This is the most informative post I've seen in a Windows vs. Other debate on/. in a long time; thanks for the info.
I'm coming at this discussion as one whose done a fair amount of programming in Win32 (beginning with the Windows 2000 era), but I generally prefer the *nix model. That said, here's my question:
Can I use the actual sysinternals to create processes that do not have any gui overhead? Or, is this the point of these changes expected in Vista.
I think part of the essence of having physical access is having unlimited time. This makes things like brute forcing the root password a little easier. Or, steal the hd and go to work on that encryption back at your own lab.
Has this really happened to you? I can understand someone intervening after seeing someone hit his own kid - I certainly would intervene - but I think I would blow a fuse if someone ordered me to buy something for my kid.
I mean just responding to the commotion in general. I've not had people butt-in to me personally, but I've seen it. Some people act like a screaming/crying child is an abused child, if the parent is not "responding" to it the way they think is proper.
I agree with your comment 100%, but wanted to make this simple point. Children can be very obstinate and very persistent. My children cannot coerce either their mother or me into doing anything.
But, we have both commented many, many times that we can see how come many children are spoiled. It can get very difficult to stick to your guns. And that is amplified in a crowded store where there is in audience, and even the threat of some &**hole butting in like you are mistreating your child.
I just wanted to say that everyone has a breaking point. For us, that point is very distant because we see (and have to remind ourselves daily) that our most important job right now is to raise kids that will grow into responsible adults that behave properly. Whining and pitching a fit is not proper behavior. For some, the need to "just make it stop" gets overpowering.
I'll also mention that I have seen this in action with my young daughter. She has always been disturbed by objects/images that are "almost" human, but not quite. For example, we once saw some angel figurines in a store that had no faces painted on them (the face was there, but no eyes, nose or mouth). She completely freaked out; she was about 1-1/2 at the time. Other images, like sharks and dinosaurs did not frighten her at all.
Thanks for the term; I've known about the phenomenon for a while, but now I have a term for it.
I agree; I went to see Final Fantasy when it first came out (not for the story, which I thought was dumb, but to see the CGI). I left thinking the models were "too perfect" in the sense that faces were too symmetric.
The hard part to getting true photorealism is modeling real-world imperfections in an "attractive" way.
Just out of curiosity, how big are the software projects you right? Are they general, or very specific?
I'm not trying to slam you, but your post is suggestive that most of what you write is very small, highly targeted code. For example, it is relatively easy to right a bug free function that multiplies its argument by 2. Much more difficult is a broadly useful object oriented framework. Most of us lie in the HUGE grey area between these two extremes.
But when would it get enough traction to be used as a standard framework for web apps at enterprise level?
The real answer to this is "when people start using it."
I assume by traction, you mean a large user base so there is a track record of performance/stability. It seems like a chicken/egg type of question: When will enough people use it for people to feel safe using it?
I say if it meets your needs better than another set-up, use it. And before I get a bunch of drones saying "but the boss has to like it," I'll point out that at my company, I am the boss. I don't like to micromanage the tools my folks use to get their jobs done. But hey, that's just me.
Odds are high that unless you flame out early in a car wreck or something befor you reach 50, you will get a cancer of some type before you die.
My wife's an MD, and she has said numerous times that if one lives long enough, one will get cancer. Period. So, to extend you statement based on my understand of her remarks, the odds you mention are 100% if something else does not kill you first.
These happenings have been going on since the formation of the earth. The geological record shows events MUCH larger than ones we have been witnessing. Our "surprise" at such natural events is our own hubris that the earth is as we would have it be (static).
Actually, there is another thing we are learning. I, like many others, was taught that geological changes take millions of years. But, a lot of geological events are rather quick. It has been well established for several decades, for example, that the ocean currents can switch directions in about 100-300 years, yet many cling to the notion that such a "catastrophe" would take far longer.
For example, check the research of Wallace Broecker and Reid Bryson. These are two examples of workers who showed geologic changes occuring on much smaller timescales than is popularly held to be required.
That's two different issues. You brought up Linux on the Desktop as a counter example; one does not have to run Linux to run OpenOffice.
I'll say it again. OpenOffice is NOT "Linux Software." Neither is Firefox; nor are many other OSS offerings. I know a whole heap of people that use Firefox (a 'casual user' type program that HAS seen wide acceptance), and a whole heap that use OOo on Windows.
Further, I don't think it is fair to take one example, (good or bad) and extrapolate a general conclusion about an entire software development model. And I realize I'm not the first to say this.
If Linux is so much better than Windows, why hasn't Linux displaced Windows on the desktop market
Marketing perhaps?
Or perhaps because "Linux" doesn't care? Linux is a "product" that is available to those who wish to use it. As someone who's used both Windows and Linux for many, many years, I will say it sure is not because Windows is "better."
Words mean things. In science, we try to define words as precisely as possible. And one thing we try very hard to avoid is the pathetic fallacy. You can learn more about it here and here.
I think saying cellular processes occur because they "want" evolution fits this definition.
there has to be some evolutionary benefit attached
You seem to think things happen to make evolution happen. Evolution is a result, a phenomenon. Adaptations occur, and get preserved by selection, and that process we call evolution. It's not like cells are thinking "hey, if I mutate this way, I bet there is an evolutionary benefit, and I cause the evolution of a new, better species."
So no, there does NOT have to an evolutionary benefit for any biological process at the microscopic level.
Of course, if we were to be truly objective, we have to face the possibility that there is NO CURE for certain cancers. We may find one way to block uncontrolled cell growth, only to find other mechanisms take over.
I'm not saying we should not do the research, but this may be a case where the journey is worth more than getting there.
Is he guilty of murder? Absolutely. He killed him.
No he's not. There is a big difference between murder and killing someone. Killing someone in self defense, or the defense of others (such as your children) is not murder.
I think jury's have the power to come back with "not guilty" in this case for that reason. Otherwise the whole idea of a jury doesn't make sense. Why not just have the judge weigh the facts and pass judgement?
You answered your own question. The jury is the finder of fact, not the interpretor of the law. The jury's role is to determine what happened and if it violated the law as it is written.
But the issue of the OP that I was responding to was the idea not that the LAW was bad, but that it would be selectively applied because jurors liked, disliked sympathized or otherwise "felt" for the defendant in the case.
The idea I was responding to was that it is the defendants circumstances (not the legality or morality of the law itself) that lead jurors to vote contrary to the legal specifics. I don't doubt this happens, but I find it a bit offensive. In my mind, it violates the spirit of "everyone equal under the law" doctrine.
The OP seemed to imply: divorced mother of five, rule in her favor; male teenager (for example), rule against 'em. There was no specific mention of interpretation of the law itself.
As a question to you, in the trials where you were an expert witness, did you never see a verdict you were puzzled by? One where, having looked at all the facts yourself, you were surprised they decided what they did?
I assume your question was rhetorical, but yes I have seen such a case. I once testified in a rape trial that was a he-said, she-said deal. Both agreed that the basic act occured, they just differed on the issue of consent. There was a fair amount of evidence that supported HIS side of the story, too.
He got 20 years.
So, I get the point. But I hold out hope that those kinds of outcomes are the exception rather than the rule. The tone of the OP led me to believe that it was a given that because she was a single mother of five, it was nuts to consider that she even MIGHT have a judgement against her.
I agree with what you are saying, to a point. But, how would that play in say an apartment where there may be one common IP address for multiple adults? There has to be more basis for the target of the suit than JUST IP address. In this day and age of 'shared' IP addresses (or even spoofed ones), an IP address is not an identification.
I don't know, how popular is Godsmack among that demographic?
I am not a divorced mother of five, but I am a 40 yo married father of two. And I happen to like Godsmack. OT, I know, but it is possible for her to have been interested in those songs.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. This will be quite helpful on a cross-platform back-end number cruncher project I have under development.
This is the most informative post I've seen in a Windows vs. Other debate on /. in a long time; thanks for the info.
I'm coming at this discussion as one whose done a fair amount of programming in Win32 (beginning with the Windows 2000 era), but I generally prefer the *nix model. That said, here's my question:
Can I use the actual sysinternals to create processes that do not have any gui overhead? Or, is this the point of these changes expected in Vista.
I think part of the essence of having physical access is having unlimited time. This makes things like brute forcing the root password a little easier. Or, steal the hd and go to work on that encryption back at your own lab.
Has this really happened to you? I can understand someone intervening after seeing someone hit his own kid - I certainly would intervene - but I think I would blow a fuse if someone ordered me to buy something for my kid.
I mean just responding to the commotion in general. I've not had people butt-in to me personally, but I've seen it. Some people act like a screaming/crying child is an abused child, if the parent is not "responding" to it the way they think is proper.
I agree with your comment 100%, but wanted to make this simple point. Children can be very obstinate and very persistent. My children cannot coerce either their mother or me into doing anything.
But, we have both commented many, many times that we can see how come many children are spoiled. It can get very difficult to stick to your guns. And that is amplified in a crowded store where there is in audience, and even the threat of some &**hole butting in like you are mistreating your child.
I just wanted to say that everyone has a breaking point. For us, that point is very distant because we see (and have to remind ourselves daily) that our most important job right now is to raise kids that will grow into responsible adults that behave properly. Whining and pitching a fit is not proper behavior. For some, the need to "just make it stop" gets overpowering.
There but for the grace of God go I.
I'll also mention that I have seen this in action with my young daughter. She has always been disturbed by objects/images that are "almost" human, but not quite. For example, we once saw some angel figurines in a store that had no faces painted on them (the face was there, but no eyes, nose or mouth). She completely freaked out; she was about 1-1/2 at the time. Other images, like sharks and dinosaurs did not frighten her at all.
Thanks for the term; I've known about the phenomenon for a while, but now I have a term for it.
I agree; I went to see Final Fantasy when it first came out (not for the story, which I thought was dumb, but to see the CGI). I left thinking the models were "too perfect" in the sense that faces were too symmetric.
The hard part to getting true photorealism is modeling real-world imperfections in an "attractive" way.
Just out of curiosity, how big are the software projects you right? Are they general, or very specific?
I'm not trying to slam you, but your post is suggestive that most of what you write is very small, highly targeted code. For example, it is relatively easy to right a bug free function that multiplies its argument by 2. Much more difficult is a broadly useful object oriented framework. Most of us lie in the HUGE grey area between these two extremes.
But when would it get enough traction to be used as a standard framework for web apps at enterprise level?
The real answer to this is "when people start using it."
I assume by traction, you mean a large user base so there is a track record of performance/stability. It seems like a chicken/egg type of question: When will enough people use it for people to feel safe using it?
I say if it meets your needs better than another set-up, use it. And before I get a bunch of drones saying "but the boss has to like it," I'll point out that at my company, I am the boss. I don't like to micromanage the tools my folks use to get their jobs done. But hey, that's just me.
Odds are high that unless you flame out early in a car wreck or something befor you reach 50, you will get a cancer of some type before you die.
My wife's an MD, and she has said numerous times that if one lives long enough, one will get cancer. Period. So, to extend you statement based on my understand of her remarks, the odds you mention are 100% if something else does not kill you first.
These happenings have been going on since the formation of the earth. The geological record shows events MUCH larger than ones we have been witnessing. Our "surprise" at such natural events is our own hubris that the earth is as we would have it be (static).
Actually, there is another thing we are learning. I, like many others, was taught that geological changes take millions of years. But, a lot of geological events are rather quick. It has been well established for several decades, for example, that the ocean currents can switch directions in about 100-300 years, yet many cling to the notion that such a "catastrophe" would take far longer.
For example, check the research of Wallace Broecker and Reid Bryson. These are two examples of workers who showed geologic changes occuring on much smaller timescales than is popularly held to be required.
That's two different issues. You brought up Linux on the Desktop as a counter example; one does not have to run Linux to run OpenOffice.
I'll say it again. OpenOffice is NOT "Linux Software." Neither is Firefox; nor are many other OSS offerings. I know a whole heap of people that use Firefox (a 'casual user' type program that HAS seen wide acceptance), and a whole heap that use OOo on Windows.
Further, I don't think it is fair to take one example, (good or bad) and extrapolate a general conclusion about an entire software development model. And I realize I'm not the first to say this.
If Linux is so much better than Windows, why hasn't Linux displaced Windows on the desktop market
Marketing perhaps?
Or perhaps because "Linux" doesn't care? Linux is a "product" that is available to those who wish to use it. As someone who's used both Windows and Linux for many, many years, I will say it sure is not because Windows is "better."
You interpret the term reason to literal.
Words mean things. In science, we try to define words as precisely as possible. And one thing we try very hard to avoid is the pathetic fallacy. You can learn more about it here and here.
I think saying cellular processes occur because they "want" evolution fits this definition.
there has to be some evolutionary benefit attached
You seem to think things happen to make evolution happen. Evolution is a result, a phenomenon. Adaptations occur, and get preserved by selection, and that process we call evolution. It's not like cells are thinking "hey, if I mutate this way, I bet there is an evolutionary benefit, and I cause the evolution of a new, better species."
So no, there does NOT have to an evolutionary benefit for any biological process at the microscopic level.
Of course, if we were to be truly objective, we have to face the possibility that there is NO CURE for certain cancers. We may find one way to block uncontrolled cell growth, only to find other mechanisms take over.
I'm not saying we should not do the research, but this may be a case where the journey is worth more than getting there.
It was a joke, genius.
I don't know about all that create this class, add that class to it mess, but printf("Hello World"); works pretty well. On any OS.
Is he guilty of murder? Absolutely. He killed him.
No he's not. There is a big difference between murder and killing someone. Killing someone in self defense, or the defense of others (such as your children) is not murder.
I think jury's have the power to come back with "not guilty" in this case for that reason. Otherwise the whole idea of a jury doesn't make sense. Why not just have the judge weigh the facts and pass judgement?
You answered your own question. The jury is the finder of fact, not the interpretor of the law. The jury's role is to determine what happened and if it violated the law as it is written.
Very good quotes. Thanks.
But the issue of the OP that I was responding to was the idea not that the LAW was bad, but that it would be selectively applied because jurors liked, disliked sympathized or otherwise "felt" for the defendant in the case.
The idea I was responding to was that it is the defendants circumstances (not the legality or morality of the law itself) that lead jurors to vote contrary to the legal specifics. I don't doubt this happens, but I find it a bit offensive. In my mind, it violates the spirit of "everyone equal under the law" doctrine.
The OP seemed to imply: divorced mother of five, rule in her favor; male teenager (for example), rule against 'em. There was no specific mention of interpretation of the law itself.
Now where is the gain for society when this mother of 5 goes to jail on the taxpayer's expense?
What are you talking about? This is a civil case.
As a question to you, in the trials where you were an expert witness, did you never see a verdict you were puzzled by? One where, having looked at all the facts yourself, you were surprised they decided what they did?
I assume your question was rhetorical, but yes I have seen such a case. I once testified in a rape trial that was a he-said, she-said deal. Both agreed that the basic act occured, they just differed on the issue of consent. There was a fair amount of evidence that supported HIS side of the story, too.
He got 20 years.
So, I get the point. But I hold out hope that those kinds of outcomes are the exception rather than the rule. The tone of the OP led me to believe that it was a given that because she was a single mother of five, it was nuts to consider that she even MIGHT have a judgement against her.
I agree with what you are saying, to a point. But, how would that play in say an apartment where there may be one common IP address for multiple adults? There has to be more basis for the target of the suit than JUST IP address. In this day and age of 'shared' IP addresses (or even spoofed ones), an IP address is not an identification.
I don't know, how popular is Godsmack among that demographic?
I am not a divorced mother of five, but I am a 40 yo married father of two. And I happen to like Godsmack. OT, I know, but it is possible for her to have been interested in those songs.
The "somebody else did it" defense is common. But, what proof has been presented to support it?
Bzzt. Try again. The defense has no burden of proof. The plaintiff (or prosecution, in criminal cases) does.
Again, IANAL.