I mean restructure your life. We moved to a city; I walk to work, and my wife takes a bus to get to her job. We chose to restructure our lives so we didn't have to drive all the time. We're both healthier because we walk more, and we don't have to deal with the frustration of traffic, etc.
Move, if you have to, find another job, learn to use public transportation. And so what if your spouse also has to find another job, or if the kids need to start at another school? They're as much in it as you are. Everyone has to learn to deal - that's life.
It's not impossible, really. But you sound like you're just not willing to do it.
There is no Nobel prize for stupidity. Otherwise, you're a shoe-in!
I'm sure you'd be way in line before him. Nothing he said indicates that he wants to ban people driving or heating their homes, just that they consume less fuel doing so.
And most people don't NEED to drive to work. They choose to live and work in places that aren't convenient for transportation. You could restructure your life such that you didn't have to drive to work. I did, and I'm happier for it - if only because I don't have to spend an hour and a half sitting in traffic every day. That's not saying that you should be compelled to, just that when you complain that you NEED to drive, you're full of shit.
I was merely pointing out language problem in the two posts, specifically the syntactic ambiguity. The parse itself yields no information about anything but the formal structure of the statement, and says nothing about the result you obtain by evaluating the propositions with respect to facts in the world.
There's two relevant ways to parse that fragment. There's one where the "and" in "64 cores and 64G of memory per node" creates a single coordinated constituent, such that it can be paraphrased as "there are 64 cores per node and there are 64 Gb per node." There's a second, the one that I think you favor and that seems correct pragmatically, which may be paraphrased as "there are 64 total cores, and each node in the machine can have 64 Gb."
Structural ambiguity happens all the time in natural language.
No alien civilization is expending the mammoth amount of resources needed to traverse the vast distances of interstellar space just to stick a probe up your ass. Deal with it.
To counter your wildly irresponsible statements, I offer proof.
Because if I and people like me don't make our feelings known, then Apple has no incentive to do anything about it?
And, FWIW, there wasn't really any soul selling. I just like the Mac, and OS X is an excellent OS that's pleasant to use. I realize that's hard for the anti-Apple zealots to grasp.
OSX runs on Macs and for practical reasons I use a laptop for nearly everything, and move around with it quite a bit. I don't have the time or energy to fuck with a hackintosh laptop, so if I want to run OSX, I need to buy Apple hardware.
Yes, I am aware that I could connect an external monitor. That does me very little good most of the time.
Well, what I meant was that all the glossy screens I've seen have been plastic coated. Since the plastic isn't rigid, the surface is slightly uneven and there's odd reflections all over. I'd still prefer the matte screen (or a decent anti-glare coating, like on CRTs), but maybe the glass would make the reflections a bit less distracting.
As for resolution, I guess it depends on what you're using it for. 1440x900 is fine for my use.
A lot of people use their laptops as portable media players - watching movies on the couch, looking at pictures, etc. Glossy screens give the impression of better colors for that kind of use, so they're increasingly used in laptops in the consumer market.
I'm kinda disappointed to read about this, frankly. I'd at least like the option to not have one, cause they're fucking terrible.
Or something? Not optimal, I know (and if you're forking out that kind of money, it's kind of wrong to have to resort to it), but is there anything you can put on a glossy screen to eliminate the glossiness?
I hate glossy screens on laptops - they look like shit and are impossible to use for long periods of time. I think I read that these are glass screens(?), so maybe it'll be less annoying than the plastic ones.
Over- and underrated don't say anything about the post. Insightful means that the moderator finds it insightful, troll means they think it's a troll. Those are positive traits.
Over- and underrated aren't meaningful characteristics, so much as they are lameass cop outs. They often seem to get used by moderators on posts expressing controversial opinions. Instead of someone having the balls to call out something as being a troll or flamebait, they're just a way of sinking a rating without having to commit oneself.
For cost, for robustness, for functionality, MySQL is a far poorer choice than PostgreSQL.
I've used lots and lots of databases, relational and otherwise - MSSQL, Oracle, DB2, Informix, Unidata, etc. etc.. MySQL looks great to people who haven't got much experience with other databases, and it looks like a chunk of shit to those of us who have. I'm not even talking about database size. I'm talking about functionality level stuff - views, useful subselects, a single reliable table type that supports transactional data writing (and for that matter, a transactional layer that isn't shitty). Features that are always coming in a future version, but are already available in other products - ones that can be had for free.
There's no compelling business case for MySQL over another product, except that you might need to make use of a crappy open source project that's tied to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, right. No false accusations at all.
Good one.
There's no excuse for the grandparent's ignorance of technology that's been around for 15-20 years.
Anyone who's not talking out their ass care to comment on this?
Cause unlike the grandparent poster, he actually has a clue about the subject.
Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. He didn't call them part of the driveby media, though, so I'll go with Fox.
, e .
I mean restructure your life. We moved to a city; I walk to work, and my wife takes a bus to get to her job. We chose to restructure our lives so we didn't have to drive all the time. We're both healthier because we walk more, and we don't have to deal with the frustration of traffic, etc.
Move, if you have to, find another job, learn to use public transportation. And so what if your spouse also has to find another job, or if the kids need to start at another school? They're as much in it as you are. Everyone has to learn to deal - that's life.
It's not impossible, really. But you sound like you're just not willing to do it.
I'm sure you'd be way in line before him. Nothing he said indicates that he wants to ban people driving or heating their homes, just that they consume less fuel doing so.
And most people don't NEED to drive to work. They choose to live and work in places that aren't convenient for transportation. You could restructure your life such that you didn't have to drive to work. I did, and I'm happier for it - if only because I don't have to spend an hour and a half sitting in traffic every day. That's not saying that you should be compelled to, just that when you complain that you NEED to drive, you're full of shit.
Well intentioned or not, those guys are fucking assholes.
I was merely pointing out language problem in the two posts, specifically the syntactic ambiguity. The parse itself yields no information about anything but the formal structure of the statement, and says nothing about the result you obtain by evaluating the propositions with respect to facts in the world.
Cheers.
There's two relevant ways to parse that fragment. There's one where the "and" in "64 cores and 64G of memory per node" creates a single coordinated constituent, such that it can be paraphrased as "there are 64 cores per node and there are 64 Gb per node." There's a second, the one that I think you favor and that seems correct pragmatically, which may be paraphrased as "there are 64 total cores, and each node in the machine can have 64 Gb."
Structural ambiguity happens all the time in natural language.
To counter your wildly irresponsible statements, I offer proof.
Because if I and people like me don't make our feelings known, then Apple has no incentive to do anything about it?
And, FWIW, there wasn't really any soul selling. I just like the Mac, and OS X is an excellent OS that's pleasant to use. I realize that's hard for the anti-Apple zealots to grasp.
Please, please, please, please, please, please!
Running a botnet's gotta be a jail time worthy offense, right?
But I find meaningful details interesting, rather than stupid random crap. YMMV.
OSX runs on Macs and for practical reasons I use a laptop for nearly everything, and move around with it quite a bit. I don't have the time or energy to fuck with a hackintosh laptop, so if I want to run OSX, I need to buy Apple hardware.
Yes, I am aware that I could connect an external monitor. That does me very little good most of the time.
Cause I prefer using a Mac? I like OS X. I'm a perfectly capable *nix user, so I like having it available to me, in addition to a nice simple GUI.
Well, what I meant was that all the glossy screens I've seen have been plastic coated. Since the plastic isn't rigid, the surface is slightly uneven and there's odd reflections all over. I'd still prefer the matte screen (or a decent anti-glare coating, like on CRTs), but maybe the glass would make the reflections a bit less distracting.
As for resolution, I guess it depends on what you're using it for. 1440x900 is fine for my use.
A lot of people use their laptops as portable media players - watching movies on the couch, looking at pictures, etc. Glossy screens give the impression of better colors for that kind of use, so they're increasingly used in laptops in the consumer market.
I'm kinda disappointed to read about this, frankly. I'd at least like the option to not have one, cause they're fucking terrible.
Or something? Not optimal, I know (and if you're forking out that kind of money, it's kind of wrong to have to resort to it), but is there anything you can put on a glossy screen to eliminate the glossiness?
I hate glossy screens on laptops - they look like shit and are impossible to use for long periods of time. I think I read that these are glass screens(?), so maybe it'll be less annoying than the plastic ones.
The operative part of that being, that you sign up for them.
Do you have to pay for any random jackass that wants to send you SMS?
Ok, how about "Dumb" or "Pointless"?
Those are affirmative statements.
Over- and underrated don't say anything about the post. Insightful means that the moderator finds it insightful, troll means they think it's a troll. Those are positive traits.
Over- and underrated aren't meaningful characteristics, so much as they are lameass cop outs. They often seem to get used by moderators on posts expressing controversial opinions. Instead of someone having the balls to call out something as being a troll or flamebait, they're just a way of sinking a rating without having to commit oneself.
For cost, for robustness, for functionality, MySQL is a far poorer choice than PostgreSQL.
I've used lots and lots of databases, relational and otherwise - MSSQL, Oracle, DB2, Informix, Unidata, etc. etc.. MySQL looks great to people who haven't got much experience with other databases, and it looks like a chunk of shit to those of us who have. I'm not even talking about database size. I'm talking about functionality level stuff - views, useful subselects, a single reliable table type that supports transactional data writing (and for that matter, a transactional layer that isn't shitty). Features that are always coming in a future version, but are already available in other products - ones that can be had for free.
There's no compelling business case for MySQL over another product, except that you might need to make use of a crappy open source project that's tied to it.
ooh, 900MB. Positively ginormous, that.