There's a very simple fix for this, allow the public to instantly see all of the "video" they are paying for. There is no reason for most of the CCTV not to be streamed from a random web page, and hiding it from the public by default is obviously going to make us suspicious. This should also stop most or all of the abuse by CCTV operators, which is another major point people don't like with CCTV.
The entire article can be summed up as "crappy OSS copies wonderful proprietary inovation, and is going to lead to all programers being unemployed". It's like we're in 1999 all over again.
In my opinion the problem isn't really that it doesn't pay for someone to do the work to find the exploit that's there, it's that it's not enough to be painful if there is one there.
For instance if I put a "security exploit bounty" on my code of $1 (probably less than I pay for donuts weekly)... how secure does that say the code is? Now if I put the same bounty on it of $2,000 (yes I'm not amazingly rich, so that's a very painful amount), this is a very different equation.
It's the difference between saying "I'm very confident that X is true" and saying "Meh, who knows... I'll give you a buck if it isn't".
One final thing though is that I've seen way too many people with mobile phone bills in the $300-$1,500 range due to spending "too long" on one month, which you can argue is their fault... but that didn't seem to happen as much with landlines, when I was younger.
Answering machines don't have all the features of voice mail. Voice mail answers your calls when you're on the phone, and you can check your voice mail from a different phone.
Well I can read my messages from anywhere, by calling the answering machine... although I never use that feature. And I haven't found a voice mail system UI, yet, that I didn't hate over a plain answering machine (although some of that might be that play/erase/skip/repeat are all marked on any answering machine). The new iPhone looks much better, though, so maybe when everyone has copied their UI in 5 or 10 years I'll switch (or maybe they'll bring out an answering machine cradle for mobile phones -- I'd buy that:).
Other countries have per-minute rates (Europe is about 35), but it's cheaper than landline international plans.
Well I phone England a lot, at ~10 cents/min, but England is cheaper than the average for Europe... so it might be close enough.
My husband and I spend about $70 a month for two phones [...] while my mother spends about $70 a month on her landline (not counting her DSL) with the same features except for only the one line
Well I'd say I pay about $60 a month, for three phones. One landline (at $25 + per. second charges), and 2 mobiles (at $7 a month, with minutes left over). Although I don't get caller-ID/call-waiting/text-messages/etc. on the landline. But I'm probably a little unique in that most of the calls I do from home are either England, Canada, local or 800 numbers. There's obviously not much in it though, and I'd be willing to spend the $10 a month for caller-ID on the landline (but it isn't that cheap).
That won't necessarily be true in a few years when they write a lot more apps that need and take advantage of multithreading.
I've heard people saying that for years, explicit threading has been around for a long time now and even in the server space I still see pretty much noone doing it "well". If you think all the desktop people are going to magically "get it" in the next 5, then good luck... personally my next desktop machine is going to have two cores (mainly so that when one task goes nuts, it only eats half of my CPU power -- thank god few people create lots of threads) and piles of RAM.
Wireless services always offered more features than wired ones, and they still do.
Not those kinds of features, sure for custom rings or a wallpaper my mobile is much better... but for a phone that I'd actually want to be speaking/listening to for 1-3 hours, then mobile looses everytime.
Voice mail is probably the most important one, and it is included on cell phones;
My answering machine cost like $10. And I pay that once. But for another "feature", I'd be very surprised if international calling was anywhere near on a mobile (but then I pay roughly $7 a month for mobile, and so pay a lot per. minute for "local" calls). Also I have to wonder... wtf. are you doing for DSL, I need a phone line for that. I guess some people only have the option of Cable, or maybe have some better options.
The python stuff is pretty bogus. You don't need a special editor to recognize indent blocks. (Hint: Look for things 4 spaces further away from the margin than the line before).
Speaking as someone who writes pretty much all of his non-C/sh in python nowadays, I call BS... Python has a lot of things going for it, but making invisible characters part of the syntax isn't one of them.
Maybe you don't think you need real begin/end markers to read code, but I find it very painful to not have them... and even more painful when I have to reindent blocks of moved code (as my editor can't do that properly using the same method I've been reindenting code with in every other languages for 15 years or so).
It's not forced - if you don't have a TV tuner, you don't have to pay it. It's not a tax (not collected by government, and the BBC is not a government organisation), it's a license fee, and if you don't watch TV, you don't have to pay. (never mind the slightly overzealous collection department).
Speaking as an ex-English person living in the US, it's 100% forced. And it is a Tax, it is collected by the government and given to the BBC (which is only accountable to the government). If you want a TV+DVD combo. just to watch movies, you are legally required to pay the Tax (which could not possibly be argued to have benifited from). I've lived without Cable in the US for significant amounts of time, getting DVDs from the local library etc.... I wanted to do the same in the UK, but that was not possible (I couldn't afford the TV tax).
All Britons who pay the TV license benefit from the BBC, whether they watch it or not.
This is obviously not true.
The quality is higher (anecdotally, from every American I've ever heard comment on the relative quality of TV in each country)
If you compare everything on US TV with the small subset of UK TV we import... then, sure. Just as if you compare everything on UK TV to the small subset of US TV you import, the averge easily swings back (but, of course in the later case you are forced to pay for the BBC anyway).
Execs on the commercial channels are not empowered to take the risks the BBC can, but they reap all the benefits
Sure, not being accountable to those people you can force to pay you money is a big help in many lines of business (esp. if that is practically everyone)... I believe the RIAA know a song about that.
This announcement is just Linux file systems starting to catch up with features from file systems such as ZFS. Very good news.
AIUI ZFS just has entire FS snapshotting, although it's read+write ala. LVM2 (came with RHEL4). So no, this would be different (although ZFS proponents would probably argue that it's much easier to create an FS in ZFS, so it's not quite as big a leap).
Not only are you "mis-reading" the summary, but you've blatantly failed to even look at your own so-called link to snapshots. Hint click on the snapshot link on Kirk's page and it'll tell you about linux LVM snapshotting from 7+ years ago.
8 digits into 4 bytes is obvious, as I assume pretty much everyone would know that you can convert 8 hex digits into exactly 4 bytes. It's also "obvious" that it's a bit less than 32bits, but I didn't/don't see it being enough smaller.
Technically, you only need 27 bits per phone number so you could squeeze 6 numbers into 10 bytes with only 2 bits of entropic waste, but that sounds like a pain to work with.
Ok, I'll take your word for it that it's 8 numeric didgits == 27 bits. ((27 * 1_000_000) / 8) == 3_375_000... and you have 2 MB of RAM, at this point you have to know/assume than you can half that value somehow due to redundancy. And personally I'm not fond of suggesting solutions that contain phrases like "but if we get input we don't expect, everything blows up".
first question: Find the density of the marble, then calculuate the... oh what do I know.
:). My first guess was: try every tenth floor with the first marble, then every floor with the second. Which I'm pretty sure isn't the answer they would want.
Second question: Radix sort on disk.
I had assumed what they wanted with this was N different sorts of RAM size, followed by a merge sort of N buckets. But maybe I'm being too practical, and you're right (I admit I had to look on Wikipedia to remember what Radix sort was, and I have no idea if it's better than my simple merge sort solution:).
Third question: Binary weighted tree in memory.
This one confused me, 2MB RAM, no other storage and 1 million 8 digit phone numbers... my answer == by more RAM. I guess you are supposed to "know" there is a way to reduce 8 digits into 2 bytes? (assuming that the OS and all your code fit into ROM, and take zero RAM... or something magic like that)... or assume there is magic swap?... or just something else I have no idea of.
One of the items that will be covered is capuchin monkeys' use of washers as money, buying sweets, budgeting for favored treats over lesser treats. He mentioned that one of the experiments had similar outcomes as a study of day traders. And lastly, he watched capuchin prostitution!
The NY Times article on that study, from 2005, can be found here.
Exactly... so if you need to Enumerate the collection, you need locking outside the collection primitives (which need to be placed everywhere you use the collection)... And those work for Collections that lock their primitives and those that don't, so you gain nothing by putting locks on your primitives and lose something... so it's considered a bad idea to put locks on your primitives.
I believe the GP was talking about this problem, with reading and writing the Vector at the same time (not writing from two threads). Which is not threadsafe.
For the Wii I admit I've spent more time playing virtual console than Wii games (although Marble Mania and Elebits were at least worth renting), but I'm hoping that will change now with super paper mario. And for third party Bust-A-Move bash looks very promising, and I'm also really hoping that MK Armagedon will have online play of some kind (this might be hoping a lot, but I can hope).
But given all that I still don't see a reason to buy a PS3 yet (little big world is an attempt, but it's not enough), and there's no way I'd get an MS X-box 360... so IMO this article could easily be retitled "publishers decide to make games for console everyone is buying".
In order to read Slashdot offline "right", you need to break HTTP.
The fact that HTTP stupidly created a "std." for re-request this data constantly, and random web devs decided to put it everywhere because they have 10MB/s to the server. Doesn't mean the browser has to enforce it when given a choice of "show old data or show nothing".
Offline webapplications will work offline because they will be designed to work offline.
Now I know you are are on some great drugs, nothing stops web devs getting this correct now... but pretty much no one does. Hell, half of them are happy to dump half a MB of AJAX into a page to get a form with the same functionality you could get in pure HTML in 1995... and they still can't remove whitespace and hyphens from my credit card number. Pretending this is going to be tested for, let alone solved, for anything but a tiny minority of web sites is just pure fantasy.
And, again, as the prior poster said... even when the websites do everything correctly the browsers still suck a lot when it comes to reducing latency etc.
Ok, so turn it around: What is the last "new" application that you used which used win32 directly? Supreme Commander and other games are about the only things I can think of that I've heard about and am missing out on. Every single other hyped "application" I've heard about in the last couple of years I could use on firefox, on Linux. About the only other things I hear about at all for win32 could only be clasified as fixes for XP's GUI, fixes that Linux/Mac-OS-X get as std.
Sure, I still see some upgrades from established companies (around this time of year I see a lot of quicken 2007 etc.)... but nothing new. So if you have any data to support your counter argument, I'd be interested to see it.
Which is better: A fully described (but not fully defined) specification or a partially described but fully defined specification
The former. Because then "complies with the specification" actually means something, or to put it another way you try explaining to someone why something doesn't work even though it's "defined by the std." and this other thing over here works with it.
If MS truley meant those tags as extensions they could have defined them in a seperate document under a big heading saying "if you're document contains these it isn't std. OOXML", with similar fixes to the MS Office UI. Then people would actualy know when they have a portable document or a useles one with proprietary MS extensions... of course they can know this now, they just have to use OpenOffice.
I guess "Advanced Wars: dual strike" was an early release, did you miss it? That's very good. Age of empires got so/so reviews, in comparison, (and some reports of it being buggy) so I haven't bothered with that. I'd be more than happy to see another one though:).
You don't lose anything from simply not doing business with people who set off the flags.
There are a lot of assumptions in that sentence, and many of them are repeated from the earlier comment... hint some sites will still be known to be good or bad by the user, it's only the third category of "don't know" that is helped by this. And users general don't goto "bad" sites on purpose.
Look at it this way, if you have zero false positives (FP) with an assumption of some false negatives (FN) then in all cases you are better off than before. With the FN you can still decide it's bad, it's not saying "this is trusted" it's just not saying "this isn't trusted". In the same way you'll never goto a site you know is fine and have it try and tell you otherwise, or make you click extra stupid dialogs away.
Now, consider it the other way around. When you goto a site it'll sometimes tell you it's bad, and some of the times it does you know it's wrong. So you goto a new site, you haven't seen before, and it looks OKish but the thing says "this is bad"... what do you do? Just believe it now, knowing that it has been wrong in the past? My bet is that pretty much everyone will just ignore it.
If that doesn't convince you, here are some stats. Say a user hits 99 good sites a day, and 1 bad one. If you have 0%FP/1%FN, that user will see 1 bad site every 100 days (instead of 1 a day), which is a huge improvement. If you have 1%FP/0%FN, then as far as the user can see it has a win/lose of roughly 50% (Ie. the user could just toss a coin).
Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative
No, because if it keeps generating false positives it will just train the users to ignore it. In fact I'd argue it's probably much better to have zero false positives, knowing you'll have some false negatives. Then when it tells you something is wrong, you'll trust it.
junderneath [sic] the hood is some amazing work.. It is [n't] just just ZFS, and DTRACE either, ust [sic] take a look at the main [sic] page for ifconfig on Solaris vs other systems.
There is still no community (hell, they have a fraction of the downloads of a single Linux distros. updating users) and Sun haven't done anything that implies they can create anything like the Linux kernel community... so my money is still on the long term death of Solaris the OS and kernel (if they relicense it, some of the later might be salvagable). As for ifconfig: that has been backwards compat. code in Linux for years, feel free to look at the "ip" command, in the iproute package.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a very simple fix for this, allow the public to instantly see all of the "video" they are paying for. There is no reason for most of the CCTV not to be streamed from a random web page, and hiding it from the public by default is obviously going to make us suspicious. This should also stop most or all of the abuse by CCTV operators, which is another major point people don't like with CCTV.
The entire article can be summed up as "crappy OSS copies wonderful proprietary inovation, and is going to lead to all programers being unemployed". It's like we're in 1999 all over again.
In my opinion the problem isn't really that it doesn't pay for someone to do the work to find the exploit that's there, it's that it's not enough to be painful if there is one there.
For instance if I put a "security exploit bounty" on my code of $1 (probably less than I pay for donuts weekly) ... how secure does that say the code is? Now if I put the same bounty on it of $2,000 (yes I'm not amazingly rich, so that's a very painful amount), this is a very different equation.
It's the difference between saying "I'm very confident that X is true" and saying "Meh, who knows ... I'll give you a buck if it isn't".
One final thing though is that I've seen way too many people with mobile phone bills in the $300-$1,500 range due to spending "too long" on one month, which you can argue is their fault ... but that didn't seem to happen as much with landlines, when I was younger.
Well I can read my messages from anywhere, by calling the answering machine ... although I never use that feature. And I haven't found a voice mail system UI, yet, that I didn't hate over a plain answering machine (although some of that might be that play/erase/skip/repeat are all marked on any answering machine). The new iPhone looks much better, though, so maybe when everyone has copied their UI in 5 or 10 years I'll switch (or maybe they'll bring out an answering machine cradle for mobile phones -- I'd buy that :).
Well I phone England a lot, at ~10 cents/min, but England is cheaper than the average for Europe ... so it might be close enough.
Well I'd say I pay about $60 a month, for three phones. One landline (at $25 + per. second charges), and 2 mobiles (at $7 a month, with minutes left over). Although I don't get caller-ID/call-waiting/text-messages/etc. on the landline. But I'm probably a little unique in that most of the calls I do from home are either England, Canada, local or 800 numbers. There's obviously not much in it though, and I'd be willing to spend the $10 a month for caller-ID on the landline (but it isn't that cheap).
I've heard people saying that for years, explicit threading has been around for a long time now and even in the server space I still see pretty much noone doing it "well". If you think all the desktop people are going to magically "get it" in the next 5, then good luck ... personally my next desktop machine is going to have two cores (mainly so that when one task goes nuts, it only eats half of my CPU power -- thank god few people create lots of threads) and piles of RAM.
Not those kinds of features, sure for custom rings or a wallpaper my mobile is much better ... but for a phone that I'd actually want to be speaking/listening to for 1-3 hours, then mobile looses everytime.
My answering machine cost like $10. And I pay that once. But for another "feature", I'd be very surprised if international calling was anywhere near on a mobile (but then I pay roughly $7 a month for mobile, and so pay a lot per. minute for "local" calls). Also I have to wonder ... wtf. are you doing for DSL, I need a phone line for that. I guess some people only have the option of Cable, or maybe have some better options.
Speaking as someone who writes pretty much all of his non-C/sh in python nowadays, I call BS ... Python has a lot of things going for it, but making invisible characters part of the syntax isn't one of them.
Maybe you don't think you need real begin/end markers to read code, but I find it very painful to not have them ... and even more painful when I have to reindent blocks of moved code (as my editor can't do that properly using the same method I've been reindenting code with in every other languages for 15 years or so).
Speaking as an ex-English person living in the US, it's 100% forced. And it is a Tax, it is collected by the government and given to the BBC (which is only accountable to the government). If you want a TV+DVD combo. just to watch movies, you are legally required to pay the Tax (which could not possibly be argued to have benifited from). I've lived without Cable in the US for significant amounts of time, getting DVDs from the local library etc. ... I wanted to do the same in the UK, but that was not possible (I couldn't afford the TV tax).
This is obviously not true.
If you compare everything on US TV with the small subset of UK TV we import ... then, sure. Just as if you compare everything on UK TV to the small subset of US TV you import, the averge easily swings back (but, of course in the later case you are forced to pay for the BBC anyway).
Sure, not being accountable to those people you can force to pay you money is a big help in many lines of business (esp. if that is practically everyone) ... I believe the RIAA know a song about that.
AIUI ZFS just has entire FS snapshotting, although it's read+write ala. LVM2 (came with RHEL4). So no, this would be different (although ZFS proponents would probably argue that it's much easier to create an FS in ZFS, so it's not quite as big a leap).
Not only are you "mis-reading" the summary, but you've blatantly failed to even look at your own so-called link to snapshots. Hint click on the snapshot link on Kirk's page and it'll tell you about linux LVM snapshotting from 7+ years ago.
8 digits into 4 bytes is obvious, as I assume pretty much everyone would know that you can convert 8 hex digits into exactly 4 bytes. It's also "obvious" that it's a bit less than 32bits, but I didn't/don't see it being enough smaller.
Ok, I'll take your word for it that it's 8 numeric didgits == 27 bits. ((27 * 1_000_000) / 8) == 3_375_000 ... and you have 2 MB of RAM, at this point you have to know/assume than you can half that value somehow due to redundancy. And personally I'm not fond of suggesting solutions that contain phrases like "but if we get input we don't expect, everything blows up".
I had assumed what they wanted with this was N different sorts of RAM size, followed by a merge sort of N buckets. But maybe I'm being too practical, and you're right (I admit I had to look on Wikipedia to remember what Radix sort was, and I have no idea if it's better than my simple merge sort solution :).
This one confused me, 2MB RAM, no other storage and 1 million 8 digit phone numbers ... my answer == by more RAM. I guess you are supposed to "know" there is a way to reduce 8 digits into 2 bytes? (assuming that the OS and all your code fit into ROM, and take zero RAM ... or something magic like that) ... or assume there is magic swap? ... or just something else I have no idea of.
Summary: I shouldn't apply to work for Google :).
The NY Times article on that study, from 2005, can be found here.
Exactly ... so if you need to Enumerate the collection, you need locking outside the collection primitives (which need to be placed everywhere you use the collection) ... And those work for Collections that lock their primitives and those that don't, so you gain nothing by putting locks on your primitives and lose something ... so it's considered a bad idea to put locks on your primitives.
I believe the GP was talking about this problem, with reading and writing the Vector at the same time (not writing from two threads). Which is not threadsafe.
First off, go buy Puzzle Quest for the DS.
For the Wii I admit I've spent more time playing virtual console than Wii games (although Marble Mania and Elebits were at least worth renting), but I'm hoping that will change now with super paper mario. And for third party Bust-A-Move bash looks very promising, and I'm also really hoping that MK Armagedon will have online play of some kind (this might be hoping a lot, but I can hope).
But given all that I still don't see a reason to buy a PS3 yet (little big world is an attempt, but it's not enough), and there's no way I'd get an MS X-box 360 ... so IMO this article could easily be retitled "publishers decide to make games for console everyone is buying".
The fact that HTTP stupidly created a "std." for re-request this data constantly, and random web devs decided to put it everywhere because they have 10MB/s to the server. Doesn't mean the browser has to enforce it when given a choice of "show old data or show nothing".
Now I know you are are on some great drugs, nothing stops web devs getting this correct now ... but pretty much no one does. Hell, half of them are happy to dump half a MB of AJAX into a page to get a form with the same functionality you could get in pure HTML in 1995 ... and they still can't remove whitespace and hyphens from my credit card number. Pretending this is going to be tested for, let alone solved, for anything but a tiny minority of web sites is just pure fantasy.
And, again, as the prior poster said ... even when the websites do everything correctly the browsers still suck a lot when it comes to reducing latency etc.
Ok, so turn it around: What is the last "new" application that you used which used win32 directly? Supreme Commander and other games are about the only things I can think of that I've heard about and am missing out on. Every single other hyped "application" I've heard about in the last couple of years I could use on firefox, on Linux. About the only other things I hear about at all for win32 could only be clasified as fixes for XP's GUI, fixes that Linux/Mac-OS-X get as std.
Sure, I still see some upgrades from established companies (around this time of year I see a lot of quicken 2007 etc.) ... but nothing new. So if you have any data to support your counter argument, I'd be interested to see it.
The former. Because then "complies with the specification" actually means something, or to put it another way you try explaining to someone why something doesn't work even though it's "defined by the std." and this other thing over here works with it.
If MS truley meant those tags as extensions they could have defined them in a seperate document under a big heading saying "if you're document contains these it isn't std. OOXML", with similar fixes to the MS Office UI. Then people would actualy know when they have a portable document or a useles one with proprietary MS extensions ... of course they can know this now, they just have to use OpenOffice.
I guess "Advanced Wars: dual strike" was an early release, did you miss it? That's very good. Age of empires got so/so reviews, in comparison, (and some reports of it being buggy) so I haven't bothered with that. I'd be more than happy to see another one though :).
Sure ... because optimizing, like security, is at it's best when tacked on the end. How could I forget so quickly.
There are a lot of assumptions in that sentence, and many of them are repeated from the earlier comment ... hint some sites will still be known to be good or bad by the user, it's only the third category of "don't know" that is helped by this. And users general don't goto "bad" sites on purpose.
Look at it this way, if you have zero false positives (FP) with an assumption of some false negatives (FN) then in all cases you are better off than before. With the FN you can still decide it's bad, it's not saying "this is trusted" it's just not saying "this isn't trusted". In the same way you'll never goto a site you know is fine and have it try and tell you otherwise, or make you click extra stupid dialogs away.
Now, consider it the other way around. When you goto a site it'll sometimes tell you it's bad, and some of the times it does you know it's wrong. So you goto a new site, you haven't seen before, and it looks OKish but the thing says "this is bad" ... what do you do? Just believe it now, knowing that it has been wrong in the past? My bet is that pretty much everyone will just ignore it.
If that doesn't convince you, here are some stats. Say a user hits 99 good sites a day, and 1 bad one. If you have 0%FP/1%FN, that user will see 1 bad site every 100 days (instead of 1 a day), which is a huge improvement. If you have 1%FP/0%FN, then as far as the user can see it has a win/lose of roughly 50% (Ie. the user could just toss a coin).
No, because if it keeps generating false positives it will just train the users to ignore it. In fact I'd argue it's probably much better to have zero false positives, knowing you'll have some false negatives. Then when it tells you something is wrong, you'll trust it.
There is still no community (hell, they have a fraction of the downloads of a single Linux distros. updating users) and Sun haven't done anything that implies they can create anything like the Linux kernel community ... so my money is still on the long term death of Solaris the OS and kernel (if they relicense it, some of the later might be salvagable). As for ifconfig: that has been backwards compat. code in Linux for years, feel free to look at the "ip" command, in the iproute package.