into the VCS to find reasons for something being just a sign that the code wasn't documented properly? So, yes, we dive into VCS history to solve preexisting documentation problems, but when it comes to accepting someone else's patch, isn't that the time to simply demand good comments and or documentation?
I like what I've heard of DVCS systems so far, but I don't see what the mad rush to git is all about. Maybe it just makes more sense in the OSS context where a bunch of strangers are working on a project, wherever, whenever they want to. *shrugs*
1A->B->C->E->F->H
1...\->D--^->G--^
Unfortunately, the problem with earlier SCM's is that in creating state H they try to merge both D and G into F. They forget that D was already merged into E, and try to merge it in again. This obviously causes problems; either conflicts; or even worse, mysterious code duplication or deletion.
To work around this, many coders made scripts that recorded the previous merge point through automated tags or other magic. Unfortunately, the diagram I showed above is a relatively simple case. The history graph can be much more complicated, and simple scripts will break.
Git solves all of this by knowing the topology of the ancestry diagram. It knows exactly what has been previously merged, and what hasn't. This means when multiple branches are merging between themselves it "just works".
With subversion, don't you merge a specific range of revisions, such as "C->G" in your example?
Also, while maybe not as nice as git's merging, isn't subversion 1.5's merge-tracking exactly what you're talking about? Now the range of revisions doesn't need to be specified, AFAIK.
source
I'd love to hear from anyone who has both git and svn experience. I't be interesting to know if there are any features that would benefit smallish teams, or if subversion has more or less been keeping up in that area.
One more "I only know git because when I was looking at code versioning systems it looked cooler than CVS" post is gonna make me throw up.
The US Senate, SAA runs MS-SQL clusters, Oracle on Unix, and I believe DB2 on their mainframe. 30 something exchange servers too.
Put that in your govt/DoD systems pipe and smoke it. ;)
These projects all pretty much have site licensing...so, you roll a new Oracle install whenever you need it.
Well, if we're talking govt/DoD, then you'd know they have site licensing for a great many things. The govt is probably the reason most commercial software companies even offer a site licensing deals.
Not buggy != without bugs
All software can be argued to have bugs, so "not buggy" means "not unreasonably buggy" in most contexts.
If you've ever dealt with Vmotion or really any VMWare product then you wouldn't be saying it's not buggy.
I do work with these, and I can't agree with you. Nothing this complex will be perfect, and VMWare has bugs like any other complex piece of software, but what makes you call it buggy? What definition of buggy are YOU using?
Other VM solutions sure do compete with VMWare, but "less buggy" is not an angle they can attack by any means. I think the same is true of Microsoft's enterprise software products. Some call them buggy, but I want to know what they're calling the competition after that ridiculous redefinition of "buggy". :)
Thanks for that. I see that half of their coolest ten are all Linux. Not run on Linux, but ARE Linux!
...and two of them are just different versions of Ubuntu. WTF?
How about OpenSolaris for Christ's sake? The first Sun supported Solaris LIVE CD for desktops, had it's initial 2008.05 release and a new 2008.11 release this year. That's just not as cool as Ubuntu, and... newer Ubuntu I guess. What in 2008 did these Linux distros do that rates being in a top 10 OSS list anyway? OpenSolaris had it's _FIRST_ release at least, I would expect that at a minimum. Two f'ing Ubuntu's...
I wish slashdot would quit posting interesting summaries of mediocre websites and stories.
It NEVER ends.
(c) transmitting, by the server process to each client process, the positions of less than all of the avatars that are not associated with the client process; and
Not necessarily--I don't think that most games implement fallout of excess avatars. (Especially shooters.) Both because that's unfair to players to do with their enemies, and because they have a fairly limited scope of the number of avatars that can be present on screen anyways.
It just says less than all avatars. Like, only the ones in front of and within a certain distance (like other poster said), or only avatars in same building you are. Even in an MMO, you don't want to be in a position where avatars you SHOULD see can't be displayed right?
QuakeWorld certainly did send every single player location to each client, regardless of location or visibility, but that may have been changed after it was open sourced. OTOH, I'm fairly certain that Starsiege Tribes, published in '98, was heavily optimized for modem connections, and sent only player data from the same indoor structure you were in unless they (or you) stood near the doorway. Maybe someone more familiar with the technology in that game could correct me if I'm wrong.
Apples are supposed to be ez-mode after all no?
1. Apple takes away option to install individual software updates
2. There are fifty more "Apple is so Fischer Price", "Mac don't give you the same level of control as Linux" etc posts in every Apple related article
3. Linux and Windows systems don't check firmware levels before updates at all. AFAIK, Solaris patches don't even automatically check firmware levels or block installs, but I might be wrong.
4 Well, yes, the update should've checked first. Apple must have assumed body would uncheck the firmware update but still install the system update. Assume == Ass
Apple is failing big time because you have to understand what's going on? Can you be more specific?
The documentation is the worst I've seen since the printed assembly dumps of CP/M.
/presses F1 , browses help screens. ...
again, could you be more specific?
What do you need to understand to do a software update? Click install... ?
I don't see defensive Apple zealots, in fact, here are ALL the posts above, including yours..
Yet another FW update that bricks machines.
So, when you discouvered your Mac had what you thought was a hardware failure, who talked you back from the ledge? Are you in therapy?
Hi, I'm a Mac! Look at me, I can update myself! Hi, I'm a PC! Wow look at that, he's updating himself! So how's the update going, Mac? Hello? Hello? Hellooooo!
Haha :-D
Apple zealots defending this lack of testing to their death. Imagine the trolls that would be out if this were a Vista update ;-)
I know which system slashtarded trolls mostly support, and it's not Vista either. It's the one system that doesn't get idiotic comments like all the above, because updates _neeeeeever_ break it, and bad things just don't happen to it (that Slashdot reports). Quit making the rest of that community look bad.