Wrong, actually. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean your nanny state has to bus you wherever you want to go to vent your spleen, build you a platform, buy you a bullhorn, and dragoon a bunch of losers into listening to you stammer, ramble, and make an ass of yourself.
Or, what if your declaration of independence asserts that you have a right to life. That doesn't mean your nanny state has to give you an armored car so nobody shoots you, a chauffeur so you don't hit a tree while you're texting, and a bulletproof vest for when you are shopping or watching the opera. They don't have to stop traffic so nobody can collide with you. They don't have to clothe and feed you so you don't die of exposure or starve to death. They don't have to wipe your ass so flies don't gather and give you a disease. They don't have to watch you 24x7 and come and put you on life support every time you overdose on some self indulgence, let alone stop you doing it in the first place.
The right to broadband mentioned in the article says that no matter where you live, somebody has to OFFER to sell you broadband at a reasonable price. That's a DAMN sight more than you get in the U.S. on this subject.
I understand your concern with consistency. I'm a big consistency proponent. I actually think consistency argues _against_ double-click.
I think it's been over 10 years since I set up any Windows or Linux computer withOUT single-click-to-open, going back to NT 4.0. If you watch new users try to understand the rationale for double click, and try to master the operation (it's really unnecessarily demanding of manual dexterity), you will perhaps come to see it as both senseless and weird. You don't double-click in a web page to follow links. You don't double-click menus. Why icons? I believe the only reason a lot of us think double-click is natural and makes sense, is because we've gotten into the habit. It's not at all intuitive to new users.
Oh, for Pete's sake. That's unbelievably lame. If you lose single-click-to-open capability, then it's a huge step backward and a crock. Double click is an abomination. It BARELY had some feeble justification when there was only a single mouse button, but it's a complete crock in the real world of 2 or more buttons.
If it takes even longer to open a folder than current Gnome, that's just unacceptable. Compare navigating folders containing thousands of files using the Gnome file-open dialog now, against the Kde file-open dialog. It's night and day. The Kde version is faster when you first hit such a folder, and then it caches the contents and is blazing fast after that. Night and day.
Time to branch at 2.28 and maintain a sane alternative.
Yep. Gnome 3 is a mental disorder. It's what happens when you spend all your time dreaming about how to come up with a new UI paradigm when there is already a highly satisfactory, perfectly usable, and well accepted paradigm that has stood the test of time, and that no one is complaining about. It is new for the sake of new. Kde 4 was much the same thing, but at least they optimized their infrastructure and cleaned up some rough edges in the process (while hopelessly screwing up some basic stuff).
Despair not, however. There is still Xfce, and it shows no sign of succumbing to a mental disorder.
Please do not use the meaningless term "C/C++." They are two different (though related) languages. Stroustrup did not develop C++ just to pass the time.
First, my comment was specifically about C++. If they have memory management problems and exception safety problems when working in standards compliant C++ with working std::string and std::tr1::shared_ptr or boost::shared_ptr, they are not using the language competently. std::string, used properly, CANNOT overflow. The RAII[*] (Resource Allocation Is Initialization) pattern is rigorously safe and practically indispensable.
C is another thing altogether. It is a good deal more difficult, but still possible, with fully up to date compilers; certainly not in K&R C. I daresay, considering only C and C++, 95% of buffer overflow exploits arise in C code, and the other 5% arise from using C++ in a less than expert manner.
Those who cannot exhibit competency in these matters may use nanny languages; but that is not good enough for some classes of programming jobs. For the rest, C++ and even C can be used very safely. Would I choose C++ to write a business app? Probably not, but I would most certainly use it for a real time embedded job.
Where the heck do you live, Alaska? The temperature inside a parked car in many locales can soar well over 120 F in direct sunlight with the windows raised. In fact, 150-200 F has been recorded. And cracking the windows open 1.5 inches does essentially NO GOOD AT ALL.
The garbage collection haters and garbage collection lovers will never see eye to eye. Your parent is NOT wrong. He's probably just doing things you're not (and vice versa in all likelihood).
Smart pointers basically trivialize the so called "problem" of memory management and exception safety in C++. Simply put, it's NOT a problem. Before the boost library came into use it took SOME discipline, but nowadays it's just dead straightforward. A real time embedded programmer wants control over memory management. He can't tolerate garbage collection compromising his execution scheduling deadlines. It's a lot more than just Doom 8. It's your car. It's the airliner you ride in. It's process control.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. These are the REAL places C++ falls flat on its head.
Advertising is self deception and is a morally bankrupt waste of the customers' money. Yep, every cent the fat corporate bastards splurge on comes from customers.
You use the word "intellectual property" like you think the phrase is more than an oxymoron. Sorry, but you can't own insubstantial things. Any law that seeks to give you that right is bankrupt and immoral and void in the mind of any honest and realistic thinker.
Either they purchase copies of a tangible asset, or they purchase licenses to use an intangible asset in a prescribed manner. It can't be both. If it's the former, they can use the copies anyway they want. They can scratch their balls and wipe their ass with the DVDs and mail them back to Apple if they want. If it's the latter, the DVDs are provided just to assist the licensed user in applying the license, and they are SOL, period. And I think we know which way the judicial system likes to view these matters (hint; it ain't the first way).
No. Without touching on the ethics or morality part of the question, the legality of Psystar's operations is up for litigation. You may believe it is illegal, but courts have the quaint notion that such decisions are up to them.
"Just pass a law against [the monopoly]," Lord help us. Unless the government has set up the monopoly by process, the monopoly can't exist by definition: "monopoly" in this context meaning "an exclusive privilege to conduct this service, granted by government authority." I.e., it was a stupid government process which created the monopoly in the first place! And you want to cure that by more government process? Sure, I've got this great bridge to sell you.
So there are only two possibilities in this case:
1) The corporation does not have a legally protected monopoly, in which case there is nothing legally to prevent another corporation, or the government, from competing. If no other corporation wants to compete, the government is free to obtain the desired result by taking the initiative.
2) The corporation does have a legally protected monopoly, in which case the government has already acted stupidly, and it is going to be difficult to rectify, because of existing guarantees.
My read of the story is that case 1 is the situation in effect in the case being discussed. All that is required is for a judge to throw out the patently baseless lawsuit, and the municipality to proceed, preferably with their middle finger raised. So they will end up with two competing providers. So what? There is then no story; just an object lesson.
Dear Mr. Coward: You can split a fucking grammatical hair anyway you want, but in the real world a hundred grand sports car that can go 300 miles but only if you keep it to 35 mph, is not going to be anything that is on the radar screen of 95% of drivers.
Actually it would be closer to $140 a year where I live in the US, and probably most of Europe too. That's today. Could skyrocket tomorrow. Also, the lower power server can hold up much longer on a UPS; has a better chance of riding out an entire power outage.
The Mac Mini is very serviceable and I do not dis it. There is also the comparable Aopen Minis, which is just as well designed, and is easier to slap linux onto:
1) As others have noted, the Mini won't come ANYWHERE NEAR this much power in this kind of use. Figure on 20 watts, 30 at the utmost.
2) I have run tests with a Kill-a-Watt on various speedstep capable systems, in every case finding that when idle, whether it is running at max or min clock makes next to no difference at all! Linux will very effectively use C states and will be halted almost all the time in this kind of service.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, actually. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean your nanny state has to bus you wherever you want to go to vent your spleen, build you a platform, buy you a bullhorn, and dragoon a bunch of losers into listening to you stammer, ramble, and make an ass of yourself.
Or, what if your declaration of independence asserts that you have a right to life. That doesn't mean your nanny state has to give you an armored car so nobody shoots you, a chauffeur so you don't hit a tree while you're texting, and a bulletproof vest for when you are shopping or watching the opera. They don't have to stop traffic so nobody can collide with you. They don't have to clothe and feed you so you don't die of exposure or starve to death. They don't have to wipe your ass so flies don't gather and give you a disease. They don't have to watch you 24x7 and come and put you on life support every time you overdose on some self indulgence, let alone stop you doing it in the first place.
The right to broadband mentioned in the article says that no matter where you live, somebody has to OFFER to sell you broadband at a reasonable price. That's a DAMN sight more than you get in the U.S. on this subject.
I understand your concern with consistency. I'm a big consistency proponent. I actually think consistency argues _against_ double-click.
I think it's been over 10 years since I set up any Windows or Linux computer withOUT single-click-to-open, going back to NT 4.0. If you watch new users try to understand the rationale for double click, and try to master the operation (it's really unnecessarily demanding of manual dexterity), you will perhaps come to see it as both senseless and weird. You don't double-click in a web page to follow links. You don't double-click menus. Why icons? I believe the only reason a lot of us think double-click is natural and makes sense, is because we've gotten into the habit. It's not at all intuitive to new users.
Oh, for Pete's sake. That's unbelievably lame. If you lose single-click-to-open capability, then it's a huge step backward and a crock. Double click is an abomination. It BARELY had some feeble justification when there was only a single mouse button, but it's a complete crock in the real world of 2 or more buttons.
If it takes even longer to open a folder than current Gnome, that's just unacceptable. Compare navigating folders containing thousands of files using the Gnome file-open dialog now, against the Kde file-open dialog. It's night and day. The Kde version is faster when you first hit such a folder, and then it caches the contents and is blazing fast after that. Night and day.
Time to branch at 2.28 and maintain a sane alternative.
Yep. Gnome 3 is a mental disorder. It's what happens when you spend all your time dreaming about how to come up with a new UI paradigm when there is already a highly satisfactory, perfectly usable, and well accepted paradigm that has stood the test of time, and that no one is complaining about. It is new for the sake of new. Kde 4 was much the same thing, but at least they optimized their infrastructure and cleaned up some rough edges in the process (while hopelessly screwing up some basic stuff).
Despair not, however. There is still Xfce, and it shows no sign of succumbing to a mental disorder.
Please do not use the meaningless term "C/C++." They are two different (though related) languages. Stroustrup did not develop C++ just to pass the time.
First, my comment was specifically about C++. If they have memory management problems and exception safety problems when working in standards compliant C++ with working std::string and std::tr1::shared_ptr or boost::shared_ptr, they are not using the language competently. std::string, used properly, CANNOT overflow. The RAII[*] (Resource Allocation Is Initialization) pattern is rigorously safe and practically indispensable.
C is another thing altogether. It is a good deal more difficult, but still possible, with fully up to date compilers; certainly not in K&R C. I daresay, considering only C and C++, 95% of buffer overflow exploits arise in C code, and the other 5% arise from using C++ in a less than expert manner.
Those who cannot exhibit competency in these matters may use nanny languages; but that is not good enough for some classes of programming jobs. For the rest, C++ and even C can be used very safely. Would I choose C++ to write a business app? Probably not, but I would most certainly use it for a real time embedded job.
~~~~~~~~~~
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initialization
Where the heck do you live, Alaska? The temperature inside a parked car in many locales can soar well over 120 F in direct sunlight with the windows raised. In fact, 150-200 F has been recorded. And cracking the windows open 1.5 inches does essentially NO GOOD AT ALL.
Summer Temperatures Make a Car a Potential Oven
American Physical Society: Temperature Rise And Heat Buildup Inside A Parked Car
Direct measurements documented
Pediatrics: Heat Stress From Enclosed Vehicles: Moderate Ambient Temperatures Cause Significant Temperature Rise In Enclosed Vehicles
Good find. OMFG, only a retard uses tabs. JC. Insanity.
The garbage collection haters and garbage collection lovers will never see eye to eye. Your parent is NOT wrong. He's probably just doing things you're not (and vice versa in all likelihood).
Smart pointers basically trivialize the so called "problem" of memory management and exception safety in C++. Simply put, it's NOT a problem. Before the boost library came into use it took SOME discipline, but nowadays it's just dead straightforward. A real time embedded programmer wants control over memory management. He can't tolerate garbage collection compromising his execution scheduling deadlines. It's a lot more than just Doom 8. It's your car. It's the airliner you ride in. It's process control.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. These are the REAL places C++ falls flat on its head.
When you have a thousand people, what should you name them?
Advertising is self deception and is a morally bankrupt waste of the customers' money. Yep, every cent the fat corporate bastards splurge on comes from customers.
Marketing is the biggest self deception that corporate morons indulge in.
You're not just funny, you're hilarious. Fat corporate pigs doing a JOB??? Ha! And you dare call TECHIES arrogant?
You use the word "intellectual property" like you think the phrase is more than an oxymoron. Sorry, but you can't own insubstantial things. Any law that seeks to give you that right is bankrupt and immoral and void in the mind of any honest and realistic thinker.
Windows is a hacked and rehacked garbage heap of a personality and GUI built on top of what has been, since the mid 1990s, a gem of a kernel.
Either they purchase copies of a tangible asset, or they purchase licenses to use an intangible asset in a prescribed manner. It can't be both. If it's the former, they can use the copies anyway they want. They can scratch their balls and wipe their ass with the DVDs and mail them back to Apple if they want. If it's the latter, the DVDs are provided just to assist the licensed user in applying the license, and they are SOL, period. And I think we know which way the judicial system likes to view these matters (hint; it ain't the first way).
No. Without touching on the ethics or morality part of the question, the legality of Psystar's operations is up for litigation. You may believe it is illegal, but courts have the quaint notion that such decisions are up to them.
Yeah, you should. Too bad you don't. End of story.
"Just pass a law against [the monopoly]," Lord help us. Unless the government has set up the monopoly by process, the monopoly can't exist by definition: "monopoly" in this context meaning "an exclusive privilege to conduct this service, granted by government authority." I.e., it was a stupid government process which created the monopoly in the first place! And you want to cure that by more government process? Sure, I've got this great bridge to sell you.
So there are only two possibilities in this case:
1) The corporation does not have a legally protected monopoly, in which case there is nothing legally to prevent another corporation, or the government, from competing. If no other corporation wants to compete, the government is free to obtain the desired result by taking the initiative.
2) The corporation does have a legally protected monopoly, in which case the government has already acted stupidly, and it is going to be difficult to rectify, because of existing guarantees.
My read of the story is that case 1 is the situation in effect in the case being discussed. All that is required is for a judge to throw out the patently baseless lawsuit, and the municipality to proceed, preferably with their middle finger raised. So they will end up with two competing providers. So what? There is then no story; just an object lesson.
Dear Mr. Coward: You can split a fucking grammatical hair anyway you want, but in the real world a hundred grand sports car that can go 300 miles but only if you keep it to 35 mph, is not going to be anything that is on the radar screen of 95% of drivers.
Duh. Um, yeah. I would word it "not practical transportation for most people."
Dumbass moderation, parent is not a troll, but a realist. Just because somebody does not have starry eyes does not make them a troll.
What would make you think TRIM would affect read speeds at all?
Actually it would be closer to $140 a year where I live in the US, and probably most of Europe too. That's today. Could skyrocket tomorrow. Also, the lower power server can hold up much longer on a UPS; has a better chance of riding out an entire power outage.
The Mac Mini is very serviceable and I do not dis it. There is also the comparable Aopen Minis, which is just as well designed, and is easier to slap linux onto:
Manufacturer: these and these
Buy: here
1) As others have noted, the Mini won't come ANYWHERE NEAR this much power in this kind of use. Figure on 20 watts, 30 at the utmost.
2) I have run tests with a Kill-a-Watt on various speedstep capable systems, in every case finding that when idle, whether it is running at max or min clock makes next to no difference at all! Linux will very effectively use C states and will be halted almost all the time in this kind of service.