They already accept money to buy more credits for heavier access of their service. For those that are unwilling to pay in cash, they offer credits for populating their system with hashes through the use of their client.
Somehow I think that if money were the issue, they would just say they lack money instead of saying they lack time.
Considering that they've had two upsets in the last two months, a lack of time sounds like an honest reason.
They just said the books would be on-line. They didn't say anything about making them freely available.
In other words, it will be on-line and only available to people who have paid licenses to access the book. It's even worse than having a book, because you can't transfer or lend a license, and when you license expires, you can no longer access the book.
They repay for most of the "static" learning material anyway. The books problem sets and examples are rewritten and rearranged nearly every year. If a school finds that they need 20 extra copies, the copies they need are likely the out-of-date old books. This forces a purchase of the current copies for the entire subject. To ease the pain, the book sellers offer a discount, which is to say they lower the impossibly inflated prices to only exorbitantly inflated prices. Even if the book hit a reasonable price, it's highway robbery compared to the cost burden if reprints of the old copies were available. I've even heard of "buy back" plans where the old books are recovered at a pittance of the price. All to ensure that too many old books never make it into the market.
A subscription model side-steps the need to repurchase an entire subject's books when you are ten books short. That's going to be the selling point. Unfortunately this is going to be tied at the hip to having to repurchase the access far more often than a well planned book purchase.
A well planned book purchase is rare, because you have to overbuy a subject, and when you're attempting to save money, overbuying is counter-intuitive.
It could be the screen, the wireless card, the ethernet chip, the disk drive, or some messed up code that keeps the CPU far too busy for no particular reason whatsoever. For example, my wife's Acer Aspire One has a very low power CPU attached at the hip to a power sucking memory controller. Go figure.
I'm sure they'll eventually get the kinks worked out.
You can argue it's the most complex novel in the English language, I will immediately concede. I was always curious about Finnegan's Wake (but never curious enough to search for a copy).
This stuff makes Chaucer (in the original Middle-English) look like a piece of cake. I could understand the first sentence without my English subsystem crashing. Midway through the second sentence the semantic parser was throwing exceptions every third word. By the end of the second sentence even my grammar parser had dumped core.
Only in Finnegan's Wake would the word bidimetoloves not seem out of place.
I tend to agree. If they really wanted a pay-to-use-this garbage collector, then they would have made the garbage collector a upgrade or add-on to the existing JVM and not distributed it in it's fully functional form for free.
Fully functional software tends to get used, and Oracle is not such a newbie to think that a piece of paper (or an electronic equivalent of that) will block use of a revenue generating item all by itself. Nor are they interested in auditing and suing everyone who might have a production environment that uses Java. Those kinds of tactics are only reserved for companies that have no other viable business model.
I know that you're anonymous, but you're brilliant.
This "feature" of the language extends even more deeply than you know. If I call
int age = Users.getByName("Bob").getAge();
I don't need to worry about the implementation of "getByName()" in Java, where in C++ I would need to know a lot to use the class. Java might be returning a modifiable "User" object which is referenced by the whole application, or it might be returning a copy of a "User" object where modification would only allow the block of code to be affected.
In C++ I would have to know whether "getByName()" returned a copy or a reference to a system-wide object, because if I don't destroy a copy, it's a memory leak. That means I would either have to rely on the documentation of the "getByName()" method in the header file, have access to (and read) the source code, or experiment via trial and error.
Some people discover that you can request a garbage collection cycle from within the main program. Basically it flags the GC thread to do another collection and the GC honors the request whenever it will.
Nearly 99.999% of the time, the person who put such a call together is a ex-C++ programmer who's under the impression that this will help the garbage collector in some way. They are just so used to garbage collection being deterministically halting their program, that they think the "lazy" thread of the garbage collector needs woken up to do it's work. Often then they will conclusively say (in error), "See since I called the garbage collector the class I just dereferenced will be collected by this line and it's destructor listener called." Of course, they are wrong. The GC will just get a request, and it will wait until it's safe to run a full sweep.
I is just not safe to write stateful code that depends on destruction. C++ was a little too close to malloc() and free() for people to think of doing it another way, but there is no guarantee that anything will ever be destructed before the program exits. I prefer Java NOT having destructors for this very reason. Without them, I tend to write more robust code because I can't assume that I can clean up after myself later, so I clean up after myself right then.
It it has cycle detection, then it's not "just" a reference counter. Probably it's a hybrid reference count / mark and sweep algorithm. The reference count lets you discard some of the objects quickly, while the mark and sweep lets you discard the circular references a little more slowly.
Even if Objective-C does not use a hybrid reference count / mark and sweep algorithm, it doesn't use a pure reference counting solution. If it did, then it would only have the number of times something was referenced, which cannot tell you the topology of the references, in the general case.
You hassle your administrator. The only reason he's not providing you a safer, more secure browser is laziness.
Even if he has a corporate web application that requires IE6 (and no more), holding the entire company back isn't a long term plan. In 2014, do you really think he'll be able to install IE6? He'll have to be writing his own device drivers for Windows XP to get an operating system that will support it.
Don't worry, when their computer breaks, they'll replace the entire computer. Then they'll have IE7 or perhaps IE8 depending on when they buy.
The thing that kills me is that they will likely balk at the differentness of the latest Windows offerings compared to the familiarity of XP. So they'll probably get someone to reinstall XP on their hardware, which will mostly work. You need to wait until XP doesn't support the hardware (even in backwards compatibility) to flush some knuckle heads out of the system.
RAM is cheap these days. Storage devices are still slow and the most interesting ones have a finite (Though still large) number of writes.
Ram is not so cheap across all platforms. I have a number of machines that are sitting at the maximum ram they support. Short of replacing the machine (or replacing the motherboard which is effectively replacing the machine) I cannot add in some RAM.
Atom based netbooks are cheap these days, and a lot of people want to leverage them. How can you upgrade the ram to 4GB? You can't.
Laptops are very popular, and a surprising number of them top out a 4GB.
A large number of desktops top out at 8GB.
Machines that can handle more than 8GB tend to top out at 64GB. I'm not going to say that 64GB should be enough for anyone, but there's a significant price jump because a 64GB machine is considered low-end "enterprise" class.
More ram is sometimes the answer, but over applying that answer is practically begging for code bloat. The truth is that companies fail to profile their products most of the time. They have found out that cutting profiling saves a little money because it's the kind of QA that most people won't notice. The costs associated aren't absorbed by the software vendor, it's absorbed by it's clients. Eventually, if it gets bad enough, then they'll fix memory and cpu consumption on a case-by-case basis, but before it gets that bad, they will just recommend a bigger machine.
As long as they can pass the costs onto the clients without upset, the clients will get blessed with requiring more powerful hardware. Until the performance becomes an issue, the company likely won't spend too much money pursuing optimizations.
We don't talk about mechanical stress being so unreal that broken bones are just character flaws. Why assume the nervous system is so perfect that no experience could cause it to fail or malfunction? Why assume that the mental system is so perfect that no experience could cause it to fail or malfunction?
Mechanical stress breaks bones. Nervous system stress can cause arrhythmias and tachycardia. Mental system stress can cause inability to perform.
I would tell you more, but I'm not the expert. Instead, walk through those doors and talk to someone who knows much more about it than I do, "Cthulhu, next!"
Mental diseases are not like bacterial infections. With a bacterial infection, the disease is present if the organism is present. With a mental disease, the disease is present if it impacts your life so greatly that you cannot function in society.
I've known some people who were unreasonably bitter about things that were truthfully not their fault. My friend can rant and rave for hours about a story that really changed his life. It turns out that decades ago he worked for a company, and they detected a leak of confidential information to a competitor. The person assigned to investigate turned out to be the person leaking the information, something my friend didn't find out until twenty years after the fact. The investigator was primarily interested in finding someone else to take the blame, and what resulted was a truly unfair scenario. Yes, my friend is bitter about it, and if you get him started on that topic, be prepared for him to not stop for about four hours. No, he can't do much about it, as he only found out after the statue of limitations had expired.
He is only very bitter about it now, but I imagine that soon after the incident, he might have been so bitter as to be unemployable. That's probably grounds for calling it a debilitating disorder. Then again, perhaps he never was incapacitated in any meaningful way other than losing that job. If so, then perhaps it's just a life experience.
Psychology describes diseases on how they present, but they are not diseases until they are debilitating. Everyone is a little bitter, a little paranoid, a little egocentric, a little manic, and a little depressed from time to time. When you are so beholden to those emotions that you can't hold a job, sustain yourself, or interact with others, then it's a disease.
USS, or United States Ship is a designation that is specific to a warship. Being a warship implies active service under the United States Navy.
USNS, or United States Naval Ship is a designation that is specific to a non-warship. Naval hospitals, certain research vessels, some surveillance ships, and other ships not appropriate for combat are included. These are not under direct command of the United States Navy, but are under the command of the Military Sealift Command. Often these ships are crewed by civilians and merchant marines, sometimes with armed forces personnel on board.
USAFS is an United States Air Force Ship. Apparently the Air Force thought it important enough to designate their ships differently to prevent confusion over whether the ship is Navy controlled or Air Force controlled.
While in the NAVY, I worked about USNS Mercy (TAH-19), so take the Air Force notes with a grain of salt. We had a civilian crew, Marines for small arms / internal defence, and USN military for the entire embedded hospital. I say embedded hospital because the USN personnel couldn't direct the crew, and the hospital was practically self contained and administered.
Just as long as he's not killing BadAnalogyGuy's brother during the trial, BadAnalogyGuy is probably ok with it!
The judge must be limited to offing BadAnalogyGuy's relatives to time periods before or after the trial. During is not professional.
Didn't this Judge still recognize membership in the organization during the trial? You sir, BadAnalogyGuy, have managed to make a bad analogy on many different levels! Truly a well crafted troll indeed.
The Java applet viewer is configured to launch a much more restrictive security manager, while the Java command line call runs under a very permissive security manager.
So, in one sense you are right, applets are restricted to a sandbox, but in another sense you are off a bit. All code is restricted to a sandbox, but some sandboxes come without walls!
Losing your sense of smell doesn't make you immune, that's true; however, it's not a hard stretch of the imagination for this person to have panicked and left the scene. After word of mouth eventually directs the questioning individuals back to the cleaner, I'd imagine that the age old "I didn't think it was a big deal; because, it didn't affect me." would be the predicted response.
The article is so light on the details, that you don't get a good picture of what really happened.
Slashdot Mirror
They already accept money to buy more credits for heavier access of their service. For those that are unwilling to pay in cash, they offer credits for populating their system with hashes through the use of their client.
Somehow I think that if money were the issue, they would just say they lack money instead of saying they lack time. Considering that they've had two upsets in the last two months, a lack of time sounds like an honest reason.
They just said the books would be on-line. They didn't say anything about making them freely available.
In other words, it will be on-line and only available to people who have paid licenses to access the book. It's even worse than having a book, because you can't transfer or lend a license, and when you license expires, you can no longer access the book.
They repay for most of the "static" learning material anyway. The books problem sets and examples are rewritten and rearranged nearly every year. If a school finds that they need 20 extra copies, the copies they need are likely the out-of-date old books. This forces a purchase of the current copies for the entire subject. To ease the pain, the book sellers offer a discount, which is to say they lower the impossibly inflated prices to only exorbitantly inflated prices. Even if the book hit a reasonable price, it's highway robbery compared to the cost burden if reprints of the old copies were available. I've even heard of "buy back" plans where the old books are recovered at a pittance of the price. All to ensure that too many old books never make it into the market.
A subscription model side-steps the need to repurchase an entire subject's books when you are ten books short. That's going to be the selling point. Unfortunately this is going to be tied at the hip to having to repurchase the access far more often than a well planned book purchase.
A well planned book purchase is rare, because you have to overbuy a subject, and when you're attempting to save money, overbuying is counter-intuitive.
The ARM is not the only items that drains power.
It could be the screen, the wireless card, the ethernet chip, the disk drive, or some messed up code that keeps the CPU far too busy for no particular reason whatsoever. For example, my wife's Acer Aspire One has a very low power CPU attached at the hip to a power sucking memory controller. Go figure.
I'm sure they'll eventually get the kinks worked out.
You can argue it's the most complex novel in the English language, I will immediately concede. I was always curious about Finnegan's Wake (but never curious enough to search for a copy).
This stuff makes Chaucer (in the original Middle-English) look like a piece of cake. I could understand the first sentence without my English subsystem crashing. Midway through the second sentence the semantic parser was throwing exceptions every third word. By the end of the second sentence even my grammar parser had dumped core.
Only in Finnegan's Wake would the word bidimetoloves not seem out of place.
Turn off desktop effects. Apparently there's some code in there which prevents the top of the window from exceeding the top of the screen.
I tend to agree. If they really wanted a pay-to-use-this garbage collector, then they would have made the garbage collector a upgrade or add-on to the existing JVM and not distributed it in it's fully functional form for free.
Fully functional software tends to get used, and Oracle is not such a newbie to think that a piece of paper (or an electronic equivalent of that) will block use of a revenue generating item all by itself. Nor are they interested in auditing and suing everyone who might have a production environment that uses Java. Those kinds of tactics are only reserved for companies that have no other viable business model.
Next thing you know, they'll be asking for memory protection money.
I know that you're anonymous, but you're brilliant.
This "feature" of the language extends even more deeply than you know. If I call
int age = Users.getByName("Bob").getAge();
I don't need to worry about the implementation of "getByName()" in Java, where in C++ I would need to know a lot to use the class. Java might be returning a modifiable "User" object which is referenced by the whole application, or it might be returning a copy of a "User" object where modification would only allow the block of code to be affected.
In C++ I would have to know whether "getByName()" returned a copy or a reference to a system-wide object, because if I don't destroy a copy, it's a memory leak. That means I would either have to rely on the documentation of the "getByName()" method in the header file, have access to (and read) the source code, or experiment via trial and error.
Some people discover that you can request a garbage collection cycle from within the main program. Basically it flags the GC thread to do another collection and the GC honors the request whenever it will.
Nearly 99.999% of the time, the person who put such a call together is a ex-C++ programmer who's under the impression that this will help the garbage collector in some way. They are just so used to garbage collection being deterministically halting their program, that they think the "lazy" thread of the garbage collector needs woken up to do it's work. Often then they will conclusively say (in error), "See since I called the garbage collector the class I just dereferenced will be collected by this line and it's destructor listener called." Of course, they are wrong. The GC will just get a request, and it will wait until it's safe to run a full sweep.
I is just not safe to write stateful code that depends on destruction. C++ was a little too close to malloc() and free() for people to think of doing it another way, but there is no guarantee that anything will ever be destructed before the program exits. I prefer Java NOT having destructors for this very reason. Without them, I tend to write more robust code because I can't assume that I can clean up after myself later, so I clean up after myself right then.
It it has cycle detection, then it's not "just" a reference counter. Probably it's a hybrid reference count / mark and sweep algorithm. The reference count lets you discard some of the objects quickly, while the mark and sweep lets you discard the circular references a little more slowly.
Even if Objective-C does not use a hybrid reference count / mark and sweep algorithm, it doesn't use a pure reference counting solution. If it did, then it would only have the number of times something was referenced, which cannot tell you the topology of the references, in the general case.
You hassle your administrator. The only reason he's not providing you a safer, more secure browser is laziness.
Even if he has a corporate web application that requires IE6 (and no more), holding the entire company back isn't a long term plan. In 2014, do you really think he'll be able to install IE6? He'll have to be writing his own device drivers for Windows XP to get an operating system that will support it.
Don't worry, when their computer breaks, they'll replace the entire computer. Then they'll have IE7 or perhaps IE8 depending on when they buy.
The thing that kills me is that they will likely balk at the differentness of the latest Windows offerings compared to the familiarity of XP. So they'll probably get someone to reinstall XP on their hardware, which will mostly work. You need to wait until XP doesn't support the hardware (even in backwards compatibility) to flush some knuckle heads out of the system.
RAM is cheap these days. Storage devices are still slow and the most interesting ones have a finite (Though still large) number of writes.
Ram is not so cheap across all platforms. I have a number of machines that are sitting at the maximum ram they support. Short of replacing the machine (or replacing the motherboard which is effectively replacing the machine) I cannot add in some RAM.
Atom based netbooks are cheap these days, and a lot of people want to leverage them. How can you upgrade the ram to 4GB? You can't.
Laptops are very popular, and a surprising number of them top out a 4GB.
A large number of desktops top out at 8GB.
Machines that can handle more than 8GB tend to top out at 64GB. I'm not going to say that 64GB should be enough for anyone, but there's a significant price jump because a 64GB machine is considered low-end "enterprise" class.
More ram is sometimes the answer, but over applying that answer is practically begging for code bloat. The truth is that companies fail to profile their products most of the time. They have found out that cutting profiling saves a little money because it's the kind of QA that most people won't notice. The costs associated aren't absorbed by the software vendor, it's absorbed by it's clients. Eventually, if it gets bad enough, then they'll fix memory and cpu consumption on a case-by-case basis, but before it gets that bad, they will just recommend a bigger machine.
As long as they can pass the costs onto the clients without upset, the clients will get blessed with requiring more powerful hardware. Until the performance becomes an issue, the company likely won't spend too much money pursuing optimizations.
Never hear of shell shock, eh?
We don't talk about mechanical stress being so unreal that broken bones are just character flaws. Why assume the nervous system is so perfect that no experience could cause it to fail or malfunction? Why assume that the mental system is so perfect that no experience could cause it to fail or malfunction?
Mechanical stress breaks bones. Nervous system stress can cause arrhythmias and tachycardia. Mental system stress can cause inability to perform.
I would tell you more, but I'm not the expert. Instead, walk through those doors and talk to someone who knows much more about it than I do, "Cthulhu, next!"
Every real thing is perceived too, unless the observer is just too blind to perceive it.
Mental diseases are not like bacterial infections. With a bacterial infection, the disease is present if the organism is present. With a mental disease, the disease is present if it impacts your life so greatly that you cannot function in society.
I've known some people who were unreasonably bitter about things that were truthfully not their fault. My friend can rant and rave for hours about a story that really changed his life. It turns out that decades ago he worked for a company, and they detected a leak of confidential information to a competitor. The person assigned to investigate turned out to be the person leaking the information, something my friend didn't find out until twenty years after the fact. The investigator was primarily interested in finding someone else to take the blame, and what resulted was a truly unfair scenario. Yes, my friend is bitter about it, and if you get him started on that topic, be prepared for him to not stop for about four hours. No, he can't do much about it, as he only found out after the statue of limitations had expired.
He is only very bitter about it now, but I imagine that soon after the incident, he might have been so bitter as to be unemployable. That's probably grounds for calling it a debilitating disorder. Then again, perhaps he never was incapacitated in any meaningful way other than losing that job. If so, then perhaps it's just a life experience.
Psychology describes diseases on how they present, but they are not diseases until they are debilitating. Everyone is a little bitter, a little paranoid, a little egocentric, a little manic, and a little depressed from time to time. When you are so beholden to those emotions that you can't hold a job, sustain yourself, or interact with others, then it's a disease.
Dude, move on to paper tape!
USS, or United States Ship is a designation that is specific to a warship. Being a warship implies active service under the United States Navy.
USNS, or United States Naval Ship is a designation that is specific to a non-warship. Naval hospitals, certain research vessels, some surveillance ships, and other ships not appropriate for combat are included. These are not under direct command of the United States Navy, but are under the command of the Military Sealift Command. Often these ships are crewed by civilians and merchant marines, sometimes with armed forces personnel on board.
USAFS is an United States Air Force Ship. Apparently the Air Force thought it important enough to designate their ships differently to prevent confusion over whether the ship is Navy controlled or Air Force controlled.
While in the NAVY, I worked about USNS Mercy (TAH-19), so take the Air Force notes with a grain of salt. We had a civilian crew, Marines for small arms / internal defence, and USN military for the entire embedded hospital. I say embedded hospital because the USN personnel couldn't direct the crew, and the hospital was practically self contained and administered.
Just as long as he's not killing BadAnalogyGuy's brother during the trial, BadAnalogyGuy is probably ok with it!
The judge must be limited to offing BadAnalogyGuy's relatives to time periods before or after the trial. During is not professional.
Didn't this Judge still recognize membership in the organization during the trial? You sir, BadAnalogyGuy, have managed to make a bad analogy on many different levels! Truly a well crafted troll indeed.
All Java code runs under a security manager.
The Java applet viewer is configured to launch a much more restrictive security manager, while the Java command line call runs under a very permissive security manager.
So, in one sense you are right, applets are restricted to a sandbox, but in another sense you are off a bit. All code is restricted to a sandbox, but some sandboxes come without walls!
Disclaimer: This statement is only 35% correct.
The proof is in the tasting of the pudding.
If you can do the math, and the math is right, then your technique of learning was successful.
Please explain to me how I can walk off the end of an array in Java? I'm all ears.
Losing your sense of smell doesn't make you immune, that's true; however, it's not a hard stretch of the imagination for this person to have panicked and left the scene. After word of mouth eventually directs the questioning individuals back to the cleaner, I'd imagine that the age old "I didn't think it was a big deal; because, it didn't affect me." would be the predicted response.
The article is so light on the details, that you don't get a good picture of what really happened.