Okay, right. And if I bang my head on the desk a couple times, I can even see how some MBA at G4 decided this would be a good idea. But then that spark of rationality that refuses to go away, no matter how much coffee and sugar I eat, speaks up and says, "What the hell is the point of buying the audience of a network if you're going to cut all the shows that they watched?". It'd be like Spike TV buying the O network so they can get an audience of female viewers, and then showing Stripperella and that extreme elemination show 24/7.
It's possible but unlikely that someone who's had regular access to Apple products since the age of 13 (and especially in the last 6 years - if he was 25 now he might have used them in school, thats less likely now) has a family income of less than $40,000. I'd say chances are fair-to-good that he's from an upper middle class or better family.
(1) There is no reason whatsoever that it would take a rewrite of gecko.
(2) The existence of badly coded web pages will not be corrected by a validator.
(3) If your dynamic CGI scripts can't be read by the validator then you're screwing something up.
(4) The WebDeveloper extension may be what you want.
Being a bad loser has nothing to do with being competetive. But when you're competetive, you by definition care about winning, and don't like it when you lose. Not caring about losing generally means you aren't a very good competitor.
I agree, except in my case I bumped from 256 to 768. There's hiccups and slowdown as I move into heavily populated areas like Ironforge, but it never actually stops or slideshows like it did before.
In Sony's defense, the GTA franchise is a style of play and execution, not simply a character. Nintendo has worked it's franchises into the ground by re-using the characters in totally non-franchise related games. When they release GTA Tennis then we can talk.
10% improvement in scheduler performance would be pretty impressive, actually - the low-hanging fruit in the scheduler has pretty much been picked over in the last few years, and signifigant new improvements are likely to take this sort of complexity.
...Brad was forced to sell new vulnerabilities from Linux kernel code to unmentioned blackhat companies.
So basically what you're saying is that these are the sort of guys who're so morally broken that they wouldn't pass even the most superficial of background checks for a sensitive position, which is no doubt why they need to get money by selling to blackhats rather than getting a real job in computer security. Basically, exactly the opposite of the sort of person you'd want to trust as a contributor security information and patches. Thanks, I'll remember to disregard anything I see from these morally challenged turdballs in the future.
Well, the most obvious reason is that you've got startup scripts that require perl, and the new version may have some sort of syntatic change or other issue that'll break your scripts. In fact, this was quite a problem with Python and some older version of Redhat (7.3 or something? I forget)
This sort of thing happens a lot in large open source projects. Joe Blow finds some (quite likely perfectly valid) bug or flaw or whatever, spends a lot of time creating and testing a patch, submits it and... nothing. It's ignored. Joe Blow gets very upset, occasionaly posts flames, takes his code and goes home, etc, etc. It's a valid problem. You have to look at it from the side of the project maintainers too, though - they don't know this guy, they don't know his code, and they don't have time to audit it for correctness. You need people willing to handle triage for patches and pass them up the chain. This isn't an especially fun or thankful job (although it's critically neccesary) so a lot of projects lack these sort of resources. However, the linux kernel DOES have these resources, and this guy should know better than to be all whiny that his personal patches aren't being fast-tracked.
Re:Engineering within limits brings great results
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
You weren't doing it because the hardware wasn't there - anyone who claims to be able to simultaneously edit (and switch between, with no delay) 100 images on a 512k Amiga is deluded or lying. But I can do it no problem with a high end G5. Or an XP machine. Or with GIMP, etc, etc.
Because some sort of hypothetical multi-tier keychain system is so much simpler and more available than just banning the account, right? Identifying a griefer is not the hard part of controlling them.
Re:Engineering within limits brings great results
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
Well, yes. Schools didn't exactly get the newest and shiniest stuff;) Most of the original machines were orignal Macintoshes. No "2", or "SE", just "Macintosh". There was one that everyone wanted to use cause it had 2 disk drives, meaning you didn't have to switch to play Dungeon of Doom. I think that was a Mac SE.
Re:Engineering within limits brings great results
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
It was a specific data point, not the only machine I used;) You weren't doing the sort of seamless multitasking I can do now in Photoshop, and you weren't working with images at the same sort of resolution, either. Capabilities have changed, is the point. Performance of an application beyond the perception of the user is pointless, so adding capabilities makes sense. If you don't USE those capabilities, then you may decide that software is bloated and slow even though it's subjectively not. Exactly how fast does a text editor need to be? How would you even measure it's performance?
The OS would do all the dirty work of breaking up your application into pieces that can run concurrently for you.
In a word, no. At least not with current languages. There's a reason we don't do this already, after all. Provably correct concurrency is very hard to generate, and almost impossible with pure machine code - you either end up with deadlocks and race conditions or very poor performance because you serialize too much stuff. Or incorrect results because data is transparently copied instead of shared. Etc. There do exist languages designed to accomodate and encourage both implicit and explicit concurrency, like Erlang, and I think we'll see more of them in the future, but it's not going to happen by simply ignoring it.
I understand where you're trying to go here, but you examples are outright wrong, especially the sort. Unless you're a Donald Knuth or something, it's very unlikely that any sort routine you hand-code is going to be better-implemented than ones you can find provided in standard libraries. Sort in particular is a case where there's very little benefit to be gained from tuning for implementation-specific data. Customized data structures are a different matter, because there's lots of space/performance tradeoffs you can make (like single vrs. double linked lists, just to pick the most obvious) so it's worth making your own sometimes. That's not much if a "specialized" link list, though, and rolling your own list has very little to do with your choice of algorithms and your implementation of same.
I see a lot of programmers who like to strut about how much they care about performance and how they never use third party libraries, forgetting that these libraries are generally written by people much, much smarter than them who actually understand the tradeoffs and issues involved. The STL is a good example of this - there certainly are tradeoffs made, and they're well documented so you can make informed decisions and you can even make domain-specific optimizations without losing the benefit of the libraries algorithm implementations.
That's not to say that there aren't poor third party implementations. But if you write your own quicksort or string copy or any of these sort of basic well known operations all the time, then you need to be smacked with a clue stick. You're a peacock who doesn't know what he's doing.
Re:Engineering within limits brings great results
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Er... yes? Do you actually REMEMBER how you used a computer back then? On my Windows 95 machine with 8 megs of ram swapping was slow enough that effective multitasking was out. On my modern spiffy computer I keep use multiple instances of enormous memory hogs of applications (that do stuff that nobody would have even considered adding to an application in 1995, like real-time analysis of a 50 meg C++ code tree), dozens of browser windows, all without flinching. At the article says, it's capability increase rather than absolute performance increase - there is no need whatsoever for a word processor that's faster than you can type. Speaking of that, in 1990 it was really easy to type faster than the Macs in our computer lab could keep up. So yes, MY applications certainly feel faster than they did 5 or 10 years ago. If yours don't then you either a) don't actually do anything that exploits the new power of your computer and your processor, and therefore don't need it or b) are looking at the past through rose colored glasses and don't remember when it took a weekend to run a compile, rather than it happening incrementally in the background without you even noticing.
What the solution here should be is that it shouldn't display the nag screen at run time at all - it should be done at installation time only, when admin rights are legitimately needed.
If you really feel the need to show it at runtime, then at least you should have the option to enter the info at install time - then it becomes an administrators problem if they didn't register/install OO correctly.
There's also a capabilities limitation involved. It'd be kinda neat if there was a way that an application (Identified by a key pair or something? Hrm, have to think about that more...) would be able to write to a global section of the registry, but just that section - on of the common problems running as non-admin on windows is apps trying to store global per-application data, which they can't do without admin access. Of course, a lot of "global application" data really should be per-user.
I'd say that Bush absolutely is a hardcore capitalist. What he's not is a hardcore free-marketer, because he's really fond of corporate pork. It's capitalism as defined by "protect big business", basically a re-branded version of Reagans trickle-down economics.
Note where the increases the federal government actually are - it's not like he's pumping a ton of extra money into the FCC or the federal reserve or authoring bills for greated market regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Horribly, I bet if you found the right people you could actually successfully pitch this show to G4.
In fairness, I think it's mainly the lighting and poor photography that makes those women look so horrid.
Okay, right. And if I bang my head on the desk a couple times, I can even see how some MBA at G4 decided this would be a good idea. But then that spark of rationality that refuses to go away, no matter how much coffee and sugar I eat, speaks up and says, "What the hell is the point of buying the audience of a network if you're going to cut all the shows that they watched?". It'd be like Spike TV buying the O network so they can get an audience of female viewers, and then showing Stripperella and that extreme elemination show 24/7.
It's possible but unlikely that someone who's had regular access to Apple products since the age of 13 (and especially in the last 6 years - if he was 25 now he might have used them in school, thats less likely now) has a family income of less than $40,000. I'd say chances are fair-to-good that he's from an upper middle class or better family.
(1) There is no reason whatsoever that it would take a rewrite of gecko.
(2) The existence of badly coded web pages will not be corrected by a validator.
(3) If your dynamic CGI scripts can't be read by the validator then you're screwing something up.
(4) The WebDeveloper extension may be what you want.
My wife is both competetive AND a bad loser :P
My wife won't play with me any more cause she's competetive and gets mad when I win. If I let her win, she gets madder.
I agree, except in my case I bumped from 256 to 768. There's hiccups and slowdown as I move into heavily populated areas like Ironforge, but it never actually stops or slideshows like it did before.
In Sony's defense, the GTA franchise is a style of play and execution, not simply a character. Nintendo has worked it's franchises into the ground by re-using the characters in totally non-franchise related games. When they release GTA Tennis then we can talk.
You need high level leather to create high level items, you can't get anything worthwhile for a high level character off a bunny.
10% improvement in scheduler performance would be pretty impressive, actually - the low-hanging fruit in the scheduler has pretty much been picked over in the last few years, and signifigant new improvements are likely to take this sort of complexity.
So basically what you're saying is that these are the sort of guys who're so morally broken that they wouldn't pass even the most superficial of background checks for a sensitive position, which is no doubt why they need to get money by selling to blackhats rather than getting a real job in computer security. Basically, exactly the opposite of the sort of person you'd want to trust as a contributor security information and patches. Thanks, I'll remember to disregard anything I see from these morally challenged turdballs in the future.
Well, the most obvious reason is that you've got startup scripts that require perl, and the new version may have some sort of syntatic change or other issue that'll break your scripts. In fact, this was quite a problem with Python and some older version of Redhat (7.3 or something? I forget)
This sort of thing happens a lot in large open source projects. Joe Blow finds some (quite likely perfectly valid) bug or flaw or whatever, spends a lot of time creating and testing a patch, submits it and... nothing. It's ignored. Joe Blow gets very upset, occasionaly posts flames, takes his code and goes home, etc, etc. It's a valid problem. You have to look at it from the side of the project maintainers too, though - they don't know this guy, they don't know his code, and they don't have time to audit it for correctness. You need people willing to handle triage for patches and pass them up the chain. This isn't an especially fun or thankful job (although it's critically neccesary) so a lot of projects lack these sort of resources. However, the linux kernel DOES have these resources, and this guy should know better than to be all whiny that his personal patches aren't being fast-tracked.
You weren't doing it because the hardware wasn't there - anyone who claims to be able to simultaneously edit (and switch between, with no delay) 100 images on a 512k Amiga is deluded or lying. But I can do it no problem with a high end G5. Or an XP machine. Or with GIMP, etc, etc.
For another $50, sure. Maybe it's more of a problem in MMORPGs with free/cheap downloads of the base game.
Because some sort of hypothetical multi-tier keychain system is so much simpler and more available than just banning the account, right? Identifying a griefer is not the hard part of controlling them.
Well, yes. Schools didn't exactly get the newest and shiniest stuff ;) Most of the original machines were orignal Macintoshes. No "2", or "SE", just "Macintosh". There was one that everyone wanted to use cause it had 2 disk drives, meaning you didn't have to switch to play Dungeon of Doom. I think that was a Mac SE.
It was a specific data point, not the only machine I used ;) You weren't doing the sort of seamless multitasking I can do now in Photoshop, and you weren't working with images at the same sort of resolution, either. Capabilities have changed, is the point. Performance of an application beyond the perception of the user is pointless, so adding capabilities makes sense. If you don't USE those capabilities, then you may decide that software is bloated and slow even though it's subjectively not. Exactly how fast does a text editor need to be? How would you even measure it's performance?
In a word, no. At least not with current languages. There's a reason we don't do this already, after all. Provably correct concurrency is very hard to generate, and almost impossible with pure machine code - you either end up with deadlocks and race conditions or very poor performance because you serialize too much stuff. Or incorrect results because data is transparently copied instead of shared. Etc. There do exist languages designed to accomodate and encourage both implicit and explicit concurrency, like Erlang, and I think we'll see more of them in the future, but it's not going to happen by simply ignoring it.
I see a lot of programmers who like to strut about how much they care about performance and how they never use third party libraries, forgetting that these libraries are generally written by people much, much smarter than them who actually understand the tradeoffs and issues involved. The STL is a good example of this - there certainly are tradeoffs made, and they're well documented so you can make informed decisions and you can even make domain-specific optimizations without losing the benefit of the libraries algorithm implementations.
That's not to say that there aren't poor third party implementations. But if you write your own quicksort or string copy or any of these sort of basic well known operations all the time, then you need to be smacked with a clue stick. You're a peacock who doesn't know what he's doing.
Er... yes? Do you actually REMEMBER how you used a computer back then? On my Windows 95 machine with 8 megs of ram swapping was slow enough that effective multitasking was out. On my modern spiffy computer I keep use multiple instances of enormous memory hogs of applications (that do stuff that nobody would have even considered adding to an application in 1995, like real-time analysis of a 50 meg C++ code tree), dozens of browser windows, all without flinching. At the article says, it's capability increase rather than absolute performance increase - there is no need whatsoever for a word processor that's faster than you can type. Speaking of that, in 1990 it was really easy to type faster than the Macs in our computer lab could keep up. So yes, MY applications certainly feel faster than they did 5 or 10 years ago. If yours don't then you either a) don't actually do anything that exploits the new power of your computer and your processor, and therefore don't need it or b) are looking at the past through rose colored glasses and don't remember when it took a weekend to run a compile, rather than it happening incrementally in the background without you even noticing.
That's awesome but I'm not MightyMartian :P
If you really feel the need to show it at runtime, then at least you should have the option to enter the info at install time - then it becomes an administrators problem if they didn't register/install OO correctly.
There's also a capabilities limitation involved. It'd be kinda neat if there was a way that an application (Identified by a key pair or something? Hrm, have to think about that more...) would be able to write to a global section of the registry, but just that section - on of the common problems running as non-admin on windows is apps trying to store global per-application data, which they can't do without admin access. Of course, a lot of "global application" data really should be per-user.
Note where the increases the federal government actually are - it's not like he's pumping a ton of extra money into the FCC or the federal reserve or authoring bills for greated market regulation.