No, it really doesn't. You're just not imagining all the cases where you'd never even possibly have to cover. Should the software be able to handle a character set not even invented yet? How about in 500 years when people just use their entire DNA set as their name? For example, the software that handles the US passport system needs to handle anything that can appear in a legal name in the US, since the name on the passport needs to be the legal name.
So you've already put a limit on the names of character set, size, and actually being a name itself. You can't have a US legal name have Chinese characters in it. (I'm not even sure numerals are legal in a name). In any case it's most certainly not every conceivable possibility. All thanks to people with attitudes like yours not bothering to think a bit more before coding in extraneous checks in their code.
No, what I actually said was software isn't designed to be perfect. If you think it can ever be, you've got a lot to learn.
Or sell in New Zealand, or Australia, or anywhere else in the Pacific, or deal with immigrants, or be used by anyone who has a Chinese name?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the U.S. is a nation of immigrants some of which are Chinese and have Chinese names. They seemed to have figured out how to trans-literate their name into English characters.
And if you have to support Chinese characters for a name, pony up some dough and pay someone to do it. Why do you think the software has to be perfect from day one?
Anything ever designed is designed to fail. This applies to bridges, the pyramids, and all software. This belief you have that software doesn't have to be maintained is as ridiculous as the idea that a bridge or any physical structure doesn't have to be maintained. Software lives and dies like anything else. Nothing lives forever.
Software is NOT designed to be perfect and cover every case. Have a numeral in your name? Too bad. Need some names to be case sensitive, and others case insensitive? Sucks to be you. Have a 200 character name that doesn't fit in the 100 characters the designers thought no crazy person would ever have? Tough.
I started reading through the list, and it's just ridiculous. There's a few good points, like names don't change, or names are unique. But they're so obvious that the vast majority of the times it's not a big problem. More often it's just a matter of training the data edit/entry folks how to change someones name, or how to not assume a name is a sole identifier.
But assuming the worst and trying to design a system that'll allow people's names to be Chinese characters when you don't do business in China, have presence in China, or ever ever plan to? That's ridiculous. Software doesn't have to be perfect out of the shoot. It should be adaptable though if some unforeseen shortcoming becomes a larger problem. Gee, I guess if you ever chose to do business in China and need Chinese character names you might have to re-write part of the damn software. Oh well, that's what software developers are FOR!
If you don't even HAVE a name, then I submit you're crazier than the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince. At least HE had a name, though it was an unpronounceable symbol. The world can't accommodate every possibility, and software is no exception.
Uh, no. Trolls will troll. Showing your junk to the camera is the easiest and most obvious way, but even if you cut that out you'll just face the next thing down the pike. You're never going to out-grief the trolls.
So don't. Create a reputation system, and allow people to filter based on reputation.
I have to wonder how the price of gasoline hasn't gone up significantly since the news of this story initially broke.
I have to wonder why you think the price of oil would suddenly shoot up. The spill hasn't affected supply, since the leaking well never produced any oil for market. It's certainly made BPs stock price plummet, but honestly, why should this disaster make oil prices rise, and why do we need some big conspiracy to account for the lack of that? So far, right now, the only people who are truly upset about this are the "environmentalist whack jobs."
WTF? I know several people that are FAR from "environmental wack jobs" that quite upset about this. This isn't just a couple seagulls killed off, there's a whole economy reliant on seafood near the spill. Maybe the people you talk to are just blow-hard idiots?
I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation.
My guess is most successful suicides in the U.S. use a gun. I'm betting guns aren't available in China like they are in the US. Also, guns are expensive, and I'd guess someone working as a factory worker in China can't afford one. Most tall buildings in the U.S. roof access is restricted. I _have_ heard of a lot of people jumping off bridges though. When I was at the University of MN I recall stories about someone occasionally jumping off the foot bridge across the Mississippi river.
The point being, method of suicide is largely dependent on the means available. People will imitate what they've heard or seen, as it's proof it works.
Whether the suicides are really because of the working conditions is beside the point. The descriptions of the working conditions sound rather poor, and I don't hear anyone disputing that. The response from Foxconn has been to remove monetary incentives for the family, and get other workers to turn the workers in.
None of that would be a problem if Mozilla had made it so third party programs can't install plugins.
How would that even be possible for a program where the source code is available, and the 3rd party has admin level access? Even for a close source program it's not possible if you're willing to reverse-engineer the program.
Not mucking with a program is essentially a gentleman's agreement. We all know Microsoft is NOT a gentleman, so they'll do whatever suits them the best.
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
This discussion we're having right now is a big part of that process. Speech is obviously a necessity in a democracy. This idea you have that democracy is sitting in isolation, calling up your representative and having a little chat with him/her is utterly ridiculous. Democracy happens by people forming opinions, and voting for people who hold those opinions. Peoples opinions are influenced by discussion. Giving your opinions to elected officials is part of the process, but it most certainly isn't the only part. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
I watched the whole video. It doesn't mention wikileaks, the wikileaks founder, or anything surrounding this case at all. The video is about an entirely different leak (of which almost no details are given), and Obama doesn't even threaten to arrest that guy.
When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric?
When are people such as yourself going to realize that assuming that if neither party doesn't agree with a certain view, that doesn't mean they're "both the same". Have you REALLY not being paying that much attention?
If the rather large differences between the two parties aren't what you care about, fine. But don't ignore the differences just because you don't care about them.
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy. So while my opinion on what should/shouldn't be classified might not be the definitive one, an important one, or even a good one.. it's always a relevant one. You presumably live in a dictatorship, so I can see how you might have a different opinion on it. Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, since you live in a dictatorship.
So I guess if the worst predictions come true, some farmers will be without the ability to irrigate crops. Oh well.
This isn't going to be a scenario where one day the whole aquifer is depleted. If anything it'll be regional. Wells will dry up, and farmers will either find some other source of water, conserve, or simply have to abandon the farm. Tough shit I guess.
Potable water supplies are a big issue in many parts of the world, and to "run out" can easily mean to have insufficient capacity to fulfill the needs of a growing population.
Absolutely true. The OP however was trying to push some bizarre story about water suddenly being the new doomsday scenario, which is just utterly ridiculous. Water has always been an issue for humans, and we're used to dealing with it. If things REALLY get bad, there's always filtration and recycling, or just plain move to where the water is. The comparison to our reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels is completely laughable.
It's, in short, a big deal.
Meh. In some places I'm sure it is. Trying to act like it's a big deal everywhere, or that suddenly we're all going to start dying of dehydration is stupid.
"The power grid" isn't capable of transmitting the enormous power involved in what I'd imagine "a nice piece of Nevada" would be able to generate. It would require huge, expensive upgrades to do so.
Not saying it would work everywhere but covering a nice piece of Nevada with solar might be an idea, the Sahara is another place for this.
And what happens at night, or when it's cloudy? And how do you get this enormous amount of power out of Nevada and into somewhere like Los Angeles, where people actually live?
This isn't a magic bullet scenario. Solar will solve some of the problems, but it brings up its own problems as well. We don't have a super-grid capable of transmitting the power across the country. When someone wants to build big transmission lines, it becomes a NIMBY issue across the anywhere the lines would go.
Or, of more immediate concern, how we're going to survive as a civilization when we run out of drinkable water.
Huh. Where I live the stuff falls from the sky, quite regularly. If I really had to I could pretty easily collect the stuff and store it. Do you not have rain where you live?
Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe when the water goes down the drain, it's not actually destroyed. I've heard from good sources that it winds up somewhere downstream, and not as some people believe sucked into a black hole and destroyed. I'm not quite sure about the water that goes on the lawn... some people say that's not destroyed either, but I don't believe them.
The physics works the same when it comes to scaling down electronics. That's obvious based on the last several decades of Moore's law.
Since you're obviously so well schooled in plasma physics, would you care to tell us how plasma behavior scales down in the same way that VCRs did from the 70s to the 90s?
Compared to what? The LHC cost around 9 billion and isn't expected to have any real tangible benefit to anyone other than the knowledge. The cost of a couple nuclear reactors is about 10-14 billion.
Compared to that, this thing sounds CHEAP. These "anti-nuclear activists" need to start asking themselves what we're going to replace base-load power generation with. Sorry, but wind just isn't going to do it since the wind doesn't blow all the time. Unless they like fission, coal, or natural gas, I don't see what else is going to substitute for generating a base load power. This is really a long term investment, and even though it's not guaranteed, we need to pursue multiple different strategies. Betting on one horse is just stupid.
I think VMWare might be about the only one. Game companies? Maybe. But a few examples proves my point.
The point being, there's not this enormous list of software companies that've risen to become billion dollar companies in just 10 or 15 years or so. Asking the question "why isn't their an OSS software company making billions" is irrelevant when there's only a few software companies PERIOD that've started in the last 10-15 years making a billion dollars.
Normally you might compare one business model with another on a somewhat equal basis. When comparing open source to closed source, doesn't it make more sense to compare the performance of the open source software company with that of the close source software company that started around the same time?
So can anyone name any large close source software companies that have started up rather recently that are billion dollar companies? I can't personally think of any. Can anyone else?
That means 140MB/s or 270MB/s, and at least close to it for long periods of time. Those cheap SATA discs the kids keep suggesting don't come anywhere near that.
You're right, they don't. But the vast majority of people don't need the crazy requirements you're talking about. I'm sure there's some people that do, but how many people really have terrabytes of data they desperately need to back up?
A SATA drive can push maybe 60 megabytes/second across the disk. In an hour you can backup 216 gigabytes at that rate. For most people, an hour of downtime at 4am is well within a maintenance window.
Tape has its place, but suggesting that HD isn't an acceptable solution to a lot of people because it isn't 140 megabytes/second is just silly. Just because storage capacities go up doesn't mean everyones data backup needs go up at the same rate.
Capitalism requires NOTHING of the kind. You're imposing some value system onto capitalism that in no ways is part of capitalism.
Mind you, I don't disagree. I think informed consumers leads to a better world. But what you're describing has really nothing to do with capitalism or "free markets (which don't actually exist). You're talking about a value system, which is what capitalism and "free markets" utterly lack.
As I read in someone's sig line here. the purest expression of business without regulation is the mafia.
Modern vehicles with knock sensors can get greater efficiency from higher octane fuels due to their ability to keep ignition timing as advanced as possible without running into preignition.
This is just far to much of a generalization. Everything else you said is correct, but MOST vehicles won't gain any increased mileage with increased octane fuel. Some cars are specifically designed with higher compression ratios, and thus will benefit from the higher octane fuel since they don't have to retard the timing. Whether this increased mileage is enough to make up for the increased price is something you'd have to measure case by case.
Slashdot Mirror
It really depends on the situation.
No, it really doesn't. You're just not imagining all the cases where you'd never even possibly have to cover. Should the software be able to handle a character set not even invented yet? How about in 500 years when people just use their entire DNA set as their name?
For example, the software that handles the US passport system needs to handle anything that can appear in a legal name in the US, since the name on the passport needs to be the legal name.
So you've already put a limit on the names of character set, size, and actually being a name itself. You can't have a US legal name have Chinese characters in it. (I'm not even sure numerals are legal in a name). In any case it's most certainly not every conceivable possibility.
All thanks to people with attitudes like yours not bothering to think a bit more before coding in extraneous checks in their code.
No, what I actually said was software isn't designed to be perfect. If you think it can ever be, you've got a lot to learn.
Or sell in New Zealand, or Australia, or anywhere else in the Pacific, or deal with immigrants, or be used by anyone who has a Chinese name?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the U.S. is a nation of immigrants some of which are Chinese and have Chinese names. They seemed to have figured out how to trans-literate their name into English characters.
And if you have to support Chinese characters for a name, pony up some dough and pay someone to do it. Why do you think the software has to be perfect from day one?
Then it's designed to fail
Anything ever designed is designed to fail. This applies to bridges, the pyramids, and all software. This belief you have that software doesn't have to be maintained is as ridiculous as the idea that a bridge or any physical structure doesn't have to be maintained. Software lives and dies like anything else. Nothing lives forever.
Software is NOT designed to be perfect and cover every case. Have a numeral in your name? Too bad. Need some names to be case sensitive, and others case insensitive? Sucks to be you. Have a 200 character name that doesn't fit in the 100 characters the designers thought no crazy person would ever have? Tough.
I started reading through the list, and it's just ridiculous. There's a few good points, like names don't change, or names are unique. But they're so obvious that the vast majority of the times it's not a big problem. More often it's just a matter of training the data edit/entry folks how to change someones name, or how to not assume a name is a sole identifier.
But assuming the worst and trying to design a system that'll allow people's names to be Chinese characters when you don't do business in China, have presence in China, or ever ever plan to? That's ridiculous. Software doesn't have to be perfect out of the shoot. It should be adaptable though if some unforeseen shortcoming becomes a larger problem. Gee, I guess if you ever chose to do business in China and need Chinese character names you might have to re-write part of the damn software. Oh well, that's what software developers are FOR!
If you don't even HAVE a name, then I submit you're crazier than the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince. At least HE had a name, though it was an unpronounceable symbol. The world can't accommodate every possibility, and software is no exception.
Uh, no. Trolls will troll. Showing your junk to the camera is the easiest and most obvious way, but even if you cut that out you'll just face the next thing down the pike. You're never going to out-grief the trolls.
So don't. Create a reputation system, and allow people to filter based on reputation.
I have to wonder how the price of gasoline hasn't gone up significantly since the news of this story initially broke.
I have to wonder why you think the price of oil would suddenly shoot up. The spill hasn't affected supply, since the leaking well never produced any oil for market. It's certainly made BPs stock price plummet, but honestly, why should this disaster make oil prices rise, and why do we need some big conspiracy to account for the lack of that?
So far, right now, the only people who are truly upset about this are the "environmentalist whack jobs."
WTF? I know several people that are FAR from "environmental wack jobs" that quite upset about this. This isn't just a couple seagulls killed off, there's a whole economy reliant on seafood near the spill. Maybe the people you talk to are just blow-hard idiots?
Uhh.. They did. There was even a movie about the whole thing starring Matt Damon.
I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation.
My guess is most successful suicides in the U.S. use a gun. I'm betting guns aren't available in China like they are in the US. Also, guns are expensive, and I'd guess someone working as a factory worker in China can't afford one. Most tall buildings in the U.S. roof access is restricted. I _have_ heard of a lot of people jumping off bridges though. When I was at the University of MN I recall stories about someone occasionally jumping off the foot bridge across the Mississippi river.
The point being, method of suicide is largely dependent on the means available. People will imitate what they've heard or seen, as it's proof it works.
Whether the suicides are really because of the working conditions is beside the point. The descriptions of the working conditions sound rather poor, and I don't hear anyone disputing that. The response from Foxconn has been to remove monetary incentives for the family, and get other workers to turn the workers in.
None of that would be a problem if Mozilla had made it so third party programs can't install plugins.
How would that even be possible for a program where the source code is available, and the 3rd party has admin level access? Even for a close source program it's not possible if you're willing to reverse-engineer the program.
Not mucking with a program is essentially a gentleman's agreement. We all know Microsoft is NOT a gentleman, so they'll do whatever suits them the best.
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
This discussion we're having right now is a big part of that process. Speech is obviously a necessity in a democracy. This idea you have that democracy is sitting in isolation, calling up your representative and having a little chat with him/her is utterly ridiculous. Democracy happens by people forming opinions, and voting for people who hold those opinions. Peoples opinions are influenced by discussion. Giving your opinions to elected officials is part of the process, but it most certainly isn't the only part. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
I watched the whole video. It doesn't mention wikileaks, the wikileaks founder, or anything surrounding this case at all. The video is about an entirely different leak (of which almost no details are given), and Obama doesn't even threaten to arrest that guy.
When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric?
When are people such as yourself going to realize that assuming that if neither party doesn't agree with a certain view, that doesn't mean they're "both the same". Have you REALLY not being paying that much attention?
If the rather large differences between the two parties aren't what you care about, fine. But don't ignore the differences just because you don't care about them.
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy. So while my opinion on what should/shouldn't be classified might not be the definitive one, an important one, or even a good one.. it's always a relevant one. You presumably live in a dictatorship, so I can see how you might have a different opinion on it. Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, since you live in a dictatorship.
So I guess if the worst predictions come true, some farmers will be without the ability to irrigate crops. Oh well.
This isn't going to be a scenario where one day the whole aquifer is depleted. If anything it'll be regional. Wells will dry up, and farmers will either find some other source of water, conserve, or simply have to abandon the farm. Tough shit I guess.
Potable water supplies are a big issue in many parts of the world, and to "run out" can easily mean to have insufficient capacity to fulfill the needs of a growing population.
Absolutely true. The OP however was trying to push some bizarre story about water suddenly being the new doomsday scenario, which is just utterly ridiculous. Water has always been an issue for humans, and we're used to dealing with it. If things REALLY get bad, there's always filtration and recycling, or just plain move to where the water is. The comparison to our reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels is completely laughable.
It's, in short, a big deal.
Meh. In some places I'm sure it is. Trying to act like it's a big deal everywhere, or that suddenly we're all going to start dying of dehydration is stupid.
"The power grid" isn't capable of transmitting the enormous power involved in what I'd imagine "a nice piece of Nevada" would be able to generate. It would require huge, expensive upgrades to do so.
Not saying it would work everywhere but covering a nice piece of Nevada with solar might be an idea, the Sahara is another place for this.
And what happens at night, or when it's cloudy? And how do you get this enormous amount of power out of Nevada and into somewhere like Los Angeles, where people actually live?
This isn't a magic bullet scenario. Solar will solve some of the problems, but it brings up its own problems as well. We don't have a super-grid capable of transmitting the power across the country. When someone wants to build big transmission lines, it becomes a NIMBY issue across the anywhere the lines would go.
Or, of more immediate concern, how we're going to survive as a civilization when we run out of drinkable water.
Huh. Where I live the stuff falls from the sky, quite regularly. If I really had to I could pretty easily collect the stuff and store it. Do you not have rain where you live?
Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe when the water goes down the drain, it's not actually destroyed. I've heard from good sources that it winds up somewhere downstream, and not as some people believe sucked into a black hole and destroyed. I'm not quite sure about the water that goes on the lawn... some people say that's not destroyed either, but I don't believe them.
The physics works the same when it comes to scaling down electronics. That's obvious based on the last several decades of Moore's law.
Since you're obviously so well schooled in plasma physics, would you care to tell us how plasma behavior scales down in the same way that VCRs did from the 70s to the 90s?
ITER is terribly expensive.
Compared to what? The LHC cost around 9 billion and isn't expected to have any real tangible benefit to anyone other than the knowledge. The cost of a couple nuclear reactors is about 10-14 billion.
Compared to that, this thing sounds CHEAP. These "anti-nuclear activists" need to start asking themselves what we're going to replace base-load power generation with. Sorry, but wind just isn't going to do it since the wind doesn't blow all the time. Unless they like fission, coal, or natural gas, I don't see what else is going to substitute for generating a base load power. This is really a long term investment, and even though it's not guaranteed, we need to pursue multiple different strategies. Betting on one horse is just stupid.
I think VMWare might be about the only one. Game companies? Maybe. But a few examples proves my point.
The point being, there's not this enormous list of software companies that've risen to become billion dollar companies in just 10 or 15 years or so. Asking the question "why isn't their an OSS software company making billions" is irrelevant when there's only a few software companies PERIOD that've started in the last 10-15 years making a billion dollars.
Normally you might compare one business model with another on a somewhat equal basis. When comparing open source to closed source, doesn't it make more sense to compare the performance of the open source software company with that of the close source software company that started around the same time?
So can anyone name any large close source software companies that have started up rather recently that are billion dollar companies? I can't personally think of any. Can anyone else?
That means 140MB/s or 270MB/s, and at least close to it for long periods of time. Those cheap SATA discs the kids keep suggesting don't come anywhere near that.
You're right, they don't. But the vast majority of people don't need the crazy requirements you're talking about. I'm sure there's some people that do, but how many people really have terrabytes of data they desperately need to back up?
A SATA drive can push maybe 60 megabytes/second across the disk. In an hour you can backup 216 gigabytes at that rate. For most people, an hour of downtime at 4am is well within a maintenance window.
Tape has its place, but suggesting that HD isn't an acceptable solution to a lot of people because it isn't 140 megabytes/second is just silly. Just because storage capacities go up doesn't mean everyones data backup needs go up at the same rate.
Capitalism requires informed consumers.
Capitalism requires NOTHING of the kind. You're imposing some value system onto capitalism that in no ways is part of capitalism.
Mind you, I don't disagree. I think informed consumers leads to a better world. But what you're describing has really nothing to do with capitalism or "free markets (which don't actually exist). You're talking about a value system, which is what capitalism and "free markets" utterly lack.
As I read in someone's sig line here. the purest expression of business without regulation is the mafia.
Modern vehicles with knock sensors can get greater efficiency from higher octane fuels due to their ability to keep ignition timing as advanced as possible without running into preignition.
This is just far to much of a generalization. Everything else you said is correct, but MOST vehicles won't gain any increased mileage with increased octane fuel. Some cars are specifically designed with higher compression ratios, and thus will benefit from the higher octane fuel since they don't have to retard the timing. Whether this increased mileage is enough to make up for the increased price is something you'd have to measure case by case.