Ok, first of all:
but you can imagine how badly that can scale depending on how much can get passed around. You're using a language that supports goto -- surely it supports pointers?
They started out using the binary units, actually, like everyone else. At some point, some manufacturer figured out that, yes, it's technically correct to use them for 1000 instead of 1024, so they did that -- and it seems like they did that to deliberately misrepresent it as being bigger than it is.
Kind of like broadband providers which sell "unlimited" connectivity at a certain amount of "burst" bandwidth, with no guarantees whatsoever.
Now, if they had actually attacked the OS distributors back then, they might have a case.
Regardless, what part of what I just outlined is difficult?
So because you can't win, you will complain until your technically superior solution is accepted? Well, this is how we win.
Put another way: No, we can't win by throwing large sacks of cash around, the way Microsoft is. You found us out -- we simply cannot compete.
I, for one, would much rather win on technical merits. But technical merits can't buy people the way money can. The best we can do is take away their ability to simply throw large sacks of money around, by calling them on it.
Oh, and "suing" is not "whining" by a long shot. Suing is doing something about it.
Ok, how does it make anything clumsy, except when hard drive manufacturers insist on using base 10 instead of base 2?
For what it's worth, I think it's perfectly fine to label something as a billion bytes, as long as there's actually a conversion table somewhere. Wouldn't hurt to also include a disclaimer that your OS is going to use different units.
If we decide that horsepower is a good thing, for whatever reason, it is our decision to make, not yours. And if you decide to smoke, that's your decision to make, not ours.
However, if you decide to smoke on an airplane, that's where it starts being my problem -- you're endangering everyone else with your own reckless, moronic behavior.
If you decide that horsepower -- or, more relevantly, huge-ass cars -- are a good thing to drive around your own backyard, or around miles of farmland that you own, that's fine. As soon as you take them on the road, they become everyone else's problem.
I'd call you a Type A Republican -- called Anarchists when they're teenagers, and Libertarians when they're honest -- you actually do want smaller government, because right now, that would benefit you. Which means you're either hypocritical or shortsighted -- government exists for a reason.
I honestly don't care what you do, most of the time. Frankly, I think drug laws are as ill-conceived as prohibition -- I never touch the stuff, but if you want to get stoned off your ass, even die of overdose, not my problem.
But the public roads are everyone's problem. Therefore, they are exactly the right place for government to step in.
If you think it is ODF or RTF or HTML or any of the hundreds of file formats for document representation that should be the choice of governments, then get good, usable versions of software into the market. That's being done, has been done. It was done before OOXML was even pretending to be a viable standard. It's the whole reason OOXML was pushed as a standard.
And it's not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
So you shoot yourself in the foot by appearing to want to go technologically backwards and like whiny bitches at the same time. Wow, nice spin-doctoring.
The alternative is to say nothing, which would be seen as tacit acceptance -- and then we would actually be forced to implement this "standard". So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. At least this way, there's a chance we'll get the decision reversed.
Because I care a lot more about actually working with ODF (and not working with ODF) then looking good by cooperating with OOXML in any way.
Save the energy you want to spend on protests and lawsuits and direct it towards building a better product. See, the problem is, we tried that, and it didn't work.
I don't see why you would lose respect for MADD when they try to keep people aware of what should be considered a noble pursuit. Yes, they may be sadly mis-informed. I think that nicely sums up my point. If they really care so much about this issue, why aren't they better informed? Why didn't they actually sit down and play it, or ask someone who has?
This isn't some subtle nuance -- this is missing the entire point.
They will generate publicity for their purpose, which is at least a good thing in this situation. At the expense of the gaming community. Or, in a better world, they'd gain bad publicity, and lose a lot of credibility. Neither outcome, in my mind, is better than them actually researching what they're attacking.
Again: This game had an opportunity to go completely the other way. Use the game as an example of what happens when you try to drive drunk. Drive your point home.
Would you be so quick to defend them if their target had been something else? Maybe attacking everything Irish, because they were "misinformed" into thinking that the Irish promote drunk driving?
And I agree on hanging/execution. I would hold to a higher standard of evidence for that. I suppose it depends on degree, but let me put it this way -- I am less than 25 years old. Murder is 25 to life -- either way, it would be more time than I have lived so far.
Either way, we are talking about destroying someone's life.
Nobody would ever agree to a standard of evidence that a murder requires a body or a witness, it's inherently ridiculous. Or reasonable forensic evidence, which couldn't reasonably be assumed to be anything else.
Right now, the evidence doesn't even prove the woman is dead, let alone who did... anything to her.
Think of all the possible evidence there could have been. Murder weapons, shell casings and ballistics... I'm not arguing that there has to be a body. I am arguing that blood in a car is not enough -- "reasonable suspicion" is what you arrest people on, not what you're supposed to convict people on.
Yeah, I thought it might be a caching issue when I see operations churning 100% CPU while hardly touching the disk -- in directory trees which should be cached already. I suspect it's getting cached at the block layer, but still has to be fed through NTFS-3G?
Regardless, I'm happy it's in a usable state right now. But I still wouldn't consider it anywhere it isn't needed. In particular, I still use the kernel driver for read-only access, and if I was doing something like Wubi, I'd probably use the kernel driver.
"We noticed that a lot of you users out there are using the Desktop in a way we don't approve of. So we took away your ability to do that." Well, that's what happened with Pidgin...
In this case, I think it's more along the lines of, it's technically easier to turn the desktop into a desktop/dashboard widget thing, which is arguably very, very cool, if we don't also have to worry about putting files/folders there.
There are actually good places to dump files -- like your home directory -- and kde4 makes that reasonably easy to get to.
And the show desktop button is ctrl+F12 by default, I think. It won't give you the actual background image, but it does turn the desktop into a "dashboard" -- which is pretty much exactly why it doesn't make sense to put files there anymore.
Not having to install anything is a kind of flexibility.
And JavaScript/ActionScript runtimes are getting absurdly fast. If Flash is still slow, it's due to some retarded programming somewhere -- either Adobe's, or the actual games. (I suspect Adobe, given how little Flash exploits proper hardware acceleration.)
No. It would have been irresponsible of MADD to not write some sort of reaction if they have convictions about this. Sounds like the words of someone who has not actually played the game.
Hint: It doesn't encourage drunk driving; in fact, just the opposite. Yes, it lets you experience drunk driving, but it is absolutely not fun.
If MADD had half a clue, they'd be promoting this game -- it's doing more for their cause than they are.
From that page:
By default they use the possible smallest, 512 or 1024 bytes, write block size which results eight or four times more work to do for FUSE, kernel and NTFS-3G. Since they are not optimized yet, the performance will suffer almost one fold in the worst case. That's not entirely relevant. I realize NTFS-3G is largely slow due to FUSE, which was kind of my point. And I can't patch every single program that decides to use a smaller block size.
The CPU usage is not directly visible in case of kernel file system drivers but obviously this is not true for user space drivers. That's hardly worth a response...
I know how to use top. I also know what the "system" percentage reported in top is. NTFS is still the slowest filesystem I use on Linux.
That said, this is largely CPU usage, which isn't that much of an issue -- I have a dual-core machine, so I almost always have a core to throw at the problem. But I don't use NTFS unless I have to, or unless the alternative is worse -- like Windows ext2 drivers.
And it's funny:
When it becomes clear that a huge, complex, feature rich and general purpose file system can not be as reliable and well-performing in hybrid space as purely in the kernel. At the moment there are no such strong indications. Maybe it's just the current state of FUSE, but the fact that the only massive CPU usage they list that could really be affecting me is about the block size suggests that either FUSE or the NTFS driver itself is a severe bottleneck.
Saying something explicitly twice vs. saying it explicitly only once is not really "explicitness vs. implicitness". Its repeating vs. not repeating, as the name DRY suggests. The ideas are related. Making everything explicit tends to be very repetitive. Some of the most basic DRY is finding ways to avoid actually repeated code -- things like actually using functions vs not. But once you have the basic stuff out of the way, it seems like a lot of it is essentially finding things which have been repeated when they could otherwise be inferred -- but that's not absolute.
Simple example, then, is the database schema vs validations -- some validations can be inferred from the schema, and in general, if your validation could be expressed as a schema restriction, it should be. However, there's not always an easy one-to-one mapping, so the actual implementation of DRY in this case -- or at least the one I use -- can be disabled, partially or entirely, and can (of course) be added to.
I'm not quite sure yet, though, how such a thing would look for indentation vs end tags/statements/brackets.
Yeah, most people aren't fanatical extremists; they see that some things can be useful in one area and counterproductive in another. I'm not a fanatical extremist, either -- I'm making an observation. I don't see how it could be useful for markup, but not for source code. But if that is the case, I'd like to know how.
You're basically arguing the untenable point that if the body is sufficiently hidden or destroyed, anyone can get away with murder. If the body is sufficiently hidden or destroyed, and there are no reliable eyewitnesses, then yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. Better to let a thousand go free than to hang an innocent.
When the prosecution says "he was the last person seen alive with person X", you can just say "but there's no body". I would hope I could, because people do die of thirst in the desert. If I didn't shoot him, I wouldn't even have to bury him.
As humans, we can apply reason and assess quantitatively or intuitively. As jurors, intuition isn't supposed to enter into it. If it does, we have a word for that: "Reasonable Doubt."
(As an aside, I think I'd rather have my legs broken than try to explain Linux to a lawyer.) You know, lawyers did draft the GPL. Some of them do, in fact, get it.
"I forgot" doesn't save you. I don't really see why not, unless they can conclusively demonstrate that you'd used that passphrase frequently.
But IANAL either.
Hard drive crashing, though, you're right -- better to let them just beat their head against AES256 for awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
More relevantly, why wouldn't this work? I probably wasn't understanding quite what you needed there. I realize some people see exceptions as a kind of goto, but it is a bit more structured.
And when you're doing three library calls already, it doesn't seem like a "small case" anymore.
They started out using the binary units, actually, like everyone else. At some point, some manufacturer figured out that, yes, it's technically correct to use them for 1000 instead of 1024, so they did that -- and it seems like they did that to deliberately misrepresent it as being bigger than it is.
Kind of like broadband providers which sell "unlimited" connectivity at a certain amount of "burst" bandwidth, with no guarantees whatsoever.
Now, if they had actually attacked the OS distributors back then, they might have a case.
Regardless, what part of what I just outlined is difficult?
Put another way: No, we can't win by throwing large sacks of cash around, the way Microsoft is. You found us out -- we simply cannot compete.
I, for one, would much rather win on technical merits. But technical merits can't buy people the way money can. The best we can do is take away their ability to simply throw large sacks of money around, by calling them on it.
Oh, and "suing" is not "whining" by a long shot. Suing is doing something about it.
I thought we were talking about a giant supercomputer, though -- I don't think we're talking about home directories.
Also, what's the footnote on your "no silver bullet" line?
Ok, how does it make anything clumsy, except when hard drive manufacturers insist on using base 10 instead of base 2?
For what it's worth, I think it's perfectly fine to label something as a billion bytes, as long as there's actually a conversion table somewhere. Wouldn't hurt to also include a disclaimer that your OS is going to use different units.
However, if you decide to smoke on an airplane, that's where it starts being my problem -- you're endangering everyone else with your own reckless, moronic behavior.
If you decide that horsepower -- or, more relevantly, huge-ass cars -- are a good thing to drive around your own backyard, or around miles of farmland that you own, that's fine. As soon as you take them on the road, they become everyone else's problem.
I'd call you a Type A Republican -- called Anarchists when they're teenagers, and Libertarians when they're honest -- you actually do want smaller government, because right now, that would benefit you. Which means you're either hypocritical or shortsighted -- government exists for a reason.
I honestly don't care what you do, most of the time. Frankly, I think drug laws are as ill-conceived as prohibition -- I never touch the stuff, but if you want to get stoned off your ass, even die of overdose, not my problem.
But the public roads are everyone's problem. Therefore, they are exactly the right place for government to step in.
If that's really all you care about, this prize is 10 million dollars. That'll buy you a lot of porn -- or pornstars.
And it's not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML. So you shoot yourself in the foot by appearing to want to go technologically backwards and like whiny bitches at the same time. Wow, nice spin-doctoring.
The alternative is to say nothing, which would be seen as tacit acceptance -- and then we would actually be forced to implement this "standard". So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. At least this way, there's a chance we'll get the decision reversed.
Because I care a lot more about actually working with ODF (and not working with ODF) then looking good by cooperating with OOXML in any way. Save the energy you want to spend on protests and lawsuits and direct it towards building a better product. See, the problem is, we tried that, and it didn't work.
I'd guess either Lustre or gFarm -- I really don't see NFS working. Maybe NFS4 does more than I think it does?
IceWeasel reminds me...
I guess another question is, why not vanilla Debian?
This isn't some subtle nuance -- this is missing the entire point. They will generate publicity for their purpose, which is at least a good thing in this situation. At the expense of the gaming community. Or, in a better world, they'd gain bad publicity, and lose a lot of credibility. Neither outcome, in my mind, is better than them actually researching what they're attacking.
Again: This game had an opportunity to go completely the other way. Use the game as an example of what happens when you try to drive drunk. Drive your point home.
Would you be so quick to defend them if their target had been something else? Maybe attacking everything Irish, because they were "misinformed" into thinking that the Irish promote drunk driving?
Either way, we are talking about destroying someone's life. Nobody would ever agree to a standard of evidence that a murder requires a body or a witness, it's inherently ridiculous. Or reasonable forensic evidence, which couldn't reasonably be assumed to be anything else.
Right now, the evidence doesn't even prove the woman is dead, let alone who did... anything to her.
Think of all the possible evidence there could have been. Murder weapons, shell casings and ballistics... I'm not arguing that there has to be a body. I am arguing that blood in a car is not enough -- "reasonable suspicion" is what you arrest people on, not what you're supposed to convict people on.
Yeah, I thought it might be a caching issue when I see operations churning 100% CPU while hardly touching the disk -- in directory trees which should be cached already. I suspect it's getting cached at the block layer, but still has to be fed through NTFS-3G?
Regardless, I'm happy it's in a usable state right now. But I still wouldn't consider it anywhere it isn't needed. In particular, I still use the kernel driver for read-only access, and if I was doing something like Wubi, I'd probably use the kernel driver.
In this case, I think it's more along the lines of, it's technically easier to turn the desktop into a desktop/dashboard widget thing, which is arguably very, very cool, if we don't also have to worry about putting files/folders there.
There are actually good places to dump files -- like your home directory -- and kde4 makes that reasonably easy to get to.
And the show desktop button is ctrl+F12 by default, I think. It won't give you the actual background image, but it does turn the desktop into a "dashboard" -- which is pretty much exactly why it doesn't make sense to put files there anymore.
Not having to install anything is a kind of flexibility.
And JavaScript/ActionScript runtimes are getting absurdly fast. If Flash is still slow, it's due to some retarded programming somewhere -- either Adobe's, or the actual games. (I suspect Adobe, given how little Flash exploits proper hardware acceleration.)
I'm curious -- what's the difference between gNewSense (what marketing genius thought of that) and Gobuntu? Especially if that is the main purpose?
Hint: It doesn't encourage drunk driving; in fact, just the opposite. Yes, it lets you experience drunk driving, but it is absolutely not fun.
If MADD had half a clue, they'd be promoting this game -- it's doing more for their cause than they are.
I know how to use top. I also know what the "system" percentage reported in top is. NTFS is still the slowest filesystem I use on Linux.
That said, this is largely CPU usage, which isn't that much of an issue -- I have a dual-core machine, so I almost always have a core to throw at the problem. But I don't use NTFS unless I have to, or unless the alternative is worse -- like Windows ext2 drivers.
And it's funny: When it becomes clear that a huge, complex, feature rich and general purpose file system can not be as reliable and well-performing in hybrid space as purely in the kernel. At the moment there are no such strong indications. Maybe it's just the current state of FUSE, but the fact that the only massive CPU usage they list that could really be affecting me is about the block size suggests that either FUSE or the NTFS driver itself is a severe bottleneck.
I would, however, load up a Quake 3 mod featuring Clippy, so I can kill it more graphically, over and over again.
I also said that one table -- with one cell -- is hardly a reason to load up Dreamweaver.
Simple example, then, is the database schema vs validations -- some validations can be inferred from the schema, and in general, if your validation could be expressed as a schema restriction, it should be. However, there's not always an easy one-to-one mapping, so the actual implementation of DRY in this case -- or at least the one I use -- can be disabled, partially or entirely, and can (of course) be added to.
I'm not quite sure yet, though, how such a thing would look for indentation vs end tags/statements/brackets. Yeah, most people aren't fanatical extremists; they see that some things can be useful in one area and counterproductive in another. I'm not a fanatical extremist, either -- I'm making an observation. I don't see how it could be useful for markup, but not for source code. But if that is the case, I'd like to know how.
I wonder if it would help to pay jurors significantly.
That probably opens a whole new can of worms with conflict of interest, though, I'm just too tired (lazy?) to figure out what it is.
But IANAL either.
Hard drive crashing, though, you're right -- better to let them just beat their head against AES256 for awhile.