If people are so worried about boot time and power saving, why don't they just use suspend?
I've had mixed results with suspend (this is on Ubuntu). I've actually gotten it to work perfectly on my desktop and laptop, but only after disabling some of the fancy graphics features. Previously I've had problems with the hardware waking up properly (especially video), but it seems to work correctly with the latest release.
If you can get it to work properly, it's an excellent compromise between power usage and up-time.
Those names are no where near as clear as the word beta
Really? I find beta extremely unclear, and I'm a developer. Beta is a techie word that doesn't have a lot of meaning to anyone not a techie.
I think the lifestage model is a much more clear picture that's understandable by everyone. It also reflects the realities of how software actually operates in the world. "beta" implies there's some stage where it'll be "done" (if you even understand what "beta" means. We all know that's simply a wrong way of looking at software. Lifestage means there's some point where the product will be "dead". There's other stages where it's being actively developed, reached a usable state, starting to become old (but still quite useful), and decrepit and you should move on to something else.
Which is kind of my point. It's a self-contradictory policy. "It's a great app, please use it and pay for it... but it's not quite ready for prime time". Those self-contradictory policies usually represent two or more conflicting parties fighting each other, thus the strange compromise.
Also, what I quite don't understand is why they would want to call it beta, I mean, it's not like it's got a good cling to it.
No it's not. I really don't know why they continue to use "beta" when a product is clearly mature.
My honest guess? It's a compromise between the marketing people and the developers. Developers want to add new things continuously and not go through these product development stages where they do endless testing to see if people like a new feature. Marketing people get all nervous about new features "ruining their brand". The developers are still in charge at Google (being a young company), so the compromise is just to call everything "beta" (A pretty stupid compromise IMO).
You're entirely right about the "pay for premium" though. Google needs to drop the stupid beta word, and pick something that's more representative of what the product is. I'd choose something more like a "lifestage" kind of label. Toddler, teenage, adult, mature, senior, elderly would be good starts.
The only solution I've found is to enable Imap on the exchange server, and also enable SMTP for incoming mail. Then install Thunderbird.
You can also use the ldap features of Active Directory to do lookups of people's email addresses. There's a calendaring plugin for thunderbird called lightning, but it doesn't seem to work with Exchange 2007 (I can't accept meeting invitations).
The danger here is that these social networking sights have no inherent credibility at all. How does anyone know a facebook page is the student they searched for? It could be a fake page put up by some douche-bag, it could be someone else entirely, or it could be simply an inside joke that the school miss-interpreted.
I don't buy the argument that going into Facebook or Myspace is some kind of "invasion of privacy". That idea is artificial and created by an insular view of these spaces because parents aren't generally involved in them (but obviously could be). But believing what's said on any of these sites without a huge grain of salt is just wrong. Even if 90% of it is accurate, do we really want to give that much power to any douche-bag that puts up a fake site about someone?
If you want a more concrete reason why schools shouldn't use Google searches and Facebook/Myspace for admission decisions, just think about liability. Does a school really want a big court case about someone suing them over not being admitted because of a Myspace/Facebook page? It doesn't even matter if the school is "right", it's more about the exposure and bad press they'd get.
My salary and benefits: @ $18/hr time used on backup: 0.067 hrs My cost per gigabyte of backup: $1
And you backed it up a total of once. The cost of $5 is likely a yearly cost (as the volume is yearly), Backups are usually done 1/day. Your yearly costs would be in the hundreds of dollars per gigabyte.
It doesn't matter who is in the White House, since all that person can do is propose a budget.
I'm not sure which country you live in, but in the U.S. the President gets to either sign, or veto the budget. That's a considerable amount of power, and I'd say it DOES matter who's in the White House.
(Oh, and you may have noticed that George Bush did in fact veto or threaten to veto budgets which decreased Iraq spending, so this power is more than a little theoretical)
This seems little more than keeping people more tightly within the boxes they already are in. He doesn't propose a single system, but multiple different ratings systems. So the Democrats could have one, the Republicans could have one, the Scientologists could have one, the "free thinkers" could have one, the Vegans could have one, the Anti-abortionists could have one, etc. I think I'd prefer a single all-encompassing one. At least everyone would know that's bullshit.
In other words, you could always be certain how well the website you're reading corresponds to your Chosen Doctrine. Great. Hell, with such a ratings system people could filter out anything and everything that disagrees with Doctrine.
No, the current system of your friends and family telling you "You're An Idiot" when you read stupid things like "the moon landing was faked" works a lot better. Sure, it sucks too, but at least you know the people telling you you're an idiot, and occasionally get exposed to some idea you may not agree with.
But it's not premature optimization. It's good practice
The full quote is actually: "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." (and yes, as someone else pointed out it's Don, not Dan).
Something like this seems very clear that it's a small efficiency, if it's even that. The point is to code for readability, not to make everything as fast as possible. Worrying about this kind of thing seems so incredibly trivial as to be a non-issue. As far as it actually being faster or not, I've never been very impressed with hand-waving arguments which it seems to me this is. If you're worried about efficiency, look at the bigger picture, not the minutia.
the prefix ++ operator is usually faster than the postfix ++ operator due to it being hard for the compiler to optimize away the creation of a temporary in the postfix case.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" -Dan Knuth
Ummm.. This is a guess, but how about Red Dwarf is a television show, and we're talking about reality here?
Granted, this is some kind of bizarre reality where totally unproven "brain scans" are used as evidence in court, so I can see your confusion with science fiction. But I still wouldn't start with the premise that this technology works exactly like one someone made up for a sci-fi show.
The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.
That's really a semantic argument, and nothing more. Not everyone defines atheism so narrowly. But if you want to argue, go argue with a dictionary. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.
Huh? I don't believe in invisible unicorns on neptune either, simply for lack of evidence. Does that mean I have "faith" that the invisible unicorns don't exist? I think you're confusing faith and non-belief.
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law.
It isn't. It is a fair way to judge if someone is a douche bag however. Which it seems J.K Rowling clearly is. She didn't have to file a lawsuit here and the lawsuit was clearly about promoting her own, yet unpublished lexicon over this work.
You may disagree, and that's all well and good. But don't try to make Rowlings douche baggery into whether she's legally right or wrong. It's clearly about greed. (I note that Steven Spielberg didn't sue the kids who re-made this extremely dervivative, and copyright infringing version of Raiders of the Lost Ark in their basement.. so not everyone is a sue-crazy douche-bag).
I've had entire departments threaten not to move in because their space was laid out the way the *previous* director wanted it. I've had VP's in a tizzy over the fact that they had to tell their people they could not bring their fans, space heaters, and coffee makers to the new buildings and plug them into their cubicles.
You mean people are sensitive to an environment they spend 8 hours a day in, and don't want to accept what you've given them without talking about it? Do you really find that all so surprising? I'd find it odd if people weren't sensitive about those kind of things. Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.
Nonsense. Energy conservation is largely about economics. You've got the wrong mentality entirely. If it's really too expensive to drive the gas-guzzling SUV to work every day, the SUV will get ditched fairly soon. The only reason you've got this fight between "the controls" and "the people" is the people aren't paying the energy bill directly.
For any other utility (water, gas, electricity), we pay by the usage. Why not this?
Maybe because the major cost isn't bandwidth, but maintaining the lines, paying salaries, etc? Also, bandwidth is increasing at an exponential rate.
I also dispute that all other utilities we pay by usage. We don't pay by usage for cable/satellite TV. We don't pay by usage for local phone service. What do all these have in common? They're all information services.
For everyone that doesn't "get it", here's the explanation.
Microsoft has a giant turd called Vista, and everyone knows it (apparently even the higher ups at Microsoft). So any mention of Vista at this point will be a colossal mistake. With this ad, Microsoft is trying to change its image by being funny. People like funny. (I thought the ad was actually quite funny, and I don't even like Microsoft).
What this ad tells me is that Microsoft knows Vista is a failure, and they aren't going to change that. Microsoft has taken the longer term approach and is trying to change their image. Windows is now a commodity (in the broader definition of the word), and you don't sell commodities by telling people how great they are. You sell commodities through Brand, and Microsoft is trying to identify its brand with upbeat, funny, and not as serious. I doubt it's going to sell them more Vista machines, but if they keep it up it might save them from being seen as an also-ran.
Can we stop saying "virtual telescopes" and start using the proper grown up terms?
Why? Virtual telescope is a lot more meaningful to people who aren't radio astronomers (which is essentially everyone) than interferometry and aperture synthesis. This isn't about "level of intelligence", it's about conveying information. Virtual telescope conveys a lot more information to non-experts. It's great to have more information about how exactly they combine these telescopes together, but there's no need to get snotty about it and throw around terms like "grown up".
One of the big challenges of this repair mission is they're trying to actually perform a repair that the Hubble was never designed to be done. Normally components are swapped out on a module by module basis, and each module was designed to be swapped out in orbit. But this particular service mission they're going to attempt to repair a module without replacing it (because I believe there is no replacement part available). If you look at picture 12, you'll see a plexiglass apparatus designed to keep in 111 screws. That's what needs to be removed and put back in to repair this module (I think they're replacing a power supply inside the module). It all needs to be done in a vacuum, in a cramped unlit space, while wearing a space suit. Not exactly an easy mission.
I don't know where else to go from there. There is so much!
There's a lot because Java web technologies are large and can be complex. This can be a problem in itself. It's hard to really understand what you're asking without understanding what you're doing now. Do you have a job, or are you just interested in padding your resume with a broader base of skills?
Here's what I'll tell you. It's useful to learn a broad range of skills, but at a certain point you're just spreading yourself thin. You're having trouble finding out where to start because the technology has grown leaps an bounds. You haven't even mentioned half of the methodologies and competing technologies that exist in the Java world. If you really want to be "good" at Java web stuff, it's going to take a dedicated effort. Sure, you could learn a bit and create something functional. But why? It sounds like you're already a competent programmer in a variety of other languages, so why pickup Java?
Without knowing more about your background and goals, I'd hesitate to say you're just going to spread yourself thin. If you really want to learn something, learn some more general design patterns and techniques and apply them in a language you already know. That should be applicable to any language.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are so worried about boot time and power saving, why don't they just use suspend?
I've had mixed results with suspend (this is on Ubuntu). I've actually gotten it to work perfectly on my desktop and laptop, but only after disabling some of the fancy graphics features. Previously I've had problems with the hardware waking up properly (especially video), but it seems to work correctly with the latest release.
If you can get it to work properly, it's an excellent compromise between power usage and up-time.
When we can't yet explain why the universe is the way it is on a fundamental (quantum?) level, *THAT's* when you can trot out the "God did it"s
That hasn't worked well historically speaking
Those names are no where near as clear as the word beta
Really? I find beta extremely unclear, and I'm a developer. Beta is a techie word that doesn't have a lot of meaning to anyone not a techie.
I think the lifestage model is a much more clear picture that's understandable by everyone. It also reflects the realities of how software actually operates in the world. "beta" implies there's some stage where it'll be "done" (if you even understand what "beta" means. We all know that's simply a wrong way of looking at software. Lifestage means there's some point where the product will be "dead". There's other stages where it's being actively developed, reached a usable state, starting to become old (but still quite useful), and decrepit and you should move on to something else.
I couldn't agree more. You've made my point better than I could.
Which is kind of my point. It's a self-contradictory policy. "It's a great app, please use it and pay for it... but it's not quite ready for prime time". Those self-contradictory policies usually represent two or more conflicting parties fighting each other, thus the strange compromise.
Also, what I quite don't understand is why they would want to call it beta, I mean, it's not like it's got a good cling to it.
No it's not. I really don't know why they continue to use "beta" when a product is clearly mature.
My honest guess? It's a compromise between the marketing people and the developers. Developers want to add new things continuously and not go through these product development stages where they do endless testing to see if people like a new feature. Marketing people get all nervous about new features "ruining their brand". The developers are still in charge at Google (being a young company), so the compromise is just to call everything "beta" (A pretty stupid compromise IMO).
You're entirely right about the "pay for premium" though. Google needs to drop the stupid beta word, and pick something that's more representative of what the product is. I'd choose something more like a "lifestage" kind of label. Toddler, teenage, adult, mature, senior, elderly would be good starts.
The only solution I've found is to enable Imap on the exchange server, and also enable SMTP for incoming mail. Then install Thunderbird.
You can also use the ldap features of Active Directory to do lookups of people's email addresses.
There's a calendaring plugin for thunderbird called lightning, but it doesn't seem to work with Exchange 2007 (I can't accept meeting invitations).
(No that was not a typo... 128 bytes.)
While this is true, you also have to remember the 2600 had at least 4k of ROM, more if you did bank switching.
The danger here is that these social networking sights have no inherent credibility at all. How does anyone know a facebook page is the student they searched for? It could be a fake page put up by some douche-bag, it could be someone else entirely, or it could be simply an inside joke that the school miss-interpreted.
I don't buy the argument that going into Facebook or Myspace is some kind of "invasion of privacy". That idea is artificial and created by an insular view of these spaces because parents aren't generally involved in them (but obviously could be). But believing what's said on any of these sites without a huge grain of salt is just wrong. Even if 90% of it is accurate, do we really want to give that much power to any douche-bag that puts up a fake site about someone?
If you want a more concrete reason why schools shouldn't use Google searches and Facebook/Myspace for admission decisions, just think about liability. Does a school really want a big court case about someone suing them over not being admitted because of a Myspace/Facebook page? It doesn't even matter if the school is "right", it's more about the exposure and bad press they'd get.
My salary and benefits: @ $18/hr time used on backup: 0.067 hrs My cost per gigabyte of backup: $1
And you backed it up a total of once. The cost of $5 is likely a yearly cost (as the volume is yearly), Backups are usually done 1/day. Your yearly costs would be in the hundreds of dollars per gigabyte.
For anyone wondering about the background to this move, you could start with the Wikipedia article"
It doesn't matter who is in the White House, since all that person can do is propose a budget.
I'm not sure which country you live in, but in the U.S. the President gets to either sign, or veto the budget. That's a considerable amount of power, and I'd say it DOES matter who's in the White House.
(Oh, and you may have noticed that George Bush did in fact veto or threaten to veto budgets which decreased Iraq spending, so this power is more than a little theoretical)
This seems little more than keeping people more tightly within the boxes they already are in. He doesn't propose a single system, but multiple different ratings systems. So the Democrats could have one, the Republicans could have one, the Scientologists could have one, the "free thinkers" could have one, the Vegans could have one, the Anti-abortionists could have one, etc. I think I'd prefer a single all-encompassing one. At least everyone would know that's bullshit.
In other words, you could always be certain how well the website you're reading corresponds to your Chosen Doctrine. Great. Hell, with such a ratings system people could filter out anything and everything that disagrees with Doctrine.
No, the current system of your friends and family telling you "You're An Idiot" when you read stupid things like "the moon landing was faked" works a lot better. Sure, it sucks too, but at least you know the people telling you you're an idiot, and occasionally get exposed to some idea you may not agree with.
But it's not premature optimization. It's good practice
The full quote is actually:
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." (and yes, as someone else pointed out it's Don, not Dan).
Something like this seems very clear that it's a small efficiency, if it's even that. The point is to code for readability, not to make everything as fast as possible. Worrying about this kind of thing seems so incredibly trivial as to be a non-issue. As far as it actually being faster or not, I've never been very impressed with hand-waving arguments which it seems to me this is. If you're worried about efficiency, look at the bigger picture, not the minutia.
the prefix ++ operator is usually faster than the postfix ++ operator due to it being hard for the compiler to optimize away the creation of a temporary in the postfix case.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil"
-Dan Knuth
How would this mind probe deal this?
Ummm.. This is a guess, but how about Red Dwarf is a television show, and we're talking about reality here?
Granted, this is some kind of bizarre reality where totally unproven "brain scans" are used as evidence in court, so I can see your confusion with science fiction. But I still wouldn't start with the premise that this technology works exactly like one someone made up for a sci-fi show.
The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.
That's really a semantic argument, and nothing more. Not everyone defines atheism so narrowly. But if you want to argue, go argue with a dictionary.
In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.
Huh? I don't believe in invisible unicorns on neptune either, simply for lack of evidence. Does that mean I have "faith" that the invisible unicorns don't exist? I think you're confusing faith and non-belief.
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law.
It isn't. It is a fair way to judge if someone is a douche bag however. Which it seems J.K Rowling clearly is. She didn't have to file a lawsuit here and the lawsuit was clearly about promoting her own, yet unpublished lexicon over this work.
You may disagree, and that's all well and good. But don't try to make Rowlings douche baggery into whether she's legally right or wrong. It's clearly about greed. (I note that Steven Spielberg didn't sue the kids who re-made this extremely dervivative, and copyright infringing version of Raiders of the Lost Ark in their basement.. so not everyone is a sue-crazy douche-bag).
I've had entire departments threaten not to move in because their space was laid out the way the *previous* director wanted it. I've had VP's in a tizzy over the fact that they had to tell their people they could not bring their fans, space heaters, and coffee makers to the new buildings and plug them into their cubicles.
You mean people are sensitive to an environment they spend 8 hours a day in, and don't want to accept what you've given them without talking about it? Do you really find that all so surprising? I'd find it odd if people weren't sensitive about those kind of things.
Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.
Nonsense. Energy conservation is largely about economics. You've got the wrong mentality entirely. If it's really too expensive to drive the gas-guzzling SUV to work every day, the SUV will get ditched fairly soon. The only reason you've got this fight between "the controls" and "the people" is the people aren't paying the energy bill directly.
For any other utility (water, gas, electricity), we pay by the usage. Why not this?
Maybe because the major cost isn't bandwidth, but maintaining the lines, paying salaries, etc? Also, bandwidth is increasing at an exponential rate.
I also dispute that all other utilities we pay by usage. We don't pay by usage for cable/satellite TV. We don't pay by usage for local phone service. What do all these have in common? They're all information services.
For everyone that doesn't "get it", here's the explanation.
Microsoft has a giant turd called Vista, and everyone knows it (apparently even the higher ups at Microsoft). So any mention of Vista at this point will be a colossal mistake. With this ad, Microsoft is trying to change its image by being funny. People like funny. (I thought the ad was actually quite funny, and I don't even like Microsoft).
What this ad tells me is that Microsoft knows Vista is a failure, and they aren't going to change that. Microsoft has taken the longer term approach and is trying to change their image. Windows is now a commodity (in the broader definition of the word), and you don't sell commodities by telling people how great they are. You sell commodities through Brand, and Microsoft is trying to identify its brand with upbeat, funny, and not as serious. I doubt it's going to sell them more Vista machines, but if they keep it up it might save them from being seen as an also-ran.
Can we stop saying "virtual telescopes" and start using the proper grown up terms?
Why? Virtual telescope is a lot more meaningful to people who aren't radio astronomers (which is essentially everyone) than interferometry and aperture synthesis. This isn't about "level of intelligence", it's about conveying information. Virtual telescope conveys a lot more information to non-experts. It's great to have more information about how exactly they combine these telescopes together, but there's no need to get snotty about it and throw around terms like "grown up".
One of the big challenges of this repair mission is they're trying to actually perform a repair that the Hubble was never designed to be done. Normally components are swapped out on a module by module basis, and each module was designed to be swapped out in orbit. But this particular service mission they're going to attempt to repair a module without replacing it (because I believe there is no replacement part available). If you look at picture 12, you'll see a plexiglass apparatus designed to keep in 111 screws. That's what needs to be removed and put back in to repair this module (I think they're replacing a power supply inside the module). It all needs to be done in a vacuum, in a cramped unlit space, while wearing a space suit. Not exactly an easy mission.
I don't know where else to go from there. There is so much!
There's a lot because Java web technologies are large and can be complex. This can be a problem in itself. It's hard to really understand what you're asking without understanding what you're doing now. Do you have a job, or are you just interested in padding your resume with a broader base of skills?
Here's what I'll tell you. It's useful to learn a broad range of skills, but at a certain point you're just spreading yourself thin. You're having trouble finding out where to start because the technology has grown leaps an bounds. You haven't even mentioned half of the methodologies and competing technologies that exist in the Java world. If you really want to be "good" at Java web stuff, it's going to take a dedicated effort. Sure, you could learn a bit and create something functional. But why? It sounds like you're already a competent programmer in a variety of other languages, so why pickup Java?
Without knowing more about your background and goals, I'd hesitate to say you're just going to spread yourself thin. If you really want to learn something, learn some more general design patterns and techniques and apply them in a language you already know. That should be applicable to any language.