In the dino-Mac, it was basically the only mechanism -- there was no virtual memory.
In a VM OS, it is still a useful mechanism as it gives you the ability to tune more (or less) intelligently than the O/S based on your preferences, On a development machine, I typically do something like restricting MSSQL server to say 512MB (this is a SQL Server setting, not an O/S setting) -- I don't need high performance SQL in my dev environment.
Long running.Net or Java apps often bloat unneccesarily due to lazy memory management -- Would be nice to "trim their memory footprint" more aggressively in some cases. -- Better written apps that make appropriate calls the the memory management APIs would be nice too.
I would prefer a convenient O/S imposed limit (user settable) for any process, just default to the current unrestricted behavior -- or even better a configurable default process limit like hoary Unix. Would be even nicer if there were 2 default limits, a default maximum, and user absolute maximum settings (i.e., without admin permissions).
Dino-feathers in amber is a pretty interesting find, although that idea that these are dino-feathers is apparently an assumption in not having found similar feather structure in modern birds. Not being a biologist, must less a archaeo-ornithologist, I ask what is the difference between these protofeathers and downy feathers? I read what I could find easily on-line and it appears that some scientists don't believe in protofeathers at all, they think it is just decayed collagen. Nothing I found really spelled out the difference between modern feathers and protofeather other than the "proto versions" must of course been first -- at least not in a way I could understand simply.
Any real expertise or a link to a good description would be appreciated.
As a side note, the protofeathers in the find are dated at 80 MY ago, and archaeopteryx at 150 MY ago (with have generally advanced feathers, perhaps flight capable). It seems like proto does not mean what it should in this case. Personally, I start with the prototype. (I just find humor in language at time)
No they don't. Tons of small software companies have never looked at a single patent. The patent system offers no benefits to the small players, they likely break them blindly at a significant rate -- the patent system for software is so screwed up that the only winning move is not to play -- as long as you labor is obscurity at least.
"awk sucks" 486 results -- Does this imply PowerShell sucks 28% as much as awk? Probably should avoid from PowerShell then.
I have found awk useful in the past (though would normal perl today), I rarely find PowerShell useful, but then again, I don't admin Windows servers -- I've written lots of Windows software and lots of Unix software (many flavors) -- But I give regular thanks to God that I don't ever have to admin a bunch of Windows servers.
Sad, but true. They tried this with an early prototype in 2008. Within 5 minutes it was engulfed in flames and set back the research by nearly 2 years.
What you are missing is how radioactive Pu-238 is compared to U-235 / U-238
Pu-238 half life 87.7 years. U-238 4.5 billion years, U-235 713 million years, so using pure U-235 the material is 8 million times less radioactive. -- So, you need a corresponding bigger lump of U-235. Needless to say, this is quite a different thing.
Disagree if you lifke, but if you actually consider the mechanics of abiogenesis, the ET organic fragments do not really affect the science -- it is an issue of "too little to make a difference" -- there really is not a good abiogenesis orgin of life scientific theory. This discovery does not alter the gulf between some random amino acids and life. We have no trouble with explaining some amino acids availability. The problem is that they are reactive molecules that degrade in utility more often than not without life to concentrate, protect and organize them. Organizing them in a functioning set of proteins, lipids, etc. is the real problem. This is a sideshow.
IMO, current abiogenesis theories are about as useful as Aristotelian physics in that they sound reasonable to the non-expert, but upon close examination, there are too many inconsistencies and weaknesses to really pass as decent theories. Fragments from space is just more hand-wavium for the extant theories.
Unless there is more involved here than just another possible source of organic fragments (i.e., not evidence of panspermia or such like), this can at best be only a very minor supporting role. It contributes nothing significant to the key arguments of current theories.
Until you do the math for how much organic fragments arrive via incoming rocks (that survive atmospheric entry) vs. how much is generated via natural processes as well as well as the math for the abiogenis origins and you will understand why I say this is not significant, hand-wavium. Unfortunately, I don't have the math for rocks from space vs. local orgins, but I do know the math for abiogenesis is very dogdy for all of the current theories, so much so that I am confident that addiing in ET based fragments make no real difference. If Darwin understood how complex life was, I doubt he would have made his warm little pond conjecture — he was a better scientist than that.
I am not a practicing scientist in this field, so my opinions are worth nothing (as are yours presumably), but I do understand enough math and statistics to know that the existing theories are deeply flawed. This does not mean by iteself mean abiogenisis cannot happen, it is just we have no current scientifically useful theory that explains how it could happen
What is really needed (and obviously very difficult to develop) is a much better theory of abiogenesis. This new data is not actually significant otherwise.
Position #1 -- God fearing Bible thumper. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates life is present or absent elsewhere in God's creation. The Genesis account explains the origin of life on this planet. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.
Note: some GFBT's argue that life elsewhere cannot exist, but they either do not know their Bible or mis-use the revealed word of God.
Position #2 -- God denying atheist cosmologist. The Drake equation gives the expected number of planets containing life. However, the values of the constants are largely conjecture and subjective bias of the person estimating the like values of the constants varies widely leading to valid outcomes to ranging from abundant life to earth being unique. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.
Note: some GDAT's insist that life elsewhere must exist, but they either do not understand the Drake equation or mis-use the relevant data or lack thereof.
It appears weak or strong anthropic reasoning applies in either case. Without more data, this is in reality a question of philosophy -- origin of life cannot be adequate explained scientifically, and the common religious explanation (though adequate from a religious perspective) is a priori unscientific.
Sorry but finding some amino acids acids in a rock from space adds nothing new to origin of life science unless it contributes something otherwise difficult to explain e.g., a solution to the chirality selection problem (which has been suggested before). Finding a space rock with a strong selection bias to either left or right handed organics -- now that would be very interesting.
News yes, interesting yes, -- but significant evidence relevant to the origin of life question? Not really.
Well, given advice like that, its not surprising nobody asks you. Suppose I could sell gas for $3.00, using your system I would have to sell it at $4.00 with $1.00 embedded tax, or I could sell it for $4.00 with $0.00 embedded tax -- guess which price I will choose as the seller.
CP/M had drive letters as well as the concept of default drive. Even worse, CP/M was using slash for command line options -- So arguably, DOS choosing backslash as the path separator made sense given in CP/M heritage — I.e., this particular form of brain damage was already baked into CP/M
They use to have Rifle Clubs in public schools too — including elementary schools. I supposed school kids used to die in droves because of the rifle clubs.
Not very likely -- any developer that endured the pain of learning to use.NET does not want that investment flushed away. Those that jump want to jump ship will do so regardless of MS decision to keep.NET. Just like VB6 developers clinging to VB6 and FORTRAN programmers clinging to FORTRAN.
6. Teach you (sic) end users about password security.
Seriously? On a website? I can think of no task more futile for the submitter's stated goal. People who know better often use rotten passwords out of simple laziness.
If your site is interesting enough, hackers will gain access to user-level accounts (just ask Anthony Wiener). You must write everything so that the only damage they can do is limited to the damage that the inept users can do to themselves by using designed features,
Obviously, this would be an excellent device for midgets (very short people with proportional body parts to match). -- this seems like a limited market size to me though.
Oh, much more accurately it is hard to say that this computer simulation accurately simulated evolution -- There may be bias in the original program that is more accurately akin to directed evolution or altruism by design -- this design or bias may not have been intended by the software author. Simulations are only as accurate as model adheres to the reality being simulated. This is literal example of "pretend" evolution.
So, it is magically OK for the FCC to issue regulations for which it has no congressional authority to act? I don't care whether net neutrality is in fact a good idea or not, I don't like unconstitutional power grabs by federal bureaucrats. I think the EPA deserves a rejection of their carbon rules on the same basis.
If congress wants to out-source the research needed to craft a useful and proper bill, they can do that and then take a stand (right on wrong) when they enact the corresponding law, but they should not escape the responsibility for actually making the decisions as to what will become law.
"Jim, I'm your doctor and I'm your friend. Get back your command. Get it back before you turn into part of this collection. Before you really do grow old." - McCoy, to Kirk in Star Trek 2
The Bible does not define any ritual needed for marriage. Biblically speaking, nothing would preclude the desert island marriage. I could certainly consider such a marriage approved by God, as far as approved by man, what laws were you responsible to while on the island. Contrary to Catholic doctrine, marriage is not a "church ordinance", rather is is approved by God.
As to "sex is marriage", what a silly statement, were this true, it would be impossible to commit fornication as sex itself establishes the marriage.
As to "Go find a priest" statement, it is true, no command to find a priest to perform a marriage ceremony, but get married to avoid fornication is the clear meaning of 1 Cor 7:1-2.
Sure, it was the insulation. But having seen actual flames (as well as the smoke) would make me a little hesitant to put some cardboard conveniently located at the exhaust from the power supply.
Slashdot Mirror
In the dino-Mac, it was basically the only mechanism -- there was no virtual memory.
In a VM OS, it is still a useful mechanism as it gives you the ability to tune more (or less) intelligently than the O/S based on your preferences, On a development machine, I typically do something like restricting MSSQL server to say 512MB (this is a SQL Server setting, not an O/S setting) -- I don't need high performance SQL in my dev environment.
Long running .Net or Java apps often bloat unneccesarily due to lazy memory management -- Would be nice to "trim their memory footprint" more aggressively in some cases. -- Better written apps that make appropriate calls the the memory management APIs would be nice too.
I would prefer a convenient O/S imposed limit (user settable) for any process, just default to the current unrestricted behavior -- or even better a configurable default process limit like hoary Unix. Would be even nicer if there were 2 default limits, a default maximum, and user absolute maximum settings (i.e., without admin permissions).
Dino-feathers in amber is a pretty interesting find, although that idea that these are dino-feathers is apparently an assumption in not having found similar feather structure in modern birds. Not being a biologist, must less a archaeo-ornithologist, I ask what is the difference between these protofeathers and downy feathers? I read what I could find easily on-line and it appears that some scientists don't believe in protofeathers at all, they think it is just decayed collagen. Nothing I found really spelled out the difference between modern feathers and protofeather other than the "proto versions" must of course been first -- at least not in a way I could understand simply.
Any real expertise or a link to a good description would be appreciated.
As a side note, the protofeathers in the find are dated at 80 MY ago, and archaeopteryx at 150 MY ago (with have generally advanced feathers, perhaps flight capable). It seems like proto does not mean what it should in this case. Personally, I start with the prototype. (I just find humor in language at time)
No they don't. Tons of small software companies have never looked at a single patent. The patent system offers no benefits to the small players, they likely break them blindly at a significant rate -- the patent system for software is so screwed up that the only winning move is not to play -- as long as you labor is obscurity at least.
Google comparison
"powershell sucks" => 138 results
"perl sucks" => 7,780 results
"bash sucks" =-> 3,630
"zsh sucks" => 48 results
PowerShell is looking competitive
"awk sucks" 486 results -- Does this imply PowerShell sucks 28% as much as awk? Probably should avoid from PowerShell then.
I have found awk useful in the past (though would normal perl today), I rarely find PowerShell useful, but then again, I don't admin Windows servers -- I've written lots of Windows software and lots of Unix software (many flavors) -- But I give regular thanks to God that I don't ever have to admin a bunch of Windows servers.
Sad, but true. They tried this with an early prototype in 2008. Within 5 minutes it was engulfed in flames and set back the research by nearly 2 years.
What you are missing is how radioactive Pu-238 is compared to U-235 / U-238
Pu-238 half life 87.7 years. U-238 4.5 billion years, U-235 713 million years, so using pure U-235 the material is 8 million times less radioactive. -- So, you need a corresponding bigger lump of U-235. Needless to say, this is quite a different thing.
You have to burn the stump after you cut off the head. This step is effective when applied to spammers too.
Disagree if you lifke, but if you actually consider the mechanics of abiogenesis, the ET organic fragments do not really affect the science -- it is an issue of "too little to make a difference" -- there really is not a good abiogenesis orgin of life scientific theory. This discovery does not alter the gulf between some random amino acids and life. We have no trouble with explaining some amino acids availability. The problem is that they are reactive molecules that degrade in utility more often than not without life to concentrate, protect and organize them. Organizing them in a functioning set of proteins, lipids, etc. is the real problem. This is a sideshow.
IMO, current abiogenesis theories are about as useful as Aristotelian physics in that they sound reasonable to the non-expert, but upon close examination, there are too many inconsistencies and weaknesses to really pass as decent theories. Fragments from space is just more hand-wavium for the extant theories.
Unless there is more involved here than just another possible source of organic fragments (i.e., not evidence of panspermia or such like), this can at best be only a very minor supporting role. It contributes nothing significant to the key arguments of current theories.
Until you do the math for how much organic fragments arrive via incoming rocks (that survive atmospheric entry) vs. how much is generated via natural processes as well as well as the math for the abiogenis origins and you will understand why I say this is not significant, hand-wavium. Unfortunately, I don't have the math for rocks from space vs. local orgins, but I do know the math for abiogenesis is very dogdy for all of the current theories, so much so that I am confident that addiing in ET based fragments make no real difference. If Darwin understood how complex life was, I doubt he would have made his warm little pond conjecture — he was a better scientist than that.
I am not a practicing scientist in this field, so my opinions are worth nothing (as are yours presumably), but I do understand enough math and statistics to know that the existing theories are deeply flawed. This does not mean by iteself mean abiogenisis cannot happen, it is just we have no current scientifically useful theory that explains how it could happen
What is really needed (and obviously very difficult to develop) is a much better theory of abiogenesis. This new data is not actually significant otherwise.
Position #1 -- God fearing Bible thumper. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates life is present or absent elsewhere in God's creation. The Genesis account explains the origin of life on this planet. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.
Note: some GFBT's argue that life elsewhere cannot exist, but they either do not know their Bible or mis-use the revealed word of God.
Position #2 -- God denying atheist cosmologist. The Drake equation gives the expected number of planets containing life. However, the values of the constants are largely conjecture and subjective bias of the person estimating the like values of the constants varies widely leading to valid outcomes to ranging from abundant life to earth being unique. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.
Note: some GDAT's insist that life elsewhere must exist, but they either do not understand the Drake equation or mis-use the relevant data or lack thereof.
It appears weak or strong anthropic reasoning applies in either case. Without more data, this is in reality a question of philosophy -- origin of life cannot be adequate explained scientifically, and the common religious explanation (though adequate from a religious perspective) is a priori unscientific.
Sorry but finding some amino acids acids in a rock from space adds nothing new to origin of life science unless it contributes something otherwise difficult to explain e.g., a solution to the chirality selection problem (which has been suggested before). Finding a space rock with a strong selection bias to either left or right handed organics -- now that would be very interesting.
News yes, interesting yes, -- but significant evidence relevant to the origin of life question? Not really.
According to the NASA article, earth has a potential anti-proton capture of about 0.004 kg per year. Jupiter was 9 kg per year.
Well, given advice like that, its not surprising nobody asks you. Suppose I could sell gas for $3.00, using your system I would have to sell it at $4.00 with $1.00 embedded tax, or I could sell it for $4.00 with $0.00 embedded tax -- guess which price I will choose as the seller.
CP/M had drive letters as well as the concept of default drive. Even worse, CP/M was using slash for command line options -- So arguably, DOS choosing backslash as the path separator made sense given in CP/M heritage — I.e., this particular form of brain damage was already baked into CP/M
I agree, Bush did not start out stupid. I wonder how many brain cells he cooked along life's path though?
They use to have Rifle Clubs in public schools too — including elementary schools. I supposed school kids used to die in droves because of the rifle clubs.
Not very likely -- any developer that endured the pain of learning to use .NET does not want that investment flushed away. Those that jump want to jump ship will do so regardless of MS decision to keep .NET. Just like VB6 developers clinging to VB6 and FORTRAN programmers clinging to FORTRAN.
6. Teach you (sic) end users about password security.
Seriously? On a website? I can think of no task more futile for the submitter's stated goal. People who know better often use rotten passwords out of simple laziness.
If your site is interesting enough, hackers will gain access to user-level accounts (just ask Anthony Wiener). You must write everything so that the only damage they can do is limited to the damage that the inept users can do to themselves by using designed features,
I actually worked for a company that made you check out pencils and turn them in at the end of the day. I did not work there very long.
Obviously, this would be an excellent device for midgets (very short people with proportional body parts to match). -- this seems like a limited market size to me though.
Oh, much more accurately it is hard to say that this computer simulation accurately simulated evolution -- There may be bias in the original program that is more accurately akin to directed evolution or altruism by design -- this design or bias may not have been intended by the software author. Simulations are only as accurate as model adheres to the reality being simulated. This is literal example of "pretend" evolution.
So, it is magically OK for the FCC to issue regulations for which it has no congressional authority to act? I don't care whether net neutrality is in fact a good idea or not, I don't like unconstitutional power grabs by federal bureaucrats. I think the EPA deserves a rejection of their carbon rules on the same basis.
If congress wants to out-source the research needed to craft a useful and proper bill, they can do that and then take a stand (right on wrong) when they enact the corresponding law, but they should not escape the responsibility for actually making the decisions as to what will become law.
Such calumnies -- The model T had a top speed of about 45 mph (72 kph)
I don't understand. Is he part of the Duke Nuke'm Forever development team?
I love this story about Donald Knuth writing an Algol compiler during the summer of 1960
"Jim, I'm your doctor and I'm your friend. Get back your command. Get it back before you turn into part of this collection. Before you really do grow old."
- McCoy, to Kirk in Star Trek 2
The Bible does not define any ritual needed for marriage. Biblically speaking, nothing would preclude the desert island marriage. I could certainly consider such a marriage approved by God, as far as approved by man, what laws were you responsible to while on the island. Contrary to Catholic doctrine, marriage is not a "church ordinance", rather is is approved by God.
As to "sex is marriage", what a silly statement, were this true, it would be impossible to commit fornication as sex itself establishes the marriage.
As to "Go find a priest" statement, it is true, no command to find a priest to perform a marriage ceremony, but get married to avoid fornication is the clear meaning of 1 Cor 7:1-2.
Sure, it was the insulation. But having seen actual flames (as well as the smoke) would make me a little hesitant to put some cardboard conveniently located at the exhaust from the power supply.