Bring a digital camera if you must, but be careful not to use it too much. With digital cameras people have a tendency to experience the world through the camera's LCD and not with their own eyes.
To each his own I guess. I look at the world a lot closer than I did before I got into photography. Granted, it's in the mindset of "what would make a good photo", but I've come to do this a fair amount just when walking around.
BTW, I would also recommend NOT relying on this as your sole place for storing pics. Too easy to get lost, damaged, or stolen. I would also burn photos to CDs/DVDs on a regular basis, and mail them to friend/family.
Depending on your attitude to photography, if you're anything like me, one big use for the lappy would be offloading pictures. If this is a big reason, you can get a portable hard drive (linked is just one example; there are a ton of others) that has flash readers built into it that you can directly copy them off onto the hard drive. (Combined with a PDA that would solve a lot of your problems.) There are some that have MP3 capabilities built into them. Alternatively, it's possible someone has built an adapter for iPods to do the same thing.
New people who start and go by themselves are very likely to stop going. Something like 75% of people who join after New years stop going after a few weeks.
Studies also show that people who never start going at all are also very likely to stop going.
However when you look at people who join the gym and go with friends they are much more likely to stay because A) they have friends going b) they have a workout partner c) and have someone to kick their ass. Look at a lot of those cardio callses and you will see a lot of people talking before and after, thats what gets people going back. Lifting is much more fun and you get more out of it with a partner or two (spotting, people can push you, etc). I could go on but you get my point.
(BTW, your hidden assumption that DDR can't or isn't done with friends is itself total BS.)
What's motivating them?
Personal fitness? Maybe they are uncomfortable with their bodies and don't want to be with other people. Maybe it's very inconvenient to get to the gym. (For instance, not that this is a reason I don't go, but I don't have a car and am a 25 minute walk from the gym. If I were to go there, by the time I arrived I could just turn around and go home and have gotten a decent workout! It wouldn't be weightlifting or anything, but the point is that it may not be convenient.) Or maybe it's too expensive.
Or maybe it's just *fun*. Personally, there are some sports I like. For instance, ultimate frisbee. But you can't really just say "I'm going to go play ultimate frisbee" unless you have several friends who are also up for it whenever you are. But I don't really like running or anything like that. That's the clincher for most people. I don't think most people actually like exercise. They like the benefits of it, they like maybe some sports, but I don't think most people like the exercise itself. But it's very easy to like DDR, and more to the point, I think that a lot of the people who are most likely to dislike exercise are more likely to like DDR. And if you like something, you don't need much motivation to do it.
Connected to this is that DDR provides explicit goals. If you're running, what are your goals? Be able to run for a little longer or a little further than you did a couple weeks ago? If you are doing it with someone, you can say that you want to have more stamina than them. They are goals, but they're a little more abstract than, say, DDR. It provides both immediate goals (pass this song) and long term goals (I want to be able to do this song on heavy) that are very concrete. Of course, the down side is that they are not necessarily directly related to athletic goals.
For my part, I'm not horribly out of shape. I can hold my own at some sports (say ultimate) with other non-serious players, and I've off and on tried to do some running. But for almost an entire summer, I used DDR as a workout, and it was the most committed to that sort of thing I've ever been. (Then I moved back into a dorm room and didn't have space for the pad and was busy with school, so it became a "special occasions" thing only.)
I also like how you install the Gimp but don't get any printing support by default so have to install Gimp-print later. (I think that may have even required unmerging and remerging the Gimp proper... it's been a while.)
What sort of image program doesn't have printing support out of the box?
Decidability is a non-issue in this context. Your example falls flat, because JavaScript is an interpreted language.
What? And you said that decidability is a non-issue?
Decidability doesn't depend on the non-interpred nature of JavaScript. You could imagine a browser would compile the incoming JavaScript and execute it directly. Boom, not interpreted. Or you could imagine an interpreted for C. Here is a turing machine simulator -- it's more or less acting as an interpreter. Does that suddenly make it decidable?
So what does the interpreted bit have to do with this discussion?
Did you know that 99% of all statistics are made up?
Yes, I made up the 99%. I was using it as a synonym for "almost all". And 94% is still plenty close enough to "all" to fall into that category.
Meaning that you should always code things so that they work with HTML/CSS, then use javascript to make it look/act nicer.
I don't care what people should do, I care what people actually do. If that means intentionally fooling with search results by manipulating pages with Javascript, then the robot should run Javascript. (I don't know how common this is at all, but Google should at least look at it periodically to see if it's worth it.)
Because doing so without massive limitations would involve the halting problem.
So is all of the work my research group is doing. In fact, so is a lot of the work groups are doing around the country.
A search engine simply CAN'T determine whether a certain piece of javascript will terminate in the general case.
So? That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?
But all of it would mean essentially crippling the feature
Why do you think it would be crippled? First, most of the time it would do the author of a page no good to have a script that runs for more than a few seconds because then the PERSON visiting the page would probably not see it. Second, I have a strong suspicion that if you did a survey of pages that had JavaScript running when the page loads, any that were not finished running in half a second would not finish at all.
It would also pick up a lot of stuff that people have put in javascript because they don't want the search engines to index it.
And this is exactly why they SHOULD do it. The page should be indexed based upon how it looks to the visitor, which means with JavaScript's side effects and all.
Because JavaScript can create content. Since 99% of people run with it enabled, they will see this content, so it makes sense to index it.
I mean, isn't the point of javascript content that responds dynamically to the intentions of an agent?
I probably wouldn't have the indexer run most events, but it seems that those in document.load or other places that are run when a page is loaded should be indexed.
Also, wouldn't that allow one an opportunity to fork-bomb the googlebot then as well?
JavaScript doesn't have fork AFAIK. Besides, the broader question of resource consumption is trivially solvable by setting limits on the process doing the work.
I haven't heard of VMware doing this. AFAIK, full system virtualization gives every virtual machine its own address space.
It does, but shared address space != shared memory. One of the benefits of shared libraries -- and the source of the "shared" part of the name -- is because you can load each.so into memory once and just map it into each process's address space. It's the exact same principle here, it's just that instead of sharing memory between processes it's being shared among VMs.
Since every VM starts with nothing in RAM, then boots from its own virtual disk, the hypervisor would have to scan each VM's RAM after booting to find identical pages.
And that's *exactly* what VMware does.;-) See my other post in this thread. (It's a sibling of yours.)
VMware had a paper, Memory Resource Management in VMware ESX Server, in OSDI 2002. If you're somewhat versed in OS type concepts, it's easily worth a read. I'm in an OS class now, and this is easily the best paper we've read IMO, at least from a personal perspective. (In other words, which paper grabbed my attention best. There are some older papers that are much more revolutionary, but have concepts that I knew already. The VMware paper is very well written, and it's got some neat ideas.)
The talk a bit about this in the paper. Basically, the randomly scan memory at a slow rate, and if they find pages that are the same, they map them to the same physical page. P.7 has a table of some experiments that they did where in the steady state they found that 7%-40% of physical memory was shared depending on workloads.
Their method doesn't require any OS support or administration, and it's not just OS pages that will be remapped; any page is a candidate. They'll share pages between VMs, within VMs, data, code, whatever. In fact, one popular page to share is a page of all zeros. In one experiment, sharing zero pages alone saved 70 MB.
IBM's z/VM also does page sharing, though I don't think it works the same way as VMware's. It might even require the admin to specify that "these pages should be shared". I don't know.
So not *every* VM sytem will do this (e.g. VMware's desktop products don't), but probably any that are serious contenders in the enterprise space will allow it in some form or another.
And really, VMware's approach at least seems pretty simple; it's in the paper because it's clever, not difficult.
I wasn't positive about the "no" downtime but I knew that it was "virtually no" downtime, so I decided to play it safe and say "<< 1 sec". But then/. dropped my '<'s. (That's why there's a space between the '(' and '1'... it was originally between a '<' and the '1'.);-)
Also if the host is dying, you can shut donw the Virtual machine and copy it to another server (or move the drive) and bring it up fairly quickly. You also have cluster capability with virtualization.
Enterprise VM solutions allow you to migrate with essentially no ( 1 sec) downtime.
If it doesn't correctly represent the knowledge required wouldn't the better course of action to be pushing to revise the question pool or the examination procedure believed to be defective?
Or just maybe grading a nation of free response questions would be too expensive. You can't test someone's knowledge from a multiple guess test.
By your same argument, taxes are free because you have little to no choice in paying them. I have met very very few people who think their taxes are free.
I think it would be more like saying that having the police or fire dept respond to your call is free, or that trash pickup is free. (In other words, what the taxes pay for instead of the taxes themselves, in the same way that I was referring to what my fees pay for instead of the fees themselves.)
That said, point taken. Maybe describing it as free is not the best idea.
They are funded at least in part by advertising, but I have never seen any data to suggest that this covers the whole cost. It could very well be that ads pay for 1/3 of the cost, revenue from cable companys' customers another 1/3 the cost, and DVD sales the last 1/3. In that case, msauve's statement that it generated a profit on the initial broadcast would be wrong.
As it is, I have no clue what percentage is paid by each of these things. Which is why I think arguments like "why should I have to pay for cable when it's already ad-supported" are stupid. (I know that isn't a topic in this particular discussion, but it has been brought up on/. before.)
Even if ads paid for all of the cost and other income was just secondary (already an enormous assumption methinks), that's still a far cry from generating a profit on its initial broadcast.
And even if it DID generate it's profit on its initial broadcast, that still doesn't mean that it would continue to do so if people knew that after broadcast it was in the public domain and they could download a commercial-free version legally if they didn't mind waiting a day or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps something like this. (There are others, but this is nice and small.)
Bring a digital camera if you must, but be careful not to use it too much. With digital cameras people have a tendency to experience the world through the camera's LCD and not with their own eyes.
To each his own I guess. I look at the world a lot closer than I did before I got into photography. Granted, it's in the mindset of "what would make a good photo", but I've come to do this a fair amount just when walking around.
BTW, I would also recommend NOT relying on this as your sole place for storing pics. Too easy to get lost, damaged, or stolen. I would also burn photos to CDs/DVDs on a regular basis, and mail them to friend/family.
Depending on your attitude to photography, if you're anything like me, one big use for the lappy would be offloading pictures. If this is a big reason, you can get a portable hard drive (linked is just one example; there are a ton of others) that has flash readers built into it that you can directly copy them off onto the hard drive. (Combined with a PDA that would solve a lot of your problems.) There are some that have MP3 capabilities built into them. Alternatively, it's possible someone has built an adapter for iPods to do the same thing.
Whoever gave this an off topic mod needs a sense of humor.
To each his own.
New people who start and go by themselves are very likely to stop going. Something like 75% of people who join after New years stop going after a few weeks.
Studies also show that people who never start going at all are also very likely to stop going.
However when you look at people who join the gym and go with friends they are much more likely to stay because A) they have friends going b) they have a workout partner c) and have someone to kick their ass. Look at a lot of those cardio callses and you will see a lot of people talking before and after, thats what gets people going back. Lifting is much more fun and you get more out of it with a partner or two (spotting, people can push you, etc). I could go on but you get my point.
(BTW, your hidden assumption that DDR can't or isn't done with friends is itself total BS.)
What's motivating them?
Personal fitness? Maybe they are uncomfortable with their bodies and don't want to be with other people. Maybe it's very inconvenient to get to the gym. (For instance, not that this is a reason I don't go, but I don't have a car and am a 25 minute walk from the gym. If I were to go there, by the time I arrived I could just turn around and go home and have gotten a decent workout! It wouldn't be weightlifting or anything, but the point is that it may not be convenient.) Or maybe it's too expensive.
Or maybe it's just *fun*. Personally, there are some sports I like. For instance, ultimate frisbee. But you can't really just say "I'm going to go play ultimate frisbee" unless you have several friends who are also up for it whenever you are. But I don't really like running or anything like that. That's the clincher for most people. I don't think most people actually like exercise. They like the benefits of it, they like maybe some sports, but I don't think most people like the exercise itself. But it's very easy to like DDR, and more to the point, I think that a lot of the people who are most likely to dislike exercise are more likely to like DDR. And if you like something, you don't need much motivation to do it.
Connected to this is that DDR provides explicit goals. If you're running, what are your goals? Be able to run for a little longer or a little further than you did a couple weeks ago? If you are doing it with someone, you can say that you want to have more stamina than them. They are goals, but they're a little more abstract than, say, DDR. It provides both immediate goals (pass this song) and long term goals (I want to be able to do this song on heavy) that are very concrete. Of course, the down side is that they are not necessarily directly related to athletic goals.
For my part, I'm not horribly out of shape. I can hold my own at some sports (say ultimate) with other non-serious players, and I've off and on tried to do some running. But for almost an entire summer, I used DDR as a workout, and it was the most committed to that sort of thing I've ever been. (Then I moved back into a dorm room and didn't have space for the pad and was busy with school, so it became a "special occasions" thing only.)
I also like how you install the Gimp but don't get any printing support by default so have to install Gimp-print later. (I think that may have even required unmerging and remerging the Gimp proper... it's been a while.)
What sort of image program doesn't have printing support out of the box?
Decidability is a non-issue in this context. Your example falls flat, because JavaScript is an interpreted language.
What? And you said that decidability is a non-issue?
Decidability doesn't depend on the non-interpred nature of JavaScript. You could imagine a browser would compile the incoming JavaScript and execute it directly. Boom, not interpreted. Or you could imagine an interpreted for C. Here is a turing machine simulator -- it's more or less acting as an interpreter. Does that suddenly make it decidable?
So what does the interpreted bit have to do with this discussion?
Did you know that 99% of all statistics are made up?
Yes, I made up the 99%. I was using it as a synonym for "almost all". And 94% is still plenty close enough to "all" to fall into that category.
Meaning that you should always code things so that they work with HTML/CSS, then use javascript to make it look/act nicer.
I don't care what people should do, I care what people actually do. If that means intentionally fooling with search results by manipulating pages with Javascript, then the robot should run Javascript. (I don't know how common this is at all, but Google should at least look at it periodically to see if it's worth it.)
Because doing so without massive limitations would involve the halting problem.
So is all of the work my research group is doing. In fact, so is a lot of the work groups are doing around the country.
A search engine simply CAN'T determine whether a certain piece of javascript will terminate in the general case.
So? That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?
But all of it would mean essentially crippling the feature
Why do you think it would be crippled? First, most of the time it would do the author of a page no good to have a script that runs for more than a few seconds because then the PERSON visiting the page would probably not see it. Second, I have a strong suspicion that if you did a survey of pages that had JavaScript running when the page loads, any that were not finished running in half a second would not finish at all.
It would also pick up a lot of stuff that people have put in javascript because they don't want the search engines to index it.
And this is exactly why they SHOULD do it. The page should be indexed based upon how it looks to the visitor, which means with JavaScript's side effects and all.
Why should it?
Because JavaScript can create content. Since 99% of people run with it enabled, they will see this content, so it makes sense to index it.
I mean, isn't the point of javascript content that responds dynamically to the intentions of an agent?
I probably wouldn't have the indexer run most events, but it seems that those in document.load or other places that are run when a page is loaded should be indexed.
Also, wouldn't that allow one an opportunity to fork-bomb the googlebot then as well?
JavaScript doesn't have fork AFAIK. Besides, the broader question of resource consumption is trivially solvable by setting limits on the process doing the work.
It should be pretty obvious that no search engine should interpret javascript...
Why's that?
Properly constructed there should be no security issue, and it would give more accurate results.
to != too != two
But interestingly enough, 2 == ("to" != "too") + ("too" != "two").
I haven't heard of VMware doing this. AFAIK, full system virtualization gives every virtual machine its own address space.
.so into memory once and just map it into each process's address space. It's the exact same principle here, it's just that instead of sharing memory between processes it's being shared among VMs.
;-) See my other post in this thread. (It's a sibling of yours.)
It does, but shared address space != shared memory. One of the benefits of shared libraries -- and the source of the "shared" part of the name -- is because you can load each
Since every VM starts with nothing in RAM, then boots from its own virtual disk, the hypervisor would have to scan each VM's RAM after booting to find identical pages.
And that's *exactly* what VMware does.
VMware had a paper, Memory Resource Management in VMware ESX Server, in OSDI 2002. If you're somewhat versed in OS type concepts, it's easily worth a read. I'm in an OS class now, and this is easily the best paper we've read IMO, at least from a personal perspective. (In other words, which paper grabbed my attention best. There are some older papers that are much more revolutionary, but have concepts that I knew already. The VMware paper is very well written, and it's got some neat ideas.)
The talk a bit about this in the paper. Basically, the randomly scan memory at a slow rate, and if they find pages that are the same, they map them to the same physical page. P.7 has a table of some experiments that they did where in the steady state they found that 7%-40% of physical memory was shared depending on workloads.
Their method doesn't require any OS support or administration, and it's not just OS pages that will be remapped; any page is a candidate. They'll share pages between VMs, within VMs, data, code, whatever. In fact, one popular page to share is a page of all zeros. In one experiment, sharing zero pages alone saved 70 MB.
IBM's z/VM also does page sharing, though I don't think it works the same way as VMware's. It might even require the admin to specify that "these pages should be shared". I don't know.
So not *every* VM sytem will do this (e.g. VMware's desktop products don't), but probably any that are serious contenders in the enterprise space will allow it in some form or another.
And really, VMware's approach at least seems pretty simple; it's in the paper because it's clever, not difficult.
Anyway the S in ISP refers to internet service, not customer service.
Whatever. The same sentiment still applies.
Its a sure thing.
*woosh*
I'm an idiot. Didn't realize there was a spelling error in the summary...
everyone looses
Everyone looses when the screws that hold the tubes together become lose
I wish there was an "ironically funny" option.
I wasn't positive about the "no" downtime but I knew that it was "virtually no" downtime, so I decided to play it safe and say "<< 1 sec". But then /. dropped my '<'s. (That's why there's a space between the '(' and '1'... it was originally between a '<' and the '1'.) ;-)
Also if the host is dying, you can shut donw the Virtual machine and copy it to another server (or move the drive) and bring it up fairly quickly. You also have cluster capability with virtualization.
Enterprise VM solutions allow you to migrate with essentially no ( 1 sec) downtime.
If it doesn't correctly represent the knowledge required wouldn't the better course of action to be pushing to revise the question pool or the examination procedure believed to be defective?
Or just maybe grading a nation of free response questions would be too expensive. You can't test someone's knowledge from a multiple guess test.
I've had slashcode eat newlines I was *sure* I inserted on more than one occasion. May not be his fault.
By your same argument, taxes are free because you have little to no choice in paying them. I have met very very few people who think their taxes are free.
I think it would be more like saying that having the police or fire dept respond to your call is free, or that trash pickup is free. (In other words, what the taxes pay for instead of the taxes themselves, in the same way that I was referring to what my fees pay for instead of the fees themselves.)
That said, point taken. Maybe describing it as free is not the best idea.
Aren't most TV stations funded off advertising?
/. before.)
I don't know. Are they?
They are funded at least in part by advertising, but I have never seen any data to suggest that this covers the whole cost. It could very well be that ads pay for 1/3 of the cost, revenue from cable companys' customers another 1/3 the cost, and DVD sales the last 1/3. In that case, msauve's statement that it generated a profit on the initial broadcast would be wrong.
As it is, I have no clue what percentage is paid by each of these things. Which is why I think arguments like "why should I have to pay for cable when it's already ad-supported" are stupid. (I know that isn't a topic in this particular discussion, but it has been brought up on
Even if ads paid for all of the cost and other income was just secondary (already an enormous assumption methinks), that's still a far cry from generating a profit on its initial broadcast.
And even if it DID generate it's profit on its initial broadcast, that still doesn't mean that it would continue to do so if people knew that after broadcast it was in the public domain and they could download a commercial-free version legally if they didn't mind waiting a day or two.