...but it doesn't tell me what's happening, sounds sensationalist, and actually uses "Micro$oft" - who types that???
It also claims that the reports are spreading to everywhere except the official Zune site, but the forums on the official Zune site have these reports as well. Apparently the article submitter would expect Microsoft to put a massive panic-filled announcement on the front page: "OH NOES TEH ZUNE$ ARE ALL TEH SUX0RZ!!!11!ELEVEN"
Basically, a few people are having problems with one particular Zune. Some on the forum have fixed it themselves, and I couldn't help but notice that at least a few of them are refurbished models.
Cue the predictions of Microsoft's imminent demise, only here on SlashFUD.
The problem with technical support is that you're generally supporting people who have no understanding of the technology. You know the saying -- any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, with magic, anything is possible. So is it really a surprise when, for example, someone who doesn't know what a virus is (other than that it's a scary thing that computers "just get" sometimes) thinks that his DVD drive is infected with a virus and sends it in to be cleaned (as in one of TFA's examples)?
Nevertheless, I enjoy laughing at the expense of the ignorant as much as anyone. I'm a developer and have never done support, however many years ago I did briefly do some work on the hardware side of things, mainly imaging and installing workstations. One day I upgraded someone's workstation, and about a week later the person who sits at the desk next to that person started experiencing problems with one of the applications she uses daily. She was absolutely convinced that the only explanation was that I had somehow wrecked her application while installing the other person's new workstation.
In fairness, I will also tell a story about stupid IT people (specifically myself, albeit a younger, less experienced self). In that same office, I was charged with backing up people's documents onto the network (everybody stored everything locally in those days) prior to deploying new workstations for those people. A bunch of the users had gone for lunch, leaving their workstations unlocked (also normal in those days), so I figured it was an excellent opportunity to do the backups.
I sat at the first workstation, launched Windows Explorer, and it promptly BSODed on me (these were the Windows 98 days), killing whatever applications and documents the user may have had open at the time. Embarrassed, I moved to the next workstation, sat down, launched Windows Explorer, and once again was greeted with a workstation-killing BSOD.
Two in a row was unlikely enough, so I thought there's no way it could happen a third time. I went to the next workstation, and sure enough, I was greeted with the BSOD when I tried to open Windows Explorer.
Had I finally learned my lesson? Well, of course not. I fried a 4th workstation before finally deciding that I should maybe not open Windows Explorer on these machines, since there was clearly a problem that existed across all of them (they were, after all, the same hardware running the same disc image, and therefore probably experiencing the same driver problems or whatever).
That's an odd defense of the old, "correct" version, which uses "beg" and "question" in ways even farther from their normal English senses...
I wasn't actually defending the old use, I was merely attacking the new use. "Beg the question" meaning "raise the question" just sounds stupid, and "beg the question" meaning "assume the premise" is the result of a poor translation, so I don't like to use either one.
The new, transitive sense of "beg the question" uses the words in their normal meanings, eliding a few.
No, I think in most cases, somebody simply heard a phrase, assumed it to mean something it doesn't, and now it has caught on. It's a simple bastardization of the English language born from ignorance, not a clever new idiom.
"those words" is not a proper antecedent for the pronoun "it". If you are going to obsess about people using words correctly, you should work harder on the basics yourself.
Let me slide on that little slip, and I'll ignore your "reflexively pedantry" in the preceding block, or the "Its not" in the next one.;)
We're talking about using an idiomatic phrase with a clear meaning that emerges very naturally from the meanings of the individual words...
Again, I disagree, as I really don't think anyone consciously chose to create an idiomatic phrase, they simply misused a phrase they had heard but didn't understand, and now it has spread.
Actually, I wasn't so much defending the older use of the phrase as I was attacking the newer use. I personally don't use the phrase at all, either to describe the logical fallacy or to substitute "beg" for "raise".
Basically, my point is this: if you insist on using an idiom, at least use it correctly. Otherwise, just use the words that actually mean what you're trying to say.
I just don't know why people go around hunting forums for minor errors, as if they are the forum editor or something.
I don't think people necessarily go around looking for it (I certainly don't), but rather it just pops out at them and annoys them.
Personally, in the case of this particular phrase, I found it to be a stupid, nonsensical, and annoying phrase before I even discovered that there is a correct usage. As a result, I cringe whenever I encounter it, not just because it's being used incorrectly, but because it just makes no sense.
I just prefer it when people use words that actually mean what the speaker is trying to say, and the word "beg" simply does not mean what the speaker is trying to make it mean in that context. Is it too much to ask that people say what they mean?
Interestingly, your link is to the NY Times effectively apologizing for misusing that phrase, and reaffirming their desire not to do it again in the future. Maybe I'll "give up" when they do.;)
They made a movie of Lolita, and they used an actress who was an adult to play Lolita.
Not disputing your overall argument, but I'm wondering what movie you're referring to.
The 1962 Stanley Kubrick version of Lolita starred 14 year old Sue Lyon, and the 1997 Adrian Lyne version starred 17 year old Dominique Swain. Neither were adults.
Aren't you guys tired of doing this on here? The fight is over, the meaning has changed. Get on with your lives.
The phrase "begs the question" in the context that it is all-too-frequently used simply makes no sense. How do you beg a question, exactly? I know how to raise one, but I have no idea how to beg one. Absolutely nothing is gained by using the word "beg" to mean "raise" -- something it never does in any other context.
This is why many of us continue to point out the actual meaning of that phrase. It's stupid to use it the way people do. It makes no sense. Just because a lot of people regularly use those words to mean something that they don't actually mean, doesn't mean everyone else should just accept it as meaning that. Sure, we understand what they're saying when they use the phrase, just like we understand what is meant when someone writes "alot", or "loose" instead of "lose", or "would of", or "prolly". But that doesn't make those things correct.
Holy crap, you guys have Amazon up there in Canada?
Yeah, but unfortunately it's pretty unreliable. The servers respond really slowly in the winter, which runs from July 20th to July 10th.
On the plus side, both of our cities (Toronto and Vancouver) now have phone lines in every home, so Internet access is pretty common there.
Living in the village of Edmonton, though, I still have to ride my dogsled eighty kilometres from my igloo to the Internet Cafe just to browse Slashdot.
Actually, come to think of it, a good recommendation would be to go to your local bookstore and pick up pretty much anything by Martin Fowler, Robert C. Martin, or the Pragmatic boys (Hunt and Thomas).
My techie credentials: professional software developer; been playing with computers since about age 8 (1980); etc.
I grew up reading science fiction, and I'm a huge fan of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I'm also a Star Wars nerd, and I love Blade Runner (I've read the Phillip K. Dick novel as well). However, other than Vonnegut, I just don't read sci-fi anymore, nor do I have any interest in sci-fi movies (other than the aforementioned classics).
The Matrix bored me. All of the Star Trek-ish shows on TV are just plain silly to me. I loved the original Battlestar Galactica (when I was a kid), but simply have no interest in checking out the new one.
The same goes for fantasy. I read Tolkien as a kid, but when I went to see Fellowship of the Ring in the theatre, I kept looking at my watch and wondering when it was going to end (that was the longest movie I've sat through in a long time). I didn't even bother with the other two.
I guess I've grown out of sci-fi. I'm not attempting to paint sci-fi as childish (although I do find it pretty cheesy most of the time), just that for me it was something I was once into, and I'm not anymore.
I've been "doing" computers since the early 90s. I've never had much problem with power supplies. And I do mean *never*.
Give it time. It's possible that you'll never experience problems with a cheap PSU, but likely that you will.
My personal experience: I've been "doing" computers for a bit longer than you have, and the only components I've had fail on me (so far) were: ultra cheap motherboard (two of them, the same brand and model, both died within a year), and ultra cheap PSU (three of them, various brands). The difference between the dead motherboards and the dead PSUs was that when the PSUs died, they took the hard drive with them.
I'm no longer willing to take that chance with my data.
Most uneducated users that read the article will probably be of the mindset "oh, it won't happen to me".
And most of them are right. It won't.
From one of the linked articles:
"Based on our stats, since the vulnerability has gone public, roughly 0.2 percent of users worldwide may have been exposed to Web sites containing exploits of this latest vulnerability," according to a posting on the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC) blog.
Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state -- in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise
Someone please explain that sentence to me, because to me it sounds like: "In the US, driving you car on the sidewalks is allowed -- in fact you'll go to jail in most states if you do so."
It's a painfully horrible sentence. I think this is what it's trying (unsuccessfully) to say:
"In 26 states, electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state, while the other 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise."
Waiting 5 minutes for your PC to boot at the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour has a cost of around 55 cents to the company.
Right. Because it is, of course, impossible to check your voice mail, give your boss a quick status update, check your physical mail slot, or any other task that doesn't involve a computer until after you've sat perfectly still for 5 minutes watching the computer boot up.
Basically, anyone who has written and recorded a song can sign up for SOCAN membership. I believe it's free, although I can't remember for sure.
SOCAN does some complicated magic to decide what portion of overall royalties collected from radio stations, bars, etc. should be distributed to each of its member artists. I don't know exactly how that magic works, but part of it is taking samples of actual radio airplay from across the country (there's much more to it than that).
Now, with respect to performing your own songs at a SOCAN-registered venue, all you have to do is inform SOCAN of which specific songs you played at which venue on which date, and they will make sure that the appropriate portion of royalties gets sent to you.
Basically, they rely on statistics that they gather for the most part, but you can also provide details of specific instances to ensure payment.
It's quite remarkable how few artists, particularly independent artists, are unaware of this and never submit their set lists to SOCAN as a result.
I'm also a Canadian on Slashdot, and a hobbyist musician.
Another Canadian here, and also a musician (hobbyist and retired professional).
For example: anytime someone books a local hall for rent, you have to pay a couple hundred bucks to Socan, even if you were playing your own originals, or perhaps you're a Beatles cover band etc.
And, if you are playing your own originals, you too can be eligible to receive compensation for that if you're a SOCAN member. That's right, you can actually get paid royalties by SOCAN to play your own songs.
They don't send these royalties to non Canadian artists...
Actually, every country has their own PROs, and they are all connected to one another, so yes, artists from other countries get a cut too.
Considering nowadays people can create their own music for under $1000.00 and promote it on the internet for free, this welfare system for commercial artists is quite ridiculous.
While I'm not a fan of the blank media levy, I do like the idea of a PRO like SOCAN. It's not welfare, it's distribution of royalties. It's not a perfect system of doing it, but I haven't heard anyone suggest a better one.
The commercial recording industry is an obsolete and dying business model that should be taken off of the government provided life support
Agreed 120%. SOCAN, however, isn't just about the commercial recording industry. Remember, you can be a member too.
I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "generally proven". One study by an economist (Todd Kendall) has suggested that. Meanwhile, many other studies done over many decades have said the opposite.
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"? When will they distance themselves from the RIAA?
It's already happening up here. I don't know if there's anything similar down there.
See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want is to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!
If that is the case, then you wasted money by buying too much RAM. You should have spent more of it on your CPU or whatever else is rate-limiting.
But RAM is now the cheapest component in a computer, so it's worth throwing in a few extra dollars to have plenty of RAM, and doing so won't actually require cutting any costs in another area.
Regardless, the question was never about "performance per dollar of hardware". The question was based on a system that has already been purchased, so cost is a thing of the past. If I have enough RAM to do all of the useful things that I need to do, why does it make any sense at all to free up more RAM by swapping to disk?
You really don't want hundreds of megabytes of BloatyApp's untouched memory floating about in the machine. Get it out on the disk, use the memory for something useful.
That's the part I've never understood, and I suspect the article submitter is having the same problem I have with this.
You see, if you've got a ton of physical RAM, then the assumption is that much of it is already just sitting there unused. If you had "something useful" that needed to be done, there's plenty of memory available in which to do it. So why swap out "BloatyApp's untouched memory"? This just makes it so that even more memory is going to waste?
Slashdot Mirror
...but it doesn't tell me what's happening, sounds sensationalist, and actually uses "Micro$oft" - who types that???
It also claims that the reports are spreading to everywhere except the official Zune site, but the forums on the official Zune site have these reports as well. Apparently the article submitter would expect Microsoft to put a massive panic-filled announcement on the front page: "OH NOES TEH ZUNE$ ARE ALL TEH SUX0RZ!!!11!ELEVEN"
Basically, a few people are having problems with one particular Zune. Some on the forum have fixed it themselves, and I couldn't help but notice that at least a few of them are refurbished models.
Cue the predictions of Microsoft's imminent demise, only here on SlashFUD.
The problem with technical support is that you're generally supporting people who have no understanding of the technology. You know the saying -- any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, with magic, anything is possible. So is it really a surprise when, for example, someone who doesn't know what a virus is (other than that it's a scary thing that computers "just get" sometimes) thinks that his DVD drive is infected with a virus and sends it in to be cleaned (as in one of TFA's examples)?
Nevertheless, I enjoy laughing at the expense of the ignorant as much as anyone. I'm a developer and have never done support, however many years ago I did briefly do some work on the hardware side of things, mainly imaging and installing workstations. One day I upgraded someone's workstation, and about a week later the person who sits at the desk next to that person started experiencing problems with one of the applications she uses daily. She was absolutely convinced that the only explanation was that I had somehow wrecked her application while installing the other person's new workstation.
In fairness, I will also tell a story about stupid IT people (specifically myself, albeit a younger, less experienced self). In that same office, I was charged with backing up people's documents onto the network (everybody stored everything locally in those days) prior to deploying new workstations for those people. A bunch of the users had gone for lunch, leaving their workstations unlocked (also normal in those days), so I figured it was an excellent opportunity to do the backups.
I sat at the first workstation, launched Windows Explorer, and it promptly BSODed on me (these were the Windows 98 days), killing whatever applications and documents the user may have had open at the time. Embarrassed, I moved to the next workstation, sat down, launched Windows Explorer, and once again was greeted with a workstation-killing BSOD.
Two in a row was unlikely enough, so I thought there's no way it could happen a third time. I went to the next workstation, and sure enough, I was greeted with the BSOD when I tried to open Windows Explorer.
Had I finally learned my lesson? Well, of course not. I fried a 4th workstation before finally deciding that I should maybe not open Windows Explorer on these machines, since there was clearly a problem that existed across all of them (they were, after all, the same hardware running the same disc image, and therefore probably experiencing the same driver problems or whatever).
That's an odd defense of the old, "correct" version, which uses "beg" and "question" in ways even farther from their normal English senses...
I wasn't actually defending the old use, I was merely attacking the new use. "Beg the question" meaning "raise the question" just sounds stupid, and "beg the question" meaning "assume the premise" is the result of a poor translation, so I don't like to use either one.
The new, transitive sense of "beg the question" uses the words in their normal meanings, eliding a few.
No, I think in most cases, somebody simply heard a phrase, assumed it to mean something it doesn't, and now it has caught on. It's a simple bastardization of the English language born from ignorance, not a clever new idiom.
"those words" is not a proper antecedent for the pronoun "it". If you are going to obsess about people using words correctly, you should work harder on the basics yourself.
Let me slide on that little slip, and I'll ignore your "reflexively pedantry" in the preceding block, or the "Its not" in the next one. ;)
We're talking about using an idiomatic phrase with a clear meaning that emerges very naturally from the meanings of the individual words...
Again, I disagree, as I really don't think anyone consciously chose to create an idiomatic phrase, they simply misused a phrase they had heard but didn't understand, and now it has spread.
Actually, I wasn't so much defending the older use of the phrase as I was attacking the newer use. I personally don't use the phrase at all, either to describe the logical fallacy or to substitute "beg" for "raise".
Basically, my point is this: if you insist on using an idiom, at least use it correctly. Otherwise, just use the words that actually mean what you're trying to say.
I just don't know why people go around hunting forums for minor errors, as if they are the forum editor or something.
I don't think people necessarily go around looking for it (I certainly don't), but rather it just pops out at them and annoys them.
Personally, in the case of this particular phrase, I found it to be a stupid, nonsensical, and annoying phrase before I even discovered that there is a correct usage. As a result, I cringe whenever I encounter it, not just because it's being used incorrectly, but because it just makes no sense.
I just prefer it when people use words that actually mean what the speaker is trying to say, and the word "beg" simply does not mean what the speaker is trying to make it mean in that context. Is it too much to ask that people say what they mean?
Interestingly, your link is to the NY Times effectively apologizing for misusing that phrase, and reaffirming their desire not to do it again in the future. Maybe I'll "give up" when they do. ;)
They made a movie of Lolita, and they used an actress who was an adult to play Lolita.
Not disputing your overall argument, but I'm wondering what movie you're referring to.
The 1962 Stanley Kubrick version of Lolita starred 14 year old Sue Lyon, and the 1997 Adrian Lyne version starred 17 year old Dominique Swain. Neither were adults.
Aren't you guys tired of doing this on here? The fight is over, the meaning has changed. Get on with your lives.
The phrase "begs the question" in the context that it is all-too-frequently used simply makes no sense. How do you beg a question, exactly? I know how to raise one, but I have no idea how to beg one. Absolutely nothing is gained by using the word "beg" to mean "raise" -- something it never does in any other context.
This is why many of us continue to point out the actual meaning of that phrase. It's stupid to use it the way people do. It makes no sense. Just because a lot of people regularly use those words to mean something that they don't actually mean, doesn't mean everyone else should just accept it as meaning that. Sure, we understand what they're saying when they use the phrase, just like we understand what is meant when someone writes "alot", or "loose" instead of "lose", or "would of", or "prolly". But that doesn't make those things correct.
Holy crap, you guys have Amazon up there in Canada?
Yeah, but unfortunately it's pretty unreliable. The servers respond really slowly in the winter, which runs from July 20th to July 10th.
On the plus side, both of our cities (Toronto and Vancouver) now have phone lines in every home, so Internet access is pretty common there.
Living in the village of Edmonton, though, I still have to ride my dogsled eighty kilometres from my igloo to the Internet Cafe just to browse Slashdot.
Actually, come to think of it, a good recommendation would be to go to your local bookstore and pick up pretty much anything by Martin Fowler, Robert C. Martin, or the Pragmatic boys (Hunt and Thomas).
Agreed. And I would add: Refactoring by Fowler and friends.
My techie credentials: professional software developer; been playing with computers since about age 8 (1980); etc.
I grew up reading science fiction, and I'm a huge fan of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I'm also a Star Wars nerd, and I love Blade Runner (I've read the Phillip K. Dick novel as well). However, other than Vonnegut, I just don't read sci-fi anymore, nor do I have any interest in sci-fi movies (other than the aforementioned classics).
The Matrix bored me. All of the Star Trek-ish shows on TV are just plain silly to me. I loved the original Battlestar Galactica (when I was a kid), but simply have no interest in checking out the new one.
The same goes for fantasy. I read Tolkien as a kid, but when I went to see Fellowship of the Ring in the theatre, I kept looking at my watch and wondering when it was going to end (that was the longest movie I've sat through in a long time). I didn't even bother with the other two.
I guess I've grown out of sci-fi. I'm not attempting to paint sci-fi as childish (although I do find it pretty cheesy most of the time), just that for me it was something I was once into, and I'm not anymore.
I've been "doing" computers since the early 90s. I've never had much problem with power supplies. And I do mean *never*.
Give it time. It's possible that you'll never experience problems with a cheap PSU, but likely that you will.
My personal experience: I've been "doing" computers for a bit longer than you have, and the only components I've had fail on me (so far) were: ultra cheap motherboard (two of them, the same brand and model, both died within a year), and ultra cheap PSU (three of them, various brands). The difference between the dead motherboards and the dead PSUs was that when the PSUs died, they took the hard drive with them.
I'm no longer willing to take that chance with my data.
It isn't like the rest of French cuisine is Richard-Simmons-Approved when eaten in the kind of quantities Americans typically eat things
Um, it isn't like any food is Richard-Simmons-Approved when eaten in the kind of quantities Americans typically eat things.
Most uneducated users that read the article will probably be of the mindset "oh, it won't happen to me".
And most of them are right. It won't.
From one of the linked articles:
"Based on our stats, since the vulnerability has gone public, roughly 0.2 percent of users worldwide may have been exposed to Web sites containing exploits of this latest vulnerability," according to a posting on the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC) blog.
Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state -- in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise
Someone please explain that sentence to me, because to me it sounds like: "In the US, driving you car on the sidewalks is allowed -- in fact you'll go to jail in most states if you do so."
It's a painfully horrible sentence. I think this is what it's trying (unsuccessfully) to say:
"In 26 states, electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state, while the other 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise."
Waiting 5 minutes for your PC to boot at the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour has a cost of around 55 cents to the company.
Right. Because it is, of course, impossible to check your voice mail, give your boss a quick status update, check your physical mail slot, or any other task that doesn't involve a computer until after you've sat perfectly still for 5 minutes watching the computer boot up.
Basically, anyone who has written and recorded a song can sign up for SOCAN membership. I believe it's free, although I can't remember for sure.
SOCAN does some complicated magic to decide what portion of overall royalties collected from radio stations, bars, etc. should be distributed to each of its member artists. I don't know exactly how that magic works, but part of it is taking samples of actual radio airplay from across the country (there's much more to it than that).
Now, with respect to performing your own songs at a SOCAN-registered venue, all you have to do is inform SOCAN of which specific songs you played at which venue on which date, and they will make sure that the appropriate portion of royalties gets sent to you.
Basically, they rely on statistics that they gather for the most part, but you can also provide details of specific instances to ensure payment.
It's quite remarkable how few artists, particularly independent artists, are unaware of this and never submit their set lists to SOCAN as a result.
I'm also a Canadian on Slashdot, and a hobbyist musician.
Another Canadian here, and also a musician (hobbyist and retired professional).
For example: anytime someone books a local hall for rent, you have to pay a couple hundred bucks to Socan, even if you were playing your own originals, or perhaps you're a Beatles cover band etc.
And, if you are playing your own originals, you too can be eligible to receive compensation for that if you're a SOCAN member. That's right, you can actually get paid royalties by SOCAN to play your own songs.
They don't send these royalties to non Canadian artists...
Actually, every country has their own PROs, and they are all connected to one another, so yes, artists from other countries get a cut too.
Considering nowadays people can create their own music for under $1000.00 and promote it on the internet for free, this welfare system for commercial artists is quite ridiculous.
While I'm not a fan of the blank media levy, I do like the idea of a PRO like SOCAN. It's not welfare, it's distribution of royalties. It's not a perfect system of doing it, but I haven't heard anyone suggest a better one.
The commercial recording industry is an obsolete and dying business model that should be taken off of the government provided life support
Agreed 120%. SOCAN, however, isn't just about the commercial recording industry. Remember, you can be a member too.
By the way, many SOCAN member artists also disagree with CRIA's support for RIAA tactics.
ACTRA and SOCAN are Canada's recording industry associations. They parallel the US's MPAA and RIAA.
Not quite. CRIA is Canada's RIAA.
SOCAN is a performing rights organization, so it parallels the US's BMI and ASCAP.
I know nothing about ACTRA.
I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "generally proven". One study by an economist (Todd Kendall) has suggested that. Meanwhile, many other studies done over many decades have said the opposite.
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"? When will they distance themselves from the RIAA?
It's already happening up here. I don't know if there's anything similar down there.
It's not just assholes that the world is full of.
See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want is to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!
If that is the case, then you wasted money by buying too much RAM. You should have spent more of it on your CPU or whatever else is rate-limiting.
But RAM is now the cheapest component in a computer, so it's worth throwing in a few extra dollars to have plenty of RAM, and doing so won't actually require cutting any costs in another area.
Regardless, the question was never about "performance per dollar of hardware". The question was based on a system that has already been purchased, so cost is a thing of the past. If I have enough RAM to do all of the useful things that I need to do, why does it make any sense at all to free up more RAM by swapping to disk?
You really don't want hundreds of megabytes of BloatyApp's untouched memory floating about in the machine. Get it out on the disk, use the memory for something useful.
That's the part I've never understood, and I suspect the article submitter is having the same problem I have with this.
You see, if you've got a ton of physical RAM, then the assumption is that much of it is already just sitting there unused. If you had "something useful" that needed to be done, there's plenty of memory available in which to do it. So why swap out "BloatyApp's untouched memory"? This just makes it so that even more memory is going to waste?