Well, last I checked, most teaching degrees required at least 6 months, and normally a full year of student teaching before you could graduate, during that year you basically can't do anything else other than that student teaching, kind of hard to cram that into three years(this is mind you exactly why you can't cram most engineering degrees into three years either).
I think by "open-minded" the parent probably means doesn't hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. This is Missouri we're talking about and conservative doesn't mean the same thing down there as it does up in the blue states.
We're not talking about libertarians with conservative economic views, we're talking rednecks and christian fundamentalists. Compared to that lot, the most closed minded, group thinking liberals are generally a breath of fresh air.
I know that it's fashionable to hate the liberals here on Slashdot because group think here says cut taxes and screw everyone and everything else, but remember that liberal and conservative have context, and there's a pretty good chance that wherever it is you live it isn't the deep south.
This is an optional feature, if you need it you're only real options are to either run a mixed environment(which is worse) or stay on XP which isn't really going to be viable in the long run, and for that matter which you can still do.
There were already two platforms for software compatibility, this doesn't change that, there were already two versions of windows, all this means is that software which is not compatible with Windows 7 can be run in the VM, you're not supposed to run software that works on Windows 7 in it(barring certain rare exceptions).
Again, this was already the case, the only thing that will stop double driver testing is getting rid of Windows XP or Microsoft never making another OS.
Again, this is an optional feature, if your site doesn't need any legacy XP apps, or your site is happy to stay with XP until it fails then you don't need to do this. If you don't have control over your OS's you were in multi-OS territory anyway.
You can still VM Windows 7 in VMWare and their little XP block inside it, this isn't some magically complicated thing.
There is only one image, and it only has the VM in it if you need it.
Only for the systems you need to. In reality not all your PCs will be using whatever legacy app you can't escape, or you might not have a legacy app at all. This allows you to have the new security models, new features(if you need them), and still run your legacy stuff.
What CPUs are you running that Windows 7 doesn't support but XP doesn't?
This isn't a requirement, and for some people it may not be an adequate fix(if you're running on some strange CPU windows 7 doesn't support then obviously it isn't going to be the solution for you. It may not be sensible or economical if you have some sort of legacy application that every single person in your organization needs and which won't run in Windows 7(though if you have a legacy app that crucial and it's not getting continued support you're in for bigger problems later on).
What it does do is allow organizatios/individuals who can run 99% percent of their software in Windows 7, to have access to whatever pluses Windows 7 provides them without having to give up the 1% of applications that don't. It also allows Microsoft to rip out all the dodgy code that was supporting these applications and separate it from their security model.
All in all, it's a reasonable compromise under the circumstances. Windows needs to move forward, and some applications can't be moved forward with it, at least not right now. This allows both to happen, and it's at least slightly better than most of the alternatives.
A clever evil person takes nearly everything someone has, but leaves them enough to survive so they can make more stuff for them to take later.
In video games, evil basically translates to "killing everything I see for the pure psychopathic joy of it. There's almost never any real quality evil going on anymore, you either raze the village to the ground, or you save it from danger. There's no depth.
Tiered pricing works very well, and is relatively inevitable even in the US. The issue is with what the tiers are and what happens when you go over the cap(I get rate limited when I go over my cap as opposed to charging).
You can have rate limiting and a fair deal. Yes consumers will be worse off, but that's because the current model isn't a fair deal, it's foolish largess.
Companies in the US figured that the vast majority of people wouldn't use much bandwidth and that they could afford to let the minority overuse in exchange for the benefit of selling "unlimited" connections. The problem with this is that more and more people are using real bandwidth, and the economy of the system is falling apart. They add more pipe and their customers use more pipe, all without paying any extra money, or providing capacity for any more customers. It doesn't work, it can't work, and eventually one of two things is going to happen, either the bandwidth is going to be capped as part of the plan or they're going to start arbitrarily rate capping customers to meet their own capacity. In on system you get to pay for what you need, in the other they decide what you paid for, I prefer the first one.
Prosciutto is an expensive salt cured ham. You do not need to cook it. Even if it came from the same part of the pig and was otherwise identical to bacon(which it isn't) the salt curing would be more than enough to make it different. It's chemically different than regular(or even canadian) bacon and at the least contains a whole heck of a lot of salt which regular bacon does not.
There's not any copper to rip out. Folks out there get subsidized mobiles because running any kind of wiring three thousand kilometers into the middle of nowhere for one farm isn't really cost effective.
Well wikipedia probably isn't reliable enough for a prior art search, and for that matter, it's realistically only a matter of time before the US switches to a first to file system anyway at which point it won't do much good anyhoo.
I'd make a guess that the developer doesn't get anywhere near that $50-$60. The retail store, the distributor, and the publisher all have to take a cut out of that 30 million dollars, and they've got expenses and have to make a profit too.
I always wonder at these sort of articles. If most companies were confronted with a situation in which the vast majority of their products were generating massive losses, they'd look at doing something different. It's fairly clear that increasing prices won't work, so that leaves decreasing costs and/or increasing the percentage of your games that are a success.
The entertainment industry has a real problem because they don't know what industry they're in. They think that they're in the movie industry or the music industry or the game industry. They're not. They don't sell games, or movies, or music, not really, they sell entertainment, and if they can't sell entertainment at a price people are willing to pay then they lose and go out of business. The sooner this happens the better for some of them.
Well, personally I'd rather this than most of what Ron Paul wanted. FFS do you really believe that
Ron Paul could have gotten even 1% of what he wanted through.
That even if any of what he wanted was actually good for the country that we would have survived being dragged two hundred years back in time kicking and screaming(the gold standard ffs).
That we can really go back to isolationism and ignoring the rest of the world when so very much of our very survival depends on the rest of the world.
Ron Paul sounded good, and he was a good guy, but he would have destroyed the US and taken the rest of the world with him.
It is entirely possible that this has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA anyway. In reality, the court case is about what level punitive damages become unconstitutional(if any), not about who is asking for the punitive damages.
Yes it's being used against the RIAA, but that's not what the lawyers are asking the court. There are a whole bunch of people(including the government itself) who are quit attached to very punitive punitive damages, and a loss for the RIAA here would be a loss for all those people as well.
No one really gives a rats about the RIAA, they give a rats about whether they can enforce the law or not. I'm fairly sure that if someone could come up with a way for the RIAA to go away and stop causing trouble without seriously jeopardizing the powers the government thinks it has only the RIAA would ever challenge it. That's not what's happened here though. A loss here is a major loss.
The transition to IPv6 will happen, but it won't happen until there is a business driver for it.
Right now, NAT works. It's not great, but it hasn't reached the levels where most people are inconvenienced dramatically yet. NAT can be configured to allow direct access where necessary, and for the most part that works just fine at the moment.
Eventually there will be a motivation for an ISP to provide something they can provide more easily, more cheaply, or just actually provide in general, which will give them a competitive advantage over other ISPs, and they'll do it. Until then, they won't.
Providing an OS that isn't what users want isn't a get out of jail free card for Microsoft(or Linux for that matter), there is a difference between not being what anyone wants and being fundamentally crap though.
Yes, but the point is, the reason they leave it to the file system is that it's they presume the file system won't be stupid with their data.
There are thousands of posts in here talking about the fact that you're supposed to be calling fsync() and if you're not then it's just your own damned fault. I'm just pointing out that by forcing applications who didn't need fsync before to fsync they're actually going to hurt performance all in the name of a performance gain.
Just because POSIX allows it, does't mean it's not stupid, legal standards allow me to call my child "dog turd" but that doesn't make it a good ideal.
Last I checked it was 5ms,as opposed to 1.5 seconds in ext4. ext3 has delayed writes, delayed writes are not a problem. the issue is that 1.5 seconds is a retarded amount of time to wait on anything in a modern computer.
When everyone starts using fsync() because ext4 won't write their data for 1.5 seconds, then all the performance gains by waiting for 1.5 seconds will disappear anyway.
You're right, we don't need a filesystem which sledges in every byte in case theirs a crash, and which handles important data differently.
At the same time we don't need a file system which takes so long to write data to a disk that every program has to treat its data as important so we end up with a system which does hammer every byte onto the disk in the case of a crash.
1.5 seconds is stupid in PC which can perform fifteen thousand operations in that time span, and when everyone has to use fsync() it won't be any faster.
It's not exactly how it's being described by the GP.
Yes, it's technically accurate, but it's not the point. Ext4 extends the delay between writes out from a maximum of 5 ms to well over a second.
Yes you read that right, if you write data in an ext4 file system it won't be on disk until an amount of time you can actually count has past.
The only reason this gives any kind of performance benefits at all is because most applications are not calling fsync(). The resolution to the data loss this is causing is for pretty much every application to call fsync() a whole lot of the time, which will probably end up with data being written to the disk even more inefficiently than it was before.
Just because the POSIX standards say it, doesn't mean it's right. POSIX is very old now, and was based around technological ideas which are out of date now.
This is actually even stupider for flash drives. There is essentially zero seek time on a flash drive, so, in theory, it shouldn't really matter how much you write at any given time(since hte only delay should be how long it takes to actually write the cell).
In addition, presuming reasonable wear algorithms(which should be implemented in the device controller not in any sort of software), every bit of Math I've seen says that for any realistic amount of data writes the flash drives will last substantially longer than any current physical drives(last I saw it was about 30 years if you wrote every sector on the disk once a day, scaling down as writes increase. Even writing 6 times the volume of the drive per day that's 5 years which is a fairly long time for consumer grade physical drives, and unlike a physical drive, even if you can't read it, you can write it so you can just clone it over to a new drive.
File systems will definitely have to change for flash drives, but delaying writes probably isn't going to be the way to do it, especially since there's no need to do so.
Intel is unlikely to fall. They're certainly hurting in that their serious dominance is in the top end of the market and the economy is shrinking that market segment. AMD seems to be surviving, at least in the short term, and they're still reasonably competetive at the lower price points(I haven't looked in a while, but they had nothing that even came close to i7).
On the other hand, unlike AMD, Intel still has loads cash, loads of market share, is an equal competitor at the lower price points and isn't losing any money on their high end systems(today's high end is tomorrow's consumer grade).
Intel indeed has more to lose than AMD, but that's because if AMD loses much more they won't exist anymore. They've already had to spin off their fabrication line(which caused the lawsuit) so that they can try to escape toxic debt levels, and Phenom, while a reasonable chipset didn't even make it into the high end range. They're also worth substantially less than they paid for ATI, and I haven't seen them picking up all that much market share in that sector either.
Nothing could have forced consumers to Itanium because the loss of legacy 32 bit code in 2001 would have been completely and totally unacceptable. The migration to 64 bit still isn't done, and for the vast majority of applications still isn't necessary.
The only way that Intel could have forced people over to Itanium would have been to stop making x86 chips and refuse to allow anyone else to make them either. This would have left them with a developer base who already had to rewrite all their applications for a new architecture and who were seriously pissed off with Intel. That would basically have been the kiss of death for Intel, and probably the biggest bonanza in the history of some other hardware manufacturer(probably Sun).
Itanium is what you base your product lines off what your engineers think is the right thing to do as opposed to what your customers actually want. Unless you're the only competitor, losing backwards compatibility before the majority of your customers are ready to give it up is suicide. If you force people to change more than their ready to change and prepared to change, they're more than likely to just change to someone else who won't do that to them.
Stupid, uncontrolled, government handouts don't count, Socializing the system as a solution would involve the government taking control and saying "we will deliver unlimited bandwidth to everyone regardless of the cost".
I don't know exactly how much, if any, of that money was spent on actual infrastructure. If it wasn't I don't know what exactly it was spent on.
That said, it doesn't matter, you can pour as much money into this problem as you want, all it will do is postpone the problem. In the current US system there is no motivation for users to limit their downloads and there is no motivation for ISPs to expand their infrastructure. No matter how much bandwidth an ISP has, their users will use pretty much all of it. Why wouldn't they, it doesn't cost them any more to do so. This doesn't work, and can't work.
Unless you're suggesting that the government run all ISPs then the ISPs still have to make a profit.
The all you can eat internet plan doesn't work anymore, it doesn't work anywhere. The sheer amount of data which can be downloaded in a month now is ridiculously high and a larger and larger percentage of the internet using public is using large amounts of bandwidth. No matter how much money gets poured into infrastructure it won't work because if there's no extra cost to more bandwidth people will just continue to use more.
Usage has to have a cost or the system doesn't work. It used to work because you could only download so much data and very few people downloaded much at all, but that's not the case and it's getting to be even less the case.
At this point there are only a few options.
The government steps in and socializes broadband completely, which I'm not a huge fan of.
ISPs throttle all users and keep speeds in the US to a tiny percentage of what everyone else gets.
People pay for what they use.
Any other solution just involves private companies pouring money down the drain so that people can have unlimited downloads which just isn't going to happen.
It's time to change, and unless they come up with a new internet backbone that doesn't involve laying expensive cable continually expending backbone to meet totally unlimited demand with no additional income just isn't going to work.
I've never seen a single contract for residential internet that provided "unlimited service" at "xx Mbps", every single one I've ever seen is "up to xx Mbps", the contract isn't going to help here.
The solution for better or for worse is for the US to implement download caps like the rest of the world. It'll be unpopular and it'll have disadvantages, but laying cable still costs money and the current all you can eat payment schemes just don't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, last I checked, most teaching degrees required at least 6 months, and normally a full year of student teaching before you could graduate, during that year you basically can't do anything else other than that student teaching, kind of hard to cram that into three years(this is mind you exactly why you can't cram most engineering degrees into three years either).
I think by "open-minded" the parent probably means doesn't hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. This is Missouri we're talking about and conservative doesn't mean the same thing down there as it does up in the blue states.
We're not talking about libertarians with conservative economic views, we're talking rednecks and christian fundamentalists. Compared to that lot, the most closed minded, group thinking liberals are generally a breath of fresh air.
I know that it's fashionable to hate the liberals here on Slashdot because group think here says cut taxes and screw everyone and everything else, but remember that liberal and conservative have context, and there's a pretty good chance that wherever it is you live it isn't the deep south.
This isn't a requirement, and for some people it may not be an adequate fix(if you're running on some strange CPU windows 7 doesn't support then obviously it isn't going to be the solution for you. It may not be sensible or economical if you have some sort of legacy application that every single person in your organization needs and which won't run in Windows 7(though if you have a legacy app that crucial and it's not getting continued support you're in for bigger problems later on).
What it does do is allow organizatios/individuals who can run 99% percent of their software in Windows 7, to have access to whatever pluses Windows 7 provides them without having to give up the 1% of applications that don't. It also allows Microsoft to rip out all the dodgy code that was supporting these applications and separate it from their security model.
All in all, it's a reasonable compromise under the circumstances. Windows needs to move forward, and some applications can't be moved forward with it, at least not right now. This allows both to happen, and it's at least slightly better than most of the alternatives.
This is sort of the inherent problem.
A clever evil person takes nearly everything someone has, but leaves them enough to survive so they can make more stuff for them to take later.
In video games, evil basically translates to "killing everything I see for the pure psychopathic joy of it. There's almost never any real quality evil going on anymore, you either raze the village to the ground, or you save it from danger. There's no depth.
Tiered pricing works very well, and is relatively inevitable even in the US. The issue is with what the tiers are and what happens when you go over the cap(I get rate limited when I go over my cap as opposed to charging).
You can have rate limiting and a fair deal. Yes consumers will be worse off, but that's because the current model isn't a fair deal, it's foolish largess.
Companies in the US figured that the vast majority of people wouldn't use much bandwidth and that they could afford to let the minority overuse in exchange for the benefit of selling "unlimited" connections. The problem with this is that more and more people are using real bandwidth, and the economy of the system is falling apart. They add more pipe and their customers use more pipe, all without paying any extra money, or providing capacity for any more customers. It doesn't work, it can't work, and eventually one of two things is going to happen, either the bandwidth is going to be capped as part of the plan or they're going to start arbitrarily rate capping customers to meet their own capacity. In on system you get to pay for what you need, in the other they decide what you paid for, I prefer the first one.
And TFA is wrong.
Prosciutto is an expensive salt cured ham. You do not need to cook it. Even if it came from the same part of the pig and was otherwise identical to bacon(which it isn't) the salt curing would be more than enough to make it different. It's chemically different than regular(or even canadian) bacon and at the least contains a whole heck of a lot of salt which regular bacon does not.
There's not any copper to rip out. Folks out there get subsidized mobiles because running any kind of wiring three thousand kilometers into the middle of nowhere for one farm isn't really cost effective.
Well wikipedia probably isn't reliable enough for a prior art search, and for that matter, it's realistically only a matter of time before the US switches to a first to file system anyway at which point it won't do much good anyhoo.
Harsh economic truth time.
What it costs you to make something has nothing to do with what you can sell it for.
I'd make a guess that the developer doesn't get anywhere near that $50-$60. The retail store, the distributor, and the publisher all have to take a cut out of that 30 million dollars, and they've got expenses and have to make a profit too.
I always wonder at these sort of articles. If most companies were confronted with a situation in which the vast majority of their products were generating massive losses, they'd look at doing something different. It's fairly clear that increasing prices won't work, so that leaves decreasing costs and/or increasing the percentage of your games that are a success.
The entertainment industry has a real problem because they don't know what industry they're in. They think that they're in the movie industry or the music industry or the game industry. They're not. They don't sell games, or movies, or music, not really, they sell entertainment, and if they can't sell entertainment at a price people are willing to pay then they lose and go out of business. The sooner this happens the better for some of them.
Ron Paul sounded good, and he was a good guy, but he would have destroyed the US and taken the rest of the world with him.
It is entirely possible that this has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA anyway. In reality, the court case is about what level punitive damages become unconstitutional(if any), not about who is asking for the punitive damages.
Yes it's being used against the RIAA, but that's not what the lawyers are asking the court. There are a whole bunch of people(including the government itself) who are quit attached to very punitive punitive damages, and a loss for the RIAA here would be a loss for all those people as well.
No one really gives a rats about the RIAA, they give a rats about whether they can enforce the law or not. I'm fairly sure that if someone could come up with a way for the RIAA to go away and stop causing trouble without seriously jeopardizing the powers the government thinks it has only the RIAA would ever challenge it. That's not what's happened here though. A loss here is a major loss.
The transition to IPv6 will happen, but it won't happen until there is a business driver for it.
Right now, NAT works. It's not great, but it hasn't reached the levels where most people are inconvenienced dramatically yet. NAT can be configured to allow direct access where necessary, and for the most part that works just fine at the moment.
Eventually there will be a motivation for an ISP to provide something they can provide more easily, more cheaply, or just actually provide in general, which will give them a competitive advantage over other ISPs, and they'll do it. Until then, they won't.
Providing an OS that isn't what users want isn't a get out of jail free card for Microsoft(or Linux for that matter), there is a difference between not being what anyone wants and being fundamentally crap though.
Yes, but the point is, the reason they leave it to the file system is that it's they presume the file system won't be stupid with their data.
There are thousands of posts in here talking about the fact that you're supposed to be calling fsync() and if you're not then it's just your own damned fault. I'm just pointing out that by forcing applications who didn't need fsync before to fsync they're actually going to hurt performance all in the name of a performance gain.
I did flip read and write, long day.
You're right, we don't need a filesystem which sledges in every byte in case theirs a crash, and which handles important data differently.
At the same time we don't need a file system which takes so long to write data to a disk that every program has to treat its data as important so we end up with a system which does hammer every byte onto the disk in the case of a crash.
1.5 seconds is stupid in PC which can perform fifteen thousand operations in that time span, and when everyone has to use fsync() it won't be any faster.
It's not exactly how it's being described by the GP.
Yes, it's technically accurate, but it's not the point. Ext4 extends the delay between writes out from a maximum of 5 ms to well over a second.
Yes you read that right, if you write data in an ext4 file system it won't be on disk until an amount of time you can actually count has past.
The only reason this gives any kind of performance benefits at all is because most applications are not calling fsync(). The resolution to the data loss this is causing is for pretty much every application to call fsync() a whole lot of the time, which will probably end up with data being written to the disk even more inefficiently than it was before.
Just because the POSIX standards say it, doesn't mean it's right. POSIX is very old now, and was based around technological ideas which are out of date now.
This is actually even stupider for flash drives. There is essentially zero seek time on a flash drive, so, in theory, it shouldn't really matter how much you write at any given time(since hte only delay should be how long it takes to actually write the cell).
In addition, presuming reasonable wear algorithms(which should be implemented in the device controller not in any sort of software), every bit of Math I've seen says that for any realistic amount of data writes the flash drives will last substantially longer than any current physical drives(last I saw it was about 30 years if you wrote every sector on the disk once a day, scaling down as writes increase. Even writing 6 times the volume of the drive per day that's 5 years which is a fairly long time for consumer grade physical drives, and unlike a physical drive, even if you can't read it, you can write it so you can just clone it over to a new drive.
File systems will definitely have to change for flash drives, but delaying writes probably isn't going to be the way to do it, especially since there's no need to do so.
Intel is unlikely to fall. They're certainly hurting in that their serious dominance is in the top end of the market and the economy is shrinking that market segment. AMD seems to be surviving, at least in the short term, and they're still reasonably competetive at the lower price points(I haven't looked in a while, but they had nothing that even came close to i7).
On the other hand, unlike AMD, Intel still has loads cash, loads of market share, is an equal competitor at the lower price points and isn't losing any money on their high end systems(today's high end is tomorrow's consumer grade).
Intel indeed has more to lose than AMD, but that's because if AMD loses much more they won't exist anymore. They've already had to spin off their fabrication line(which caused the lawsuit) so that they can try to escape toxic debt levels, and Phenom, while a reasonable chipset didn't even make it into the high end range. They're also worth substantially less than they paid for ATI, and I haven't seen them picking up all that much market share in that sector either.
Wrong.
Nothing could have forced consumers to Itanium because the loss of legacy 32 bit code in 2001 would have been completely and totally unacceptable. The migration to 64 bit still isn't done, and for the vast majority of applications still isn't necessary.
The only way that Intel could have forced people over to Itanium would have been to stop making x86 chips and refuse to allow anyone else to make them either. This would have left them with a developer base who already had to rewrite all their applications for a new architecture and who were seriously pissed off with Intel. That would basically have been the kiss of death for Intel, and probably the biggest bonanza in the history of some other hardware manufacturer(probably Sun).
Itanium is what you base your product lines off what your engineers think is the right thing to do as opposed to what your customers actually want. Unless you're the only competitor, losing backwards compatibility before the majority of your customers are ready to give it up is suicide. If you force people to change more than their ready to change and prepared to change, they're more than likely to just change to someone else who won't do that to them.
Stupid, uncontrolled, government handouts don't count, Socializing the system as a solution would involve the government taking control and saying "we will deliver unlimited bandwidth to everyone regardless of the cost".
I don't know exactly how much, if any, of that money was spent on actual infrastructure. If it wasn't I don't know what exactly it was spent on.
That said, it doesn't matter, you can pour as much money into this problem as you want, all it will do is postpone the problem. In the current US system there is no motivation for users to limit their downloads and there is no motivation for ISPs to expand their infrastructure. No matter how much bandwidth an ISP has, their users will use pretty much all of it. Why wouldn't they, it doesn't cost them any more to do so. This doesn't work, and can't work.
Unless you're suggesting that the government run all ISPs then the ISPs still have to make a profit.
The all you can eat internet plan doesn't work anymore, it doesn't work anywhere. The sheer amount of data which can be downloaded in a month now is ridiculously high and a larger and larger percentage of the internet using public is using large amounts of bandwidth. No matter how much money gets poured into infrastructure it won't work because if there's no extra cost to more bandwidth people will just continue to use more.
Usage has to have a cost or the system doesn't work. It used to work because you could only download so much data and very few people downloaded much at all, but that's not the case and it's getting to be even less the case.
At this point there are only a few options.
Any other solution just involves private companies pouring money down the drain so that people can have unlimited downloads which just isn't going to happen.
It's time to change, and unless they come up with a new internet backbone that doesn't involve laying expensive cable continually expending backbone to meet totally unlimited demand with no additional income just isn't going to work.
I've never seen a single contract for residential internet that provided "unlimited service" at "xx Mbps", every single one I've ever seen is "up to xx Mbps", the contract isn't going to help here.
The solution for better or for worse is for the US to implement download caps like the rest of the world. It'll be unpopular and it'll have disadvantages, but laying cable still costs money and the current all you can eat payment schemes just don't work.
The principal is the same. They're still different than other people.