I'm with you. Having just lost a hard drive (I suspect a bad motor, but luckily was able to salvage it before it went tits up), I absolutely value reliability over size. Fuck, I can BUY more size, but I can't really BUY more reliability for a consumer-grade machine (hey, if anybody has any tips, I'd love to know). Of course I could do a RAID setup if only for redundancy but that is just more shit to configure and more moving parts and software, more power, more fans, etc. etc. I would much much rather a hard drive a half or quarter or eighth of the size, that is twice or four times (or eight times!?) as reliable. Or maybe I should just get a tape backup. Incremental backup to CDs just seems like I giant fuckup - that means I have to keep piles and piles of CDs around, and CDs themselves are not that reliable.
How about some sort of hypothetical vehicle which takes the energy in fat stored in your body from delicious foods we eat (such as eclairs) and converts them into kinetic energy. I christen it the auto-locomotion-iola.
heh
But seriously, if we could just get something that incorporated some form of physical activity that would be great because I can hardly find time in my day for it. If I had to charge up a battery by cycling for half an hour before I got out the door that would be an incentive.
To rephrase a nice quote: On a long enough time scale, the price of oil goes to infinity. The cost is not relative to oil. It's relative to the cost of the collapse of world economy.
Yeah, "mass producing" fuel-cell cars is really going to help alot when we have zero fuel-cell and hydrogen generation infrastructure capacity. Generating hydrogen for the mythical fuel-cell car that is going to solve all our problems is going to be a massive problem. You need to expend energy to obtain that hydrogen which means you have to use traditional, non-renewable, dirty sources, or still find a renewable, clean SOURCE of energy. The only solution I can see is a massive amount of electrolysis stations distributed widely and decentralized, fueled by solar and/or coastal wave or thermal energy.
Fuel cell cars are going to be as useful as large mass-produced boulders unless we get all the rest of the framework to use them, which is itself going to require massive massive restructuring of our entire economy. (this is not to mention all the myriad things that are generated from oil by-products: plastics, rubbers, pharmaceuticals, synthetic fabrics, and on and on and on)
It's not really a matter of just "waiting" for the right forthcoming magical technology (right about now somebody will stand up and scold us for being so short-sighted when obviously THE NANITE TECHNOLOGY is going to save us if we just WAIT for it THANK GOD FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY). It's a matter of putting our shoulder to a big fucking heavy ugly yoke and starting to pull, because it's just not going get solved by itself. It took a national effort and commitment to get a man on the moon. I think this is a much greater problem but there is almost no political will to solve it. We can either do a lot of hard work now, or we can ignore it and have a drastic crash[*]. It seems like we are setting ourselves up for a crash.
[*] calculate further that the effort it will take to actually invent and deploy new technology and transition to its use will itself have to be facilitated by EXISTING energy sources, and you can see that there is a point of no return, after passing which we simply won't have enough resources to "invent" ourselves out of the problem.
I'm consistently impressed at the amount of effort poured into seemingly trivial hacks - not in the difficulty or complexity of the hack, but in it's shallow utility.
Either people are paying web "designers" to do a whole lot of nothing, or there is some screaming need that really calls for IETF/W3C to fix this properly.
His talk of swapping vs. paging sounds like rubbish to me. Why would you make a distinction. Once you have paging you have "swapping" since "swapping" is just (in his terminology) paging the entire process.
The memory used by the paged-out portions are not immediately released for use by other applications. Instead, they are kept on standby.
If the paged-out application is reactivated, it can instantly access the paged-out parts (which are still stored in system memory). But if another application requests for the memory space, then the system memory held by the paged-out data is released for its use. As you can see, this is really quite different from the way a swapfile works.
Hurhhwh? This seems to mix up the concepts of/address space/ and actual memory content. In all cases (swapping or paging), as far as I know, the process is ALWAYS given a consistent view of memory regardless of whether the memory content is materialized in main memory or persisted onto disk. What does he mean by "standby" if not "stored on disk". Is there some other sort of "standby" area? wtf? If another process asks for access to that memory RANGE, I sure as fuck hope it doesn't mean that the memory is "released for its use". Wtf does that mean? Isn't that the whole idea of memory protection? You can't just request to use other processes's memory without going through a shared mem or RPC api.
this article was useless, just use wikipedia, it's explained a lot better.
I agree. It's clear to me that C/C++ are simply dead ends for productive general application development. They simply make entirely wrong tradeoffs. Maintainability, accessibility, application development time, interoperability, are much much more important than whether your loop runs twice as fast. Mono will ONLY get faster, if only through sheer hardware improvements. On the other hand, C and C++ will NEVER get easier to write, maintain, debug, or avoid bugs with. I do various Java middleware and occasionally end-user application development in my day job, and I am very enthusiastic about Mono. I like Linux and open source (and participate in various projects, yadda yadda) but from my point of view, day to day application development on Linux is just a fucking mess I don't even want to get involved in. Mono has the promise of making this MUCH easier.
It seems to me that some important site still has to reference YOUR site to have it indexed in the first place, and furthermore, the reference has to have something to do with the topic you are trying to hijack.
For instance, if you were trying to hijack a fruitbat sight, you might need to convince some fruitbat webring, or zoology encyclopedia to reference your site, at which point you can start the hijacking. Otherwise your doppleganger site is going to get low pageranks (afferent links will be low value).
So... who cares if I "hijack" CNN.com, unless somebody really important links to me as CNN.
"Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?"
The "productivity" gains in business are due to increased facility with less competence. This type of efficiency is a benefit for business, but I dare say it is not for education in general.
Ok, can somebody give a high level overview of why someone would want to run their on PBX? Is there some savings over just getting a VOIP phone/service? Is it simply so you can gain greater control over voicemail, and other options, etc.? This seems like a cool project, but I'm not sure what the point is.
Furthermore, for true portability and flexibility, isn't making an assumption about the implementation dangerous (a la Deutsch "Fallacies of Distributed Computing", #1,2,5,7). What if we want to implement a system call in some sort of cluster environment, with potentially remote, distinct IO resource (such as disk)? Won't the everything-is-a-subroutine assumption fuck us over then?
I am obviously not as well versed in operating system design as you are, but it seems what you are posing is merely an impedence mismatch in programming models.
For programs that want IPC to work like a subroutine, blocking atomically, then yes implementing it as async IO in the kernel is a mismatch. But what about the reverse case? Are there not any examples of programs which would be better suited to queue and recieve IPC responses asynchronously? If you make IPC atomic this case is simply not possible. Whereas if you start with an asynchronous implementation, you can always optimize a fast path, with a blocking function like MsgSendAndRecieve(). Am I wrong?
Because GNU tools were largely a copy of existing unix software? Operating systems involve lots of very uninteresting work like driver development and debugging, so unless you reach a critical mass of acceptance, you can't get very far. Plus, Linux and other free operating systems have poached a lot of the talent I presume. Who wants to write a driver for Hurd when a driver for Linux will make you rich and famous and get girls (haha).
You don't really have to lie. You will just have to say up front: you are participating in an experiment where some groups will receive medication and some will not.
I doubt the up front statement will have significant placebo affect itself, especially if the study is done some time removed from the actual agreement (2 months?). Furthermore, if you phrase it correctly, the patient may assume that only those receiving *anything* are receiving medication, with the assumption that the others are simply not receiving anything, as opposed to receiving placebo. They may in fact be receiving placebo. There are any number of ways to do this without outright "lie"ing or "decieve"ing the patient. After all, why the hell would they agree to the experiment if they knew its premise and had problems with it? I guess maybe if it was _this medication may save your life_ vs. _oops you were in the placebo group_ then I guess they could be (unjustifiably) pissed. But that really isn't required for placebo testing right? It doesn't have to be life or death, it could be curing a rash, or something trivial.
I guess it would be infeasible that there would be shortages and spikes and hording and even violent conflict... it might "just work out" but there will certainly be growing pains.
What we need is an entire revolution in our energy economy. That means different sources of energy obviously, but also decentralized energy sources to reduce the transmission loss you describe, a revolution in building construction, and perhaps even a revolution in the social organization we live in (just think how many people COMMUTE to work...as energy gets more expensive the whole idea of living away from your work and physically moving your body to it becomes much more expensive).
Wow, who cares whether people think it's a "little economy item". They can feel free to purchase their vehicular fashion statement at $20/gallon when we start running out of oil. It's going to be a big fucking massive "economy item" soon.
There will be no use for hydrogen if we don't first create the vehicles and various other products that require it. It's a catch 22. I find it more feasible to create the products and then change from unrenewable hydrogen resources to renewable hydrogen resources, than to just mandate an entire shift over to renewable hydrogen sources without even any uses in the field. That would be putting the cart before the horse.
Slashdot Mirror
So... is Tasha Yar really dead or what?
I'm with you. Having just lost a hard drive (I suspect a bad motor, but luckily was able to salvage it before it went tits up), I absolutely value reliability over size. Fuck, I can BUY more size, but I can't really BUY more reliability for a consumer-grade machine (hey, if anybody has any tips, I'd love to know). Of course I could do a RAID setup if only for redundancy but that is just more shit to configure and more moving parts and software, more power, more fans, etc. etc. I would much much rather a hard drive a half or quarter or eighth of the size, that is twice or four times (or eight times!?) as reliable. Or maybe I should just get a tape backup. Incremental backup to CDs just seems like I giant fuckup - that means I have to keep piles and piles of CDs around, and CDs themselves are not that reliable.
How about some sort of hypothetical vehicle which takes the energy in fat stored in your body from delicious foods we eat (such as eclairs) and converts them into kinetic energy. I christen it the auto-locomotion-iola.
heh
But seriously, if we could just get something that incorporated some form of physical activity that would be great because I can hardly find time in my day for it. If I had to charge up a battery by cycling for half an hour before I got out the door that would be an incentive.
To rephrase a nice quote: On a long enough time scale, the price of oil goes to infinity. The cost is not relative to oil. It's relative to the cost of the collapse of world economy.
Yeah, "mass producing" fuel-cell cars is really going to help alot when we have zero fuel-cell and hydrogen generation infrastructure capacity. Generating hydrogen for the mythical fuel-cell car that is going to solve all our problems is going to be a massive problem. You need to expend energy to obtain that hydrogen which means you have to use traditional, non-renewable, dirty sources, or still find a renewable, clean SOURCE of energy. The only solution I can see is a massive amount of electrolysis stations distributed widely and decentralized, fueled by solar and/or coastal wave or thermal energy.
Fuel cell cars are going to be as useful as large mass-produced boulders unless we get all the rest of the framework to use them, which is itself going to require massive massive restructuring of our entire economy. (this is not to mention all the myriad things that are generated from oil by-products: plastics, rubbers, pharmaceuticals, synthetic fabrics, and on and on and on)
It's not really a matter of just "waiting" for the right forthcoming magical technology (right about now somebody will stand up and scold us for being so short-sighted when obviously THE NANITE TECHNOLOGY is going to save us if we just WAIT for it THANK GOD FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY). It's a matter of putting our shoulder to a big fucking heavy ugly yoke and starting to pull, because it's just not going get solved by itself. It took a national effort and commitment to get a man on the moon. I think this is a much greater problem but there is almost no political will to solve it. We can either do a lot of hard work now, or we can ignore it and have a drastic crash[*]. It seems like we are setting ourselves up for a crash.
[*] calculate further that the effort it will take to actually invent and deploy new technology and transition to its use will itself have to be facilitated by EXISTING energy sources, and you can see that there is a point of no return, after passing which we simply won't have enough resources to "invent" ourselves out of the problem.
I'm consistently impressed at the amount of effort poured into seemingly trivial hacks - not in the difficulty or complexity of the hack, but in it's shallow utility.
Either people are paying web "designers" to do a whole lot of nothing, or there is some screaming need that really calls for IETF/W3C to fix this properly.
I have absolutely no idea what any of this is about.
Are you in debt?!?
GE_T OU*T OF DEB?T FAST
with our fool.proof pla-n
banana charlie sprocket
But is he also the voice of Dr. Nick?
Hurhhwh? This seems to mix up the concepts of
this article was useless, just use wikipedia, it's explained a lot better.
Wikipedia: Virtual Memory
Damn, are we going to get a T-rexan in the white house?
I agree. It's clear to me that C/C++ are simply dead ends for productive general application development. They simply make entirely wrong tradeoffs. Maintainability, accessibility, application development time, interoperability, are much much more important than whether your loop runs twice as fast. Mono will ONLY get faster, if only through sheer hardware improvements. On the other hand, C and C++ will NEVER get easier to write, maintain, debug, or avoid bugs with. I do various Java middleware and occasionally end-user application development in my day job, and I am very enthusiastic about Mono. I like Linux and open source (and participate in various projects, yadda yadda) but from my point of view, day to day application development on Linux is just a fucking mess I don't even want to get involved in. Mono has the promise of making this MUCH easier.
It seems to me that some important site still has to reference YOUR site to have it indexed in the first place, and furthermore, the reference has to have something to do with the topic you are trying to hijack.
For instance, if you were trying to hijack a fruitbat sight, you might need to convince some fruitbat webring, or zoology encyclopedia to reference your site, at which point you can start the hijacking. Otherwise your doppleganger site is going to get low pageranks (afferent links will be low value).
So... who cares if I "hijack" CNN.com, unless somebody really important links to me as CNN.
"Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?"
The "productivity" gains in business are due to increased facility with less competence. This type of efficiency is a benefit for business, but I dare say it is not for education in general.
Ok, can somebody give a high level overview of why someone would want to run their on PBX? Is there some savings over just getting a VOIP phone/service? Is it simply so you can gain greater control over voicemail, and other options, etc.? This seems like a cool project, but I'm not sure what the point is.
Furthermore, for true portability and flexibility, isn't making an assumption about the implementation dangerous (a la Deutsch "Fallacies of Distributed Computing", #1,2,5,7). What if we want to implement a system call in some sort of cluster environment, with potentially remote, distinct IO resource (such as disk)? Won't the everything-is-a-subroutine assumption fuck us over then?
I am obviously not as well versed in operating system design as you are, but it seems what you are posing is merely an impedence mismatch in programming models.
For programs that want IPC to work like a subroutine, blocking atomically, then yes implementing it as async IO in the kernel is a mismatch. But what about the reverse case? Are there not any examples of programs which would be better suited to queue and recieve IPC responses asynchronously? If you make IPC atomic this case is simply not possible. Whereas if you start with an asynchronous implementation, you can always optimize a fast path, with a blocking function like MsgSendAndRecieve(). Am I wrong?
Because GNU tools were largely a copy of existing unix software? Operating systems involve lots of very uninteresting work like driver development and debugging, so unless you reach a critical mass of acceptance, you can't get very far. Plus, Linux and other free operating systems have poached a lot of the talent I presume. Who wants to write a driver for Hurd when a driver for Linux will make you rich and famous and get girls (haha).
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
GoboLinux
I am not clueless or Myths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux
GoboHide: surviving aside the legacy tree
You don't really have to lie. You will just have to say up front: you are participating in an experiment where some groups will receive medication and some will not.
I doubt the up front statement will have significant placebo affect itself, especially if the study is done some time removed from the actual agreement (2 months?). Furthermore, if you phrase it correctly, the patient may assume that only those receiving *anything* are receiving medication, with the assumption that the others are simply not receiving anything, as opposed to receiving placebo. They may in fact be receiving placebo. There are any number of ways to do this without outright "lie"ing or "decieve"ing the patient. After all, why the hell would they agree to the experiment if they knew its premise and had problems with it? I guess maybe if it was _this medication may save your life_ vs. _oops you were in the placebo group_ then I guess they could be (unjustifiably) pissed. But that really isn't required for placebo testing right? It doesn't have to be life or death, it could be curing a rash, or something trivial.
I guess it would be infeasible that there would be shortages and spikes and hording and even violent conflict... it might "just work out" but there will certainly be growing pains.
What we need is an entire revolution in our energy economy. That means different sources of energy obviously, but also decentralized energy sources to reduce the transmission loss you describe, a revolution in building construction, and perhaps even a revolution in the social organization we live in (just think how many people COMMUTE to work...as energy gets more expensive the whole idea of living away from your work and physically moving your body to it becomes much more expensive).
Wow, who cares whether people think it's a "little economy item". They can feel free to purchase their vehicular fashion statement at $20/gallon when we start running out of oil. It's going to be a big fucking massive "economy item" soon.
There will be no use for hydrogen if we don't first create the vehicles and various other products that require it. It's a catch 22. I find it more feasible to create the products and then change from unrenewable hydrogen resources to renewable hydrogen resources, than to just mandate an entire shift over to renewable hydrogen sources without even any uses in the field. That would be putting the cart before the horse.