Emacs is, in my personally confident opinion after a decade of emacs use[1], a lousy interaction paradigm. The chording paradigm of vi is significantly better. If something could be done that's even more efficient, it would be great.
Eivind.
[1] Last year with vi keybindings, and then dropping emacs altogether and going with vim for about five years now.
There's no "two means". Evolution happens whenever you have mixing of data on reproduction, mutation (data increase), and selection. The rest is details. These details do NOT include "parent species is forced to adapt" - that's just one aspect of selection.
Anyway, assuming that there isn't somebody specifically setting out to fool us by making it LOOK like there's a common ancestor, there's no discussion about whether there is a common ancestor. There's tons and tons of interrelating evidence, including how our emotions work, the underlying chemistry of this on a simple level, the DNA matches, etc. Disbelieving this just shows ignorance. Trying to spread this ignorance generally shows disregard for the very book the people spreading ignorance claims to believe in (the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and this is false witness - which would be obvious if they actually checked the evidence instead of arguing a stupid belief.)
Oh, and language capability is also available in gorillas - you just need to give them something to express themselves with (keyboards work) and train them.
Dynamic binding from the point of view of the programmer can be optimized away by the compiler. This is done using type inference and type feedback, partial evaluation and JIT compilation. A good compiler will often (though not always) turn your dynamic binding into either a function call or inline code, depending on what's most efficient. Function calls are often cheaper than inlining code, due to code size busting caches.
Of course, the optimizations will not apply to all cases, and actually handling things as full dynamic binding in the moment is more expensive than a static binding. However, in a good compilation environment, most of what could be static is AFAIK resolved as static, without the programmer intervening.
Parent is wrong. Being more dynamic does not necessarily increase run time processing; there's a lot of ways to resolve that. In practice, more dynamic solutions are often slower - and the present Ruby is certainly a case in point - yet it's often possible to be more dynamic programming-wise without requiring run time processing. For a taste of this, look up the type inference work that was done for e.g. Self (search for Ole Aagesens "Concrete Type Inference: Deliviering Object Oriented Applications").
Ruby is slow. In practice, the development speed advantages you get from it will let you optimize the relevant parts from profiling, so you can get a higher effective speed from the same development time. Or more functionality, for the cases where the speed is "good enough". My experience with this has been that mostly the performance has been "good enough", that I've very occasionally had to optimize, and that there's been a single case where I just was too ambitious about how much a program had to do, and had to drop that program (some real time music generation which Ruby turned out to be too slow for.)
I'm a FreeBSD developer, and I'd guess the PC-BSD guys have taken a very good route. Working with this kind of thing inside FreeBSD is fairly difficult, due to the inertia of the FreeBSD project. That inertia is both a good and a bad thing - it allows the project to function fairly smoothly in a lot of other ways. It's not good for doing desktop improvements, unfortunately - too many people to consult with.
Playing that on the sideline and possibly adopting it into FreeBSD later (if both teams feel comfortable with it) seems a very good way to actually get this done.
I vary, depending on what I'm programming. For some types of projects, where there's a lot of fiddly details, I'll write draft code first, of fairly dubious quality, and then refactor goodness into the code later. For projects where I know what I want to do, I'll just write nice code at once.
Writing "crap" code (random variable names, somewhat haphazard organization, few design patterns) is a valid technique for getting the code out there so you have something concrete to work with. You'd probably best have spent some low number of years - say, five - writing high quality code first, so you know how to do that automatically and you're dropping quality for a valid reason, not just laziness.
I vote with my money: I consider Intel to behave badly, so I don't buy Intel if there's a reasonable alternative.
This is personal responsibility: I will try to avoid moving resources to a company that behaves badly, instead trying to move they resources where they do good.
If you read it as "If we can't do everything we should do nothing", you're missing the point. I'm saying that doing everything would be unacceptable - that we're avoiding filming 24/7 because it would be worse than accepting child porn. It's a cost/benefit analysis, where the cost isn't monetary, it's in the form of freedom.
You're actively facilitating child porn by using the Internet, which makes it available for cheap to your child porn using neighbour.
The question is, again, at what level we do this, and how we create the cut of "Actively support".
Emotionally reacting to "It's child porn" and thus justifying having a facist regime is lousy reasoning. And, as far as I can tell, "it's child porn" and "it's terrorists" are used that way in the US - including, just now, to rationalize blocking free information - even though the present regime has shown that they'll e.g. prosecute whistleblowers even though there are laws supposed to protect them.
To my mind, you're ignoring the problem. You're saying "This feels bad" and acting only based on your feeling. Some handwaving in a way that's at least as likely to be destructive as constructive, and that's it.
I've spent time hunting down child porn networks, sending information to the police detailing where the sites are. For stuff I've administered, I've accepted coorporation with the police beyond what's really legal. And for a couple of cases where there was no reaction from the police after a long period of time (year+), I've supplied information to vigilante groups instead. All of these expose me to legal risk.
In my opinion, you're ignoring the issue. You're just handwaving with your feelings, and argue for sacrificing other essential rights for a feeling of "I didn't ignore the issue."
OK, what are you doing about child abuse in the inner parts of Niger? What do you even KNOW about child abuse in the inner part of Niger? Nothing? Oh, so you've turned a blind eye to it, just like me?
Child abuse is nasty, definately. Most of us - me included - would definately like to avoid it. However, stopping it comes at a cost. We *could* have 24/7 filming of all children, and a police force dedicated to watching that no harm comes to them. Most of us agree that this would have too high a cost in other areas.
So, we can and probably should turn a "blind eye" to some child abuse. It's a damned situation - as emotional humans, we'd like to protect the children, because we care about them - but as rational adults, we have to face the facts and say, crying: "We have to allow some child abuse, because the alternatives are worse."
During the Internet boom, the only people NOT recommending patents were venture investors. They found patents to be useless, and product to be what counted...
Even with protection against "duplicate showing" in theatres (which would be necessary to support the business model you describe), this won't support high budget movies. It will support low budget movies, like e.g. Sin City.
People do NOT pay for development of shareware games that contain any reasonable amount of work compared to the commercial releases. Cutting off commercial games would effectively kill games-as-we-know-them. As you note, due to the possibility of actually hindering copying of online access, that genre would probably live on.
Recipies are *cheap* to create. I create about two per day, on average. While doing other things. Comparing them to other forms of "Intellectual property" need careful compensation for this factor.
My conclusion is that copyright is a business case in many cases; it also block a lot of other business cases. Attempting to totally land on one side of that fence is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. The real question is: Which tradeoff gives us the best society?
For some of us, it's the opposite. We find it so easy producing patentable ideas that there's no point in giving protection. Personally, I had the first patent-infringing idea *I remember* at the tender age of 8. A suspension system for trucks, which my father told me was already in use. As an adult, I searched up the patent - it had been patented decades before I was born.
I've since hit several others. I've also had several ideas that could have been patented, and where others have picked up on it. I've worked for ten years in startups, and so far I've seen a single case where patents has been of help - and I'm not sure how much help they are, as they've effectively kept the idea off the market (though in the control of the guy originally doing the work).
I've felt the annoyance when somebody has "leeched off" my work - yet, when thinking about it, I've found that this made society richer - and isn't that really *worth* being riled for a moment?
Abolishing copyright and patents would change where we put our resources. It would end high cost movies and probably end computer games as we know them. It would change the medical picture significantly, making research more legitimate (less corruption of research results), while removing one (of several) sources of research money for drugs. It would allow drug production to be much cheaper, and it would allow drug research to be much cheaper - as it would remove the protection for the tools used to create drugs.
Whether this would ultimately lead to more or less improvement in medical care than we see now is, to my mind, an open question. I know of no simulations and nobody that's done a really careful analysis. The only significant monetary interest blocks are on the side of keeping or extending patents, so that's where the arguments mostly go.
Your assumption is correct - we've generally optimized for throughput on large loads. Traditionally, our #1 benchmark has been "How fast can this make world?", meaning a full build of the entire system. Benchmarking systems was able to measure this at an accuracy of better than +- 0.1%. That's pretty damn good: To get that kind of accuracy required GPS clocks (accurate to better than 1ppm), cache preloading, and extreme temperature control of the machine.
I can't say how things are going right at the moment (I've been mostly offline from the FreeBSD development process for a couple of years), but when I "left" there was a number of things going on that should improve this: Preemtable kernel, pluggable schedulers, etc.
I think the ULE scheduler would give you more of the same performance curve as Linux, and it might be more suitable for desktop work. In general, I've found FreeBSD's performance fine for my personal desktop needs - it's been snappy enough, and my only issues have been when web browsers or similar eat enormous amounts of RAM and I/O capacity. I've not tested Linux for desktops for a good many years, so I don't have direct experience to say how it compares in practice.
Vote parent down as "Wrong". Why-of-why don't we have a "Factually incorrect" moderation?
NO, you cannot get cancer from living underneath pylons. The research this was based on had serious flaws. Counterevidence of this being electric fields: The effect only appear in a cut-off study, where people were classified as "living close to pylons" and "living far from pylons". When you start gradinging it, there was NO DIFFERENCE between living underneat pylons and living 200 yards from them. And other studies show no correlation at all.
The rest of the post is mostly irrelevant and/or too vague to disagree with. An important point is missed, though: The strength of the earth's natural field compared to the ones from electricity cables etc. The earth has a quite strong field...
If you don't get how the US is isolationist in any meaningful sense of the word, then that's a piece of evidence of the US being even more isolationist than I thought.
Average americans are isolated from knowledge of the rest of the world, to a degree that the rest of us find ridicilous. Segregating the Internet would be another step along this road.
I don't always work for the non-technical - I just have found that to be what generally works best. Techs very often think they know more about the problem area than they do, and thus will override based on their "gut feeling", and do tech judgements without consulting the person that's actually working on the specific things.
A non-technical *has* to rely on the information supplied by the techs.
Optimization of my diet makes my body run much better.
And eating what I am evolved to eat isn't an option: I'm evolved to eat a mixture of things that grow up in a totally mixed environment (no farming, other types of plants next to it), nuts, occasionally game, occasionally fish.
The trouble is that the earth can only support about 100 million people living this way. Which 98% do we kill off?
I would choose to work with bosses with significantly less clue than me. Enough that they *know* I'm better qualified than them. Every time I've been in a situation where it's felt "good", the boss has been fairly non-technical.
Also, I still defer various forms of development decisions to them - and give them my best estimates at what the costs and benefits of each path is. I do NOT try to force the decision - it is their decision, I'm just giving them the information they need to perform it.
This technique may work for the kind of bosses you describe - I don't know. I've always either had non-technicals or in-the-trenches bosses. Non-technical have been best.
You're assuming that copyright is property. It isn't. It's a privilege granted by society through the use of violence.
Copying a work is the part that is actual production, *and that is done by the end users*.
Yeah, I've read Ayn Rand. I think her philosophy is shortsighted and easily can appeal to people that lack proper mooring, so I've made sure to put away her books when I've got youngsters visiting.
You are making the assumption that "OS" is "kernel". It isn't. A kernel is a very small piece of an operating system. I have not at any time been talking about constructing the kernel in.NET; that would, indeed, be silly.
And I still suspect you're missing the point of how many OS components can run with effectively NO privileges, and how to use bridges for the cases where they don't. There is little point in arguing further, though - I'm obviously fairly short on knowledge of.NET, and from how you write it seems like you're not experienced with OS programming, which gives us very little common ground to discuss this (especially since I don't have time to learn details of.NET).
Slashdot Mirror
Eivind.
[1] Last year with vi keybindings, and then dropping emacs altogether and going with vim for about five years now.
Anyway, assuming that there isn't somebody specifically setting out to fool us by making it LOOK like there's a common ancestor, there's no discussion about whether there is a common ancestor. There's tons and tons of interrelating evidence, including how our emotions work, the underlying chemistry of this on a simple level, the DNA matches, etc. Disbelieving this just shows ignorance. Trying to spread this ignorance generally shows disregard for the very book the people spreading ignorance claims to believe in (the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and this is false witness - which would be obvious if they actually checked the evidence instead of arguing a stupid belief.)
Oh, and language capability is also available in gorillas - you just need to give them something to express themselves with (keyboards work) and train them.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Of course, the optimizations will not apply to all cases, and actually handling things as full dynamic binding in the moment is more expensive than a static binding. However, in a good compilation environment, most of what could be static is AFAIK resolved as static, without the programmer intervening.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Playing that on the sideline and possibly adopting it into FreeBSD later (if both teams feel comfortable with it) seems a very good way to actually get this done.
Eivind.
Writing "crap" code (random variable names, somewhat haphazard organization, few design patterns) is a valid technique for getting the code out there so you have something concrete to work with. You'd probably best have spent some low number of years - say, five - writing high quality code first, so you know how to do that automatically and you're dropping quality for a valid reason, not just laziness.
Eivind.
This is personal responsibility: I will try to avoid moving resources to a company that behaves badly, instead trying to move they resources where they do good.
Eivind.
You're actively facilitating child porn by using the Internet, which makes it available for cheap to your child porn using neighbour.
The question is, again, at what level we do this, and how we create the cut of "Actively support".
Emotionally reacting to "It's child porn" and thus justifying having a facist regime is lousy reasoning. And, as far as I can tell, "it's child porn" and "it's terrorists" are used that way in the US - including, just now, to rationalize blocking free information - even though the present regime has shown that they'll e.g. prosecute whistleblowers even though there are laws supposed to protect them.
Eivind.
I've spent time hunting down child porn networks, sending information to the police detailing where the sites are. For stuff I've administered, I've accepted coorporation with the police beyond what's really legal. And for a couple of cases where there was no reaction from the police after a long period of time (year+), I've supplied information to vigilante groups instead. All of these expose me to legal risk.
In my opinion, you're ignoring the issue. You're just handwaving with your feelings, and argue for sacrificing other essential rights for a feeling of "I didn't ignore the issue."
Eivind.
Child abuse is nasty, definately. Most of us - me included - would definately like to avoid it. However, stopping it comes at a cost. We *could* have 24/7 filming of all children, and a police force dedicated to watching that no harm comes to them. Most of us agree that this would have too high a cost in other areas.
So, we can and probably should turn a "blind eye" to some child abuse. It's a damned situation - as emotional humans, we'd like to protect the children, because we care about them - but as rational adults, we have to face the facts and say, crying: "We have to allow some child abuse, because the alternatives are worse."
Eivind.
Eivind.
People do NOT pay for development of shareware games that contain any reasonable amount of work compared to the commercial releases. Cutting off commercial games would effectively kill games-as-we-know-them. As you note, due to the possibility of actually hindering copying of online access, that genre would probably live on.
Fashion designs use a special kind of patent known as a "design patent": http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/defini tion.html#difference
Recipies are *cheap* to create. I create about two per day, on average. While doing other things. Comparing them to other forms of "Intellectual property" need careful compensation for this factor.
My conclusion is that copyright is a business case in many cases; it also block a lot of other business cases. Attempting to totally land on one side of that fence is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. The real question is: Which tradeoff gives us the best society?
Eivind.
I've since hit several others. I've also had several ideas that could have been patented, and where others have picked up on it. I've worked for ten years in startups, and so far I've seen a single case where patents has been of help - and I'm not sure how much help they are, as they've effectively kept the idea off the market (though in the control of the guy originally doing the work).
I've felt the annoyance when somebody has "leeched off" my work - yet, when thinking about it, I've found that this made society richer - and isn't that really *worth* being riled for a moment?
Abolishing copyright and patents would change where we put our resources. It would end high cost movies and probably end computer games as we know them. It would change the medical picture significantly, making research more legitimate (less corruption of research results), while removing one (of several) sources of research money for drugs. It would allow drug production to be much cheaper, and it would allow drug research to be much cheaper - as it would remove the protection for the tools used to create drugs.
Whether this would ultimately lead to more or less improvement in medical care than we see now is, to my mind, an open question. I know of no simulations and nobody that's done a really careful analysis. The only significant monetary interest blocks are on the side of keeping or extending patents, so that's where the arguments mostly go.
Eivind.
I think the only reasonable conclusions is that tumours attract cellphones.
Eivind.
I can't say how things are going right at the moment (I've been mostly offline from the FreeBSD development process for a couple of years), but when I "left" there was a number of things going on that should improve this: Preemtable kernel, pluggable schedulers, etc.
I think the ULE scheduler would give you more of the same performance curve as Linux, and it might be more suitable for desktop work. In general, I've found FreeBSD's performance fine for my personal desktop needs - it's been snappy enough, and my only issues have been when web browsers or similar eat enormous amounts of RAM and I/O capacity. I've not tested Linux for desktops for a good many years, so I don't have direct experience to say how it compares in practice.
Eivind (FreeBSD developer "in exile").
NO, you cannot get cancer from living underneath pylons. The research this was based on had serious flaws. Counterevidence of this being electric fields: The effect only appear in a cut-off study, where people were classified as "living close to pylons" and "living far from pylons". When you start gradinging it, there was NO DIFFERENCE between living underneat pylons and living 200 yards from them. And other studies show no correlation at all.
The rest of the post is mostly irrelevant and/or too vague to disagree with. An important point is missed, though: The strength of the earth's natural field compared to the ones from electricity cables etc. The earth has a quite strong field...
Eivind.
Average americans are isolated from knowledge of the rest of the world, to a degree that the rest of us find ridicilous. Segregating the Internet would be another step along this road.
Eivind.
A non-technical *has* to rely on the information supplied by the techs.
Eivind.
And eating what I am evolved to eat isn't an option: I'm evolved to eat a mixture of things that grow up in a totally mixed environment (no farming, other types of plants next to it), nuts, occasionally game, occasionally fish.
The trouble is that the earth can only support about 100 million people living this way. Which 98% do we kill off?
Eivind.
Also, I still defer various forms of development decisions to them - and give them my best estimates at what the costs and benefits of each path is. I do NOT try to force the decision - it is their decision, I'm just giving them the information they need to perform it.
This technique may work for the kind of bosses you describe - I don't know. I've always either had non-technicals or in-the-trenches bosses. Non-technical have been best.
Eivind.
Copying a work is the part that is actual production, *and that is done by the end users*.
Yeah, I've read Ayn Rand. I think her philosophy is shortsighted and easily can appeal to people that lack proper mooring, so I've made sure to put away her books when I've got youngsters visiting.
Eivind.
Eivind.
And I still suspect you're missing the point of how many OS components can run with effectively NO privileges, and how to use bridges for the cases where they don't. There is little point in arguing further, though - I'm obviously fairly short on knowledge of .NET, and from how you write it seems like you're not experienced with OS programming, which gives us very little common ground to discuss this (especially since I don't have time to learn details of .NET).
Let's just agree to disagree, OK?
Eivind.