Moral relativism is closer to saying that there is no universal "rigtht thing" to do or any universal "wrong thing" to do. Looking at the situation moraly reltavistcally, one might say that the large company isn't wrong for trying to prevent shoplifting, Society isn't wrong for not providing means for the individual to provide for themselves, and the individual stealing isn't wrong for stealing. There is no potential for Justice in that situation. No ideal solution to the conflict of interests.
To be fair, the article brought up four requirements that it must have in order to be secure, and only talked about one. Its crappy journalism. Plus the GP, actually RTFM!! I think he should be given some credit for that.
You can't. I wasn't saying that MySql was perfect in all cases when you didn't care about ACID. Twitter can't use PostgreSQL. Facebook can't use PostgreSQL. The performance hit of ACID is too much. There isn't a single tool that solves all data storage and retrieval problems. You can argue that PostgreSQL is better for most usage cases than Mysql ( if you're dead set at arguing Mysql vs PostgreSQL while ignoring every other database.). I wouldn't agree with that statement, but it makes a lot more sense than claiming PostgreSQL is the optimal solution for a super massive read write workload. No one does that, and its not because they're stupid or biased against PostgreSQL.
If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*. So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster. Really depends on what you want to do with your data. No more one-size fits all db anymore. Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases.
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe it. Win 7 outperforms Vista on low end hardware. XP out performs Vista on low end hardware. It requires too much suspension of belief and tortured reading of his comments to come to that conclusion without further information. Your interpretation could be true, but from the article ( and others written along the same lines) its is not the logical conclusion.
Eh, just look at the things Microsoft did to DRDOS. Or anyone else, for that matter. When there are few competitors, you can't deliberately sabotage the competition. Its anti-competitive, monopolistic behavior.
An astute observer may note that this isn't that far from what video game consoles do. Or the Iphone. Or Itunes. I'm not sure I know the difference between these cases. Perhaps this is due to my imaginary law degree, but I prefer to blame it on the dragons.
"If you look back at the evolution of Windows, it's evolved very organically, where components are added to the system and features are added to the system without, in the past, any real focus on architecture or layering," Russinovich explained. "And that's led us to do some hacks with Windows, when we want to make small footprint versions of Windows like Server Core, or Embedded Windows, or Windows PE -- the pre-installation environment. What we do [instead] is take full Windows, and start pulling pieces off of it. The problem with that is, the pieces that are left sometimes have dependencies out to the pieces that we've removed. And we don't really understand those dependencies."
Microsoft, the company who made windows from scratch : "we don't understand all of the dependencies". "evolved organically" . "Without any real focus on architecture"...
That is bad design. Bad Architecture. A lack of focus on architecture is bad architecture. Don't misunderstand, I understand OS design is never easy. I'm not blaming anyone. It sounds like its getting better. But, it was bad, bad, bad. It was more than junior engineers that lead to its problems. Anyone working in such a complex beast with no architectural oversight and no understanding of all the dependencies, is going to make any problems worse.
What exactly is my theory? I think it was something about windows suffering from poor design which lead to the longhorn/vista debacle. Longhorn, you may remember was supposed to be released in 2004. Windows design sucked, so they had to start over in the middle. I was specifically referring to the process leading towards Vista (But I guess if you want to add a couple years onto that to make it 7, then go ahead).
If you remember correctly, longhorn/vista was always supposed to be less that two years work. MS wanted to adopt a two year release cycle to keep up with apple's OS X point releases.
If they've fixed the problems with 7 somehow ( min win?), great wonderful. I guess if they continue on a two year release cycle of quality releases, then that would lead some credence towards it. The really interesting question is what they will do next. Will they completely redo windows into managed code ala Singularity/Midori? If so how long will it take?
Granted I didn't see those movies in 3-d, but they aren't very good movies. There need to be movies made where the third dimension is integral in creating the atmosphere of the movie. There aren't just things flying out of the screen to fly out of the screen. We need technology to allow things to sneak up behind you and rush in from the side. When it rains in the movie, it should make you feel wet. A fog should realistly envelop you. Cliffs should scare you. Thats the level of immersion that would cause me to pay the extra money to see 3d movies.
Yeah, audio's a bit messy to say the least. I completely understand the issues surrounding Longhorn. I was an early beta testor, went through a lot of the develop previews, ect. It still sucked. No explanation makes up for it. And again, I think its the base design that is more of a problem than the quality of the coders or Open source vs Closed. Hopefully MS is correct this time and they really did address the fundamental design flaws that were present in the xp/vista code base. Time wil tell.
Exactly. That's my point. Its a much more complex, more difficult design which leads to the problems that it has. But please don't point to its success (win 2000, xp sp 2) and ignore its failings (longhorn) to defend it. Look at the whole picture honestly.
Eh... I understand what you are saying. And yet, Linux has never produced anything nearly as bad as Longhorn. Seriously, Long- freaking-horn. You can't praise them for 2000 and xp SP2 and ignore their obvious mistakes with xp/xp-sp1 and longhorn/vista. Every version of windows that is released is accompanied by a story interviewing some Microsoft fellow that describes how bad the source code for the previous version was and how no one really knows how all of the different parts of windows interact. I'm sure its not bad code full of obvious hackery and bad coding. I am however convinced that its a more difficult of a design than the Unix philosophy and it suffers because of that.
Plus, as closed source we can just sort of imagine the code that causes the problems we run into, where as with linux we can actually see the code that caused the problem so we don't have to imagine any code crappier than what we find.
ARRGggg! Talk about stealing defeat from the jaws of victory! People need to learn the difference between Faith and Science. You did a very, very good job of it, up until the last sentence:
Fact checking when you are an informed person or scientist is one thing, saying something is wrong because you don't get it and some old book told you it's wrong is entirely another, invalid, way of thinking.
That little judgmental ",invalid," throws up peoples defenses. You say they are different, but the one you like is wrong. Just leave it at " they are different". The way you put it seems like you are also trying to get people to change their (often deeply held) faith: a prime accusation of those who believe in creationism and intelligent design. You're playing right in to their fears, and causing them to distrust anyone trying to teach science. If you want to advocate that all religions, or maybe just some are wrong and bad that's fine by me. No problem, but that's a SEPERATE argument from teaching science. Its very counter productive to combine the two.
Being doomed does not make me any less lazy. Even if I wasn't, sending money to strangers would not be high on my priority list of things to do when facing certain doom.
I know what I'm talking about, at least when it comes to Italian foods. I specifically didn't include wine in that list. Domestic craft beers compare pretty well with the imports, but IMHO, still lack when compared to European beers consumed on tap in country.
There are some really good American Artisan Cheeses, but I don't think the Parmesan or Neufchâtel compare to the originals.
Japan was thought of in the same light in the 60's and 70's. Heck at one point in the history of the US, we were also the cheap, knockoff producer. In fact, I would say that we still are in respect to food (Cream Cheese => Neufchâtel; cheese, parmasean => parmigiano-reggiano; Hershey's chocolate => real milk chocolate; ).
Over time, their economy will grow up just like ours did ( only 200X faster).
I don't usually do it. I meant "to". If I had used "too" i would still have needed "to" and it should have gone before the adjective. " but clarifying as posts too similar to your last one". I guess with the spelling of license, I'm getting full payback for my bellyaching in highschool Only had access to a spellchecker set to Brittish English, so I still type colour,tyre, metre, centre and favourite sometimes. But still the case of the verb was wrong, and the guy was generally just wrong. I think this may have been the first time I've actually tried to point out someones spelling mistake. So, no I don't do it often.
I firmly believe that I am a crumulant writter. My hugo award that I refused due to a three way scheduling error with the academy awards banquet, and the nobel prize for literature ceremony, can attest to that.
...Along with my overly honest, nonchalant way of humbly attesting to my greatness.
Unfortunately not. I was trying to point out that his post wasn't well reasoned. He hadn't thought out his points and I thought his grammar was further proof of it. If. in some alternate grammar that I am not aware of ( Likely the one I was educated in ), his is actually correct, then I apologize. But everything else in the post still stands. It was not an attack on his character, just a reminder for him to slow down and think about the issues before posting. In retrospect, I might have taken the same advise ( or advice) .
Slashdot Mirror
Chocolate exists, why would anyone go for vanilla?
Title of article "AT&T Wins Gizmodo 3G Bandwidth Test".
Not Article Title "AT&T Wins Gizmodo 3G Reliability Test".
Notice any difference in the two?
Moral relativism is closer to saying that there is no universal "rigtht thing" to do or any universal "wrong thing" to do. Looking at the situation moraly reltavistcally, one might say that the large company isn't wrong for trying to prevent shoplifting, Society isn't wrong for not providing means for the individual to provide for themselves, and the individual stealing isn't wrong for stealing. There is no potential for Justice in that situation. No ideal solution to the conflict of interests.
To be fair, the article brought up four requirements that it must have in order to be secure, and only talked about one. Its crappy journalism. Plus the GP, actually RTFM!! I think he should be given some credit for that.
That's all I was saying. We agree then.
You can't. I wasn't saying that MySql was perfect in all cases when you didn't care about ACID. Twitter can't use PostgreSQL. Facebook can't use PostgreSQL. The performance hit of ACID is too much. There isn't a single tool that solves all data storage and retrieval problems. You can argue that PostgreSQL is better for most usage cases than Mysql ( if you're dead set at arguing Mysql vs PostgreSQL while ignoring every other database.). I wouldn't agree with that statement, but it makes a lot more sense than claiming PostgreSQL is the optimal solution for a super massive read write workload. No one does that, and its not because they're stupid or biased against PostgreSQL.
They aren't dumb, just expensive. If they cost more than their worth, you don't need them.
If you're dealing with real money, You *NEED* them. If you're dealing with tweets, you can't afford them.
If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*. So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster. Really depends on what you want to do with your data. No more one-size fits all db anymore. Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases.
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe it. Win 7 outperforms Vista on low end hardware. XP out performs Vista on low end hardware. It requires too much suspension of belief and tortured reading of his comments to come to that conclusion without further information. Your interpretation could be true, but from the article ( and others written along the same lines) its is not the logical conclusion.
Eh, just look at the things Microsoft did to DRDOS. Or anyone else, for that matter. When there are few competitors, you can't deliberately sabotage the competition. Its anti-competitive, monopolistic behavior.
An astute observer may note that this isn't that far from what video game consoles do. Or the Iphone. Or Itunes. I'm not sure I know the difference between these cases. Perhaps this is due to my imaginary law degree, but I prefer to blame it on the dragons.
Microsoft, the company who made windows from scratch : "we don't understand all of the dependencies". "evolved organically" . "Without any real focus on architecture"...
That is bad design. Bad Architecture. A lack of focus on architecture is bad architecture. Don't misunderstand, I understand OS design is never easy. I'm not blaming anyone. It sounds like its getting better. But, it was bad, bad, bad. It was more than junior engineers that lead to its problems. Anyone working in such a complex beast with no architectural oversight and no understanding of all the dependencies, is going to make any problems worse.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Mark-Russinovich-on-MinWin-the-new-core-of-Windows/1259792850
That is my point. Read it. He's smarter than me. Is in charge of Windows architecture. If he says it sucked, then it sucked.
What exactly is my theory? I think it was something about windows suffering from poor design which lead to the longhorn/vista debacle. Longhorn, you may remember was supposed to be released in 2004. Windows design sucked, so they had to start over in the middle. I was specifically referring to the process leading towards Vista (But I guess if you want to add a couple years onto that to make it 7, then go ahead).
If you remember correctly, longhorn/vista was always supposed to be less that two years work. MS wanted to adopt a two year release cycle to keep up with apple's OS X point releases.
If they've fixed the problems with 7 somehow ( min win?), great wonderful. I guess if they continue on a two year release cycle of quality releases, then that would lead some credence towards it. The really interesting question is what they will do next. Will they completely redo windows into managed code ala Singularity/Midori? If so how long will it take?
Granted I didn't see those movies in 3-d, but they aren't very good movies. There need to be movies made where the third dimension is integral in creating the atmosphere of the movie. There aren't just things flying out of the screen to fly out of the screen. We need technology to allow things to sneak up behind you and rush in from the side. When it rains in the movie, it should make you feel wet. A fog should realistly envelop you. Cliffs should scare you. Thats the level of immersion that would cause me to pay the extra money to see 3d movies.
Yeah, audio's a bit messy to say the least. I completely understand the issues surrounding Longhorn. I was an early beta testor, went through a lot of the develop previews, ect. It still sucked. No explanation makes up for it. And again, I think its the base design that is more of a problem than the quality of the coders or Open source vs Closed. Hopefully MS is correct this time and they really did address the fundamental design flaws that were present in the xp/vista code base. Time wil tell.
Exactly. That's my point. Its a much more complex, more difficult design which leads to the problems that it has. But please don't point to its success (win 2000, xp sp 2) and ignore its failings (longhorn) to defend it. Look at the whole picture honestly.
Eh... I understand what you are saying. And yet, Linux has never produced anything nearly as bad as Longhorn. Seriously, Long- freaking-horn. You can't praise them for 2000 and xp SP2 and ignore their obvious mistakes with xp/xp-sp1 and longhorn/vista. Every version of windows that is released is accompanied by a story interviewing some Microsoft fellow that describes how bad the source code for the previous version was and how no one really knows how all of the different parts of windows interact. I'm sure its not bad code full of obvious hackery and bad coding. I am however convinced that its a more difficult of a design than the Unix philosophy and it suffers because of that.
Plus, as closed source we can just sort of imagine the code that causes the problems we run into, where as with linux we can actually see the code that caused the problem so we don't have to imagine any code crappier than what we find.
That little judgmental ",invalid," throws up peoples defenses. You say they are different, but the one you like is wrong. Just leave it at " they are different". The way you put it seems like you are also trying to get people to change their (often deeply held) faith: a prime accusation of those who believe in creationism and intelligent design. You're playing right in to their fears, and causing them to distrust anyone trying to teach science. If you want to advocate that all religions, or maybe just some are wrong and bad that's fine by me. No problem, but that's a SEPERATE argument from teaching science. Its very counter productive to combine the two.
What are some good movies that are in 3d? I haven't seen any. There are some good non-3d movies , however.
Being doomed does not make me any less lazy. Even if I wasn't, sending money to strangers would not be high on my priority list of things to do when facing certain doom.
I know what I'm talking about, at least when it comes to Italian foods. I specifically didn't include wine in that list. Domestic craft beers compare pretty well with the imports, but IMHO, still lack when compared to European beers consumed on tap in country.
There are some really good American Artisan Cheeses, but I don't think the Parmesan or Neufchâtel compare to the originals.
Read the article, it provides some explanation of why things are the way they are.
Plus, what exactly are your other options? Doing the entire page in flash or active X?
Also, sort of makes perl 6's development look a lot better, doesn't it?
Japan was thought of in the same light in the 60's and 70's. Heck at one point in the history of the US, we were also the cheap, knockoff producer. In fact, I would say that we still are in respect to food (Cream Cheese => Neufchâtel; cheese, parmasean => parmigiano-reggiano; Hershey's chocolate => real milk chocolate; ).
Over time, their economy will grow up just like ours did ( only 200X faster).
I don't usually do it. I meant "to". If I had used "too" i would still have needed "to" and it should have gone before the adjective. " but clarifying as posts too similar to your last one". I guess with the spelling of license, I'm getting full payback for my bellyaching in highschool Only had access to a spellchecker set to Brittish English, so I still type colour,tyre, metre, centre and favourite sometimes. But still the case of the verb was wrong, and the guy was generally just wrong. I think this may have been the first time I've actually tried to point out someones spelling mistake. So, no I don't do it often.
I firmly believe that I am a crumulant writter. My hugo award that I refused due to a three way scheduling error with the academy awards banquet, and the nobel prize for literature ceremony, can attest to that.
...Along with my overly honest, nonchalant way of humbly attesting to my greatness.
Unfortunately not. I was trying to point out that his post wasn't well reasoned. He hadn't thought out his points and I thought his grammar was further proof of it. If. in some alternate grammar that I am not aware of ( Likely the one I was educated in ), his is actually correct, then I apologize. But everything else in the post still stands. It was not an attack on his character, just a reminder for him to slow down and think about the issues before posting. In retrospect, I might have taken the same advise ( or advice) .