I don't think there is anything 'extreme' about gaming on a PC. I just prefer it.
I don't have a high-def TV, so my PC monitor give me much better graphics resolution.
I like the many free demo's available for download for the PC to try out games.
I like the user-created content downloadable for many PC games.
I like the controls better on PC games.
None of that is 'extreme' in my book. Just preferences I have. I can see why you like the simplicity of having a plug & play console. I just have other preferences. Enjoy your stable console. It's good to have choices.
If you'd have bothered to read my original post in context, I said to the victims or their families, it makes no difference if they are killed by a wheelbarrow bomb, or a high tech smart-bomb. We are killing innocent people there, people resent it, and we are making more enemies of all their friends and families.
The administration DID know that there would be innocent people killed in this war, and decided to go on with it anyhow, knowing the outcome would result in civil war and chaos. Yes, they did knowingly start the war knowing that would happen. The goal of Bush was to avenge the assassination plan by Saddam against his daddy, and make his oil friends and Halliburton a lot of money. Those outweighed the cost and lost of American and Iraqi lives.
Saddam was no threat to our nation or any other. He was contained. Now the country is in civil war, our international reputation is shit, and we are in more danger because we are spawning dozens of new folks who hate us and want us killed for everyone we kill (bad guy or innocent) over there.
First of all, lots of folks don't have 1GB of RAM. (let alone the CPU power, hard drive space, etc).
Secondly, Didn't you read the rest of my post? There certainly are reasons beyond hardware specs to not be running it. It's still got too many bugs for me. They are still shutting down people's computers if they've made more than 2 hardware changes, requiring them to phone up to re-activate (if MS decides to let them). There are additional downsides that didn't exist in 2000, or XP. Some of those will hopefully go away in time, but there ARE reasons for why people who have 1GB or more of RAM don't want to move to Vista.
Actually there are significant differences between 2000 and Vista. There are many nice new features in XP.
The problem is for myself and many many others, the downsides of Vista (hardware requirements, bugs in a zero revision OS, etc, etc) outweigh the benefits.
As time goes on and new patches/service packs come out, and people move to new faster hardware, those downsides will become somewhat less, and more people will likely switch to Vista that currently wouldn't consider it.
The administration sent the troops in. The troops didn't choose to go themselves.
The government did know that many innocents would be killed in a war of this size, so yes, they are responsible for any deaths. It start any type of war like this you have to be very certain that the outcome will out weight the known losses of innocent life. There are tapes of Dick Cheney saying right after the first gulf war why they didn't invade Iraq, and it was because they knew the destabilization would be worse than what was currently the case under Saddam.
The firefighter isn't intent going in on killing anyone.
You seemed to claim it was all insurgents doing the killing in Iraq these days instead of Saddam. The US is doing plenty of killing. Both of innocents and not. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
No, the US drops big expensive bombs from aircraft, sometimes hitting the wrong house, either by missfire or wrong information about what was in the house. Or the military or US contractors (black water) shoot an kill innocent people because they mistakenly thought they were a threat.
I'm sure the families of all those killed that was feel much better about their deaths because they weren't killed by wheelbarrow and taxi bombs...
It's all the insurgents that are killing innocent folks. Right.
'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line?
Apparently you are very confused if you think we could make everything 'ok' by just putting in a massive force.
The people there don't want us there. You can't win the hearts and minds of the people just by putting in a massive force. They will keep going supporting snipers, etc, hiding among them and take any opportunity to kill off our more massive force, little by little. Think Vietnam where much of the populace is against you, but you can't tell who is who.
Saddam, ruler of a country much smaller and poorer than ours, was able to maintain order, so I suspect that we could to.
Saddam did it by massive slaughter. Someone in your village kill one of his soldiers? Ok, half your village is now buried in a mass grave. Wanna go again? Saddam's brutal regime is about the only way you could keep a rule over the the 3 factions in the country that hate each other. Do you want the U.S. to go in with the same tactics? I don't want to be that monster.
Maybe you're fine with the Abu Ghraib type ruling. I'm not.
And the discovered error changes your mind. I didn't want to get into a semantic snit.
Looks like you already did.
'Changing your mind' from your first post is usually alluding to things like 'I think I'll have the spaghetti instead of the salad'. It's something anyone can do on a whim.
He discovered a factual error in a work he had done, which leads to different conclusions. That's an entirely different thing.
The guy wrote something that he believed in '55 but doesn't believe today.
He knows there is now evidence showing what he thought in '55 was incorrect. He bases his understanding on the accumulated evidence of science, which has extended quite a bit since '55.
The beliefs of established science evolve. And they are beliefs.
Unlike religion, scientific believes can change when new evidence shows old ones were wrong. Religion doesn't change no matter how much evidence there is showing it's wrong.
Fact's don't change with time.
No, but new facts are constantly being discovered which extend and refine our knowledge of the universe. We cannot have final 'beliefs' on how everything in the universe works because we are still learning about it. But in each pass we get closer and closer to fundamental truths. Religion stays where it's always been.
I don't think Theo ever argued that businesses don't have to weigh multiple variables in their decisions on what to implement.
Someone stated that VMs increased security. Theo said they didn't. As you admit. They don't.
Theo never argued no company should ever run one. Some companies don't have enough money for the extra computers/electricity/space/etc it would take to run unconsolidated. Tradeoffs happen. I've weighed the options and I virtualize a number of machines because it's the overall best thing for me to do. Not the most secure thing, but overall best thing with the resources I have available.
I think Theo understands that fine. What he didn't want was folks to fool themselves (or others) into thinking they were actually more secure by doing it.
Yes, VM's let you consolidate machines so you can buy fewer, spend less on electricity, less on cooling, less on storage space. etc.
All that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.
Some yahoo on the OpenBSD mailing list was trying to say VMs were more secure than hosting OS's on individual boxes. They aren't. Period. There are a lot of other reasons to use VMs (I do) but security is NOT one of them. Theo never said no one should use VMs, just pointing out that saying they increased security was very very very wrong.
Actually I think he might argue that chroot'ing has been audited a lot more than any hypervisor and might be the more secure approach in many/most instances if it's set up correctly.
Not familiar with MySQL gotchas eh? MySQL has a long history of not keeping your data intact. In a normal database, if there is a constraint on a column limiting it's values to the numbers 1-20, if you try to insert 21 the database will throw an error. For much of it's life, MySQL would silently change the 21 to a 20.
You can reinvent the wheel in your code if you want, (folks do it all the time, sometimes with success, sometimes having big holes in their code) trying to check things to make up for the fact that your database can't do the basic functions of a database, or you can use a real database that enforces constraints consistently as it should.
Re:Most important thing
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Wow, you can have the tools on one monitor and the image on another!!!
It's JUST LIKE PHOTOSHOP!
I guess Photoshop makes more sense on XWindows too then eh?
Seriously, don't bash software if you've never used it and don't have a clue about it. Photoshop already has the feature that you say makes your app superior.
If you are used to MySQL bashing, then you should realize the reason for the wrong number of rows is likely from bad data (random defaults put in if any out-of-bounds data is entered, lack of referential integrity from lack of foreign key constraint enforcement etc). It's not trouble counting rows. It's bad data that often results from a non-strict database.
MySQL has many 'gotchas'. Google around for many sites with lists of them. They are slowly cleaning them up, they have a very bad track record of not keeping data clean. Even their latest 'strict' rules still aren't all that strict. The gotchas have traditionally contained plenty of broken foreign key problems.
The latest versions of Innodb are much better, (earlier versions didn't do any of what you said very well) but now they are going to be moving away from even that.
I do use SQL Server, and Oracle, and Postgresql. Firebird looks interesting, but I haven't had time to play with it. I've had the unfortunate experience of having to work with some MySQL databases, but I refuse to work with that anymore. I prefer mature databases with a full set of database features. Broken databases written by folks who say idiotic things like 'You don't need transactions' don't interest me.
MySQL cannot enforce foreign keys constraints on MyISAM tables. It 'kinda' can on Innodb tables.
Having them and enforcing them so they are actually useful are 2 different things.
And if you'd bother to RTFA, you would see that MySQL is moving to away from Innodb to 'falcon'. "but some InnoDB features, like foreign key support and full-text indexing, won't be supported until MySQL 6.1.".
So MySQL is moving away from the only table types that can actually 'kinda' enforce the use foreign keys at all.
They know for their particular application, if they only return 47,000 hits, instead of 49,500, it's really no big deal. If they return some pages that aren't really relevant, also not a big deal.
That's kind of a rare use of a database.
When most of use use databases we need real exact numbers from it. Foreign key enforcement is a must. 'Strict' is not an option.
That's why they can use a crappy database, because their answers don't have to be complete or entirely correct. Crappy is 'good enough'
Only if you are using MyISAM tables, which can't enforce foreign key constraints. (meaning you can have junk data and the database won't tell let you input garbage rather than require valid data).
Personally I prefer the right answer a tenth of a second slower, rather than a wrong answer fast.
If you use Innodb tables, you have no speed gain over postgresql, and you can't handle the number of concurrent users you could with postgresql.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there is anything 'extreme' about gaming on a PC. I just prefer it.
I don't have a high-def TV, so my PC monitor give me much better graphics resolution.
I like the many free demo's available for download for the PC to try out games.
I like the user-created content downloadable for many PC games.
I like the controls better on PC games.
None of that is 'extreme' in my book. Just preferences I have. I can see why you like the simplicity of having a plug & play console. I just have other preferences. Enjoy your stable console. It's good to have choices.
If you'd have bothered to read my original post in context, I said to the victims or their families, it makes no difference if they are killed by a wheelbarrow bomb, or a high tech smart-bomb. We are killing innocent people there, people resent it, and we are making more enemies of all their friends and families.
The administration DID know that there would be innocent people killed in this war, and decided to go on with it anyhow, knowing the outcome would result in civil war and chaos. Yes, they did knowingly start the war knowing that would happen. The goal of Bush was to avenge the assassination plan by Saddam against his daddy, and make his oil friends and Halliburton a lot of money. Those outweighed the cost and lost of American and Iraqi lives.
Saddam was no threat to our nation or any other. He was contained. Now the country is in civil war, our international reputation is shit, and we are in more danger because we are spawning dozens of new folks who hate us and want us killed for everyone we kill (bad guy or innocent) over there.
First of all, lots of folks don't have 1GB of RAM. (let alone the CPU power, hard drive space, etc).
Secondly, Didn't you read the rest of my post? There certainly are reasons beyond hardware specs to not be running it. It's still got too many bugs for me. They are still shutting down people's computers if they've made more than 2 hardware changes, requiring them to phone up to re-activate (if MS decides to let them). There are additional downsides that didn't exist in 2000, or XP. Some of those will hopefully go away in time, but there ARE reasons for why people who have 1GB or more of RAM don't want to move to Vista.
er, make that nice new features in Vista.
Actually there are significant differences between 2000 and Vista. There are many nice new features in XP.
The problem is for myself and many many others, the downsides of Vista (hardware requirements, bugs in a zero revision OS, etc, etc) outweigh the benefits.
As time goes on and new patches/service packs come out, and people move to new faster hardware, those downsides will become somewhat less, and more people will likely switch to Vista that currently wouldn't consider it.
The administration sent the troops in. The troops didn't choose to go themselves.
The government did know that many innocents would be killed in a war of this size, so yes, they are responsible for any deaths. It start any type of war like this you have to be very certain that the outcome will out weight the known losses of innocent life. There are tapes of Dick Cheney saying right after the first gulf war why they didn't invade Iraq, and it was because they knew the destabilization would be worse than what was currently the case under Saddam.
What a straw man.
The firefighter isn't intent going in on killing anyone.
You seemed to claim it was all insurgents doing the killing in Iraq these days instead of Saddam. The US is doing plenty of killing. Both of innocents and not. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
No, the US drops big expensive bombs from aircraft, sometimes hitting the wrong house, either by missfire or wrong information about what was in the house. Or the military or US contractors (black water) shoot an kill innocent people because they mistakenly thought they were a threat.
I'm sure the families of all those killed that was feel much better about their deaths because they weren't killed by wheelbarrow and taxi bombs...
It's all the insurgents that are killing innocent folks. Right.
'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line?
Apparently you are very confused if you think we could make everything 'ok' by just putting in a massive force.
The people there don't want us there. You can't win the hearts and minds of the people just by putting in a massive force. They will keep going supporting snipers, etc, hiding among them and take any opportunity to kill off our more massive force, little by little. Think Vietnam where much of the populace is against you, but you can't tell who is who.
Saddam, ruler of a country much smaller and poorer than ours, was able to maintain order, so I suspect that we could to.
Saddam did it by massive slaughter. Someone in your village kill one of his soldiers? Ok, half your village is now buried in a mass grave. Wanna go again? Saddam's brutal regime is about the only way you could keep a rule over the the 3 factions in the country that hate each other. Do you want the U.S. to go in with the same tactics? I don't want to be that monster.
Maybe you're fine with the Abu Ghraib type ruling. I'm not.
Looks like you already did.
'Changing your mind' from your first post is usually alluding to things like 'I think I'll have the spaghetti instead of the salad'. It's something anyone can do on a whim.
He discovered a factual error in a work he had done, which leads to different conclusions. That's an entirely different thing.
The guy wrote something that he believed in '55 but doesn't believe today.
He knows there is now evidence showing what he thought in '55 was incorrect. He bases his understanding on the accumulated evidence of science, which has extended quite a bit since '55.
The beliefs of established science evolve. And they are beliefs.
Unlike religion, scientific believes can change when new evidence shows old ones were wrong. Religion doesn't change no matter how much evidence there is showing it's wrong.
Fact's don't change with time.
No, but new facts are constantly being discovered which extend and refine our knowledge of the universe. We cannot have final 'beliefs' on how everything in the universe works because we are still learning about it. But in each pass we get closer and closer to fundamental truths. Religion stays where it's always been.
It won't be retracted 'when you change your minds'.
It gets retracted when either an error is discovered in it, or new evidence is discovered which contradicts it.
This is the way science works. It is based on evidence, not beliefs.
It certainly can add to security if set up right. Setting it to run as root is not setting it up right.
I don't think Theo ever argued that businesses don't have to weigh multiple variables in their decisions on what to implement.
Someone stated that VMs increased security. Theo said they didn't. As you admit. They don't.
Theo never argued no company should ever run one. Some companies don't have enough money for the extra computers/electricity/space/etc it would take to run unconsolidated. Tradeoffs happen. I've weighed the options and I virtualize a number of machines because it's the overall best thing for me to do. Not the most secure thing, but overall best thing with the resources I have available.
I think Theo understands that fine. What he didn't want was folks to fool themselves (or others) into thinking they were actually more secure by doing it.
Yes, VM's let you consolidate machines so you can buy fewer, spend less on electricity, less on cooling, less on storage space. etc.
All that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.
Some yahoo on the OpenBSD mailing list was trying to say VMs were more secure than hosting OS's on individual boxes. They aren't. Period. There are a lot of other reasons to use VMs (I do) but security is NOT one of them. Theo never said no one should use VMs, just pointing out that saying they increased security was very very very wrong.
Itaniam systems have a number of extra features for security.
Have you bought any yet?
Thought not.
There are more secure hardware architectures out there. They just don't have the attractive prices of x86 hardware.
Actually I think he might argue that chroot'ing has been audited a lot more than any hypervisor and might be the more secure approach in many/most instances if it's set up correctly.
Not familiar with MySQL gotchas eh? MySQL has a long history of not keeping your data intact. In a normal database, if there is a constraint on a column limiting it's values to the numbers 1-20, if you try to insert 21 the database will throw an error. For much of it's life, MySQL would silently change the 21 to a 20.
You can reinvent the wheel in your code if you want, (folks do it all the time, sometimes with success, sometimes having big holes in their code) trying to check things to make up for the fact that your database can't do the basic functions of a database, or you can use a real database that enforces constraints consistently as it should.
Wow, you can have the tools on one monitor and the image on another!!!
It's JUST LIKE PHOTOSHOP!
I guess Photoshop makes more sense on XWindows too then eh?
Seriously, don't bash software if you've never used it and don't have a clue about it. Photoshop already has the feature that you say makes your app superior.
Mod this yahoo down.
If you are used to MySQL bashing, then you should realize the reason for the wrong number of rows is likely from bad data (random defaults put in if any out-of-bounds data is entered, lack of referential integrity from lack of foreign key constraint enforcement etc). It's not trouble counting rows. It's bad data that often results from a non-strict database.
Can't read eh? I said I've worked with MySQL.
MySQL has many 'gotchas'. Google around for many sites with lists of them. They are slowly cleaning them up, they have a very bad track record of not keeping data clean. Even their latest 'strict' rules still aren't all that strict. The gotchas have traditionally contained plenty of broken foreign key problems.
The latest versions of Innodb are much better, (earlier versions didn't do any of what you said very well) but now they are going to be moving away from even that.
I do use SQL Server, and Oracle, and Postgresql. Firebird looks interesting, but I haven't had time to play with it. I've had the unfortunate experience of having to work with some MySQL databases, but I refuse to work with that anymore. I prefer mature databases with a full set of database features. Broken databases written by folks who say idiotic things like 'You don't need transactions' don't interest me.
MySQL cannot enforce foreign keys constraints on MyISAM tables. It 'kinda' can on Innodb tables.
Having them and enforcing them so they are actually useful are 2 different things.
And if you'd bother to RTFA, you would see that MySQL is moving to away from Innodb to 'falcon'. "but some InnoDB features, like foreign key support and full-text indexing, won't be supported until MySQL 6.1.".
So MySQL is moving away from the only table types that can actually 'kinda' enforce the use foreign keys at all.
I think that would make you the douche.
They know for their particular application, if they only return 47,000 hits, instead of 49,500, it's really no big deal. If they return some pages that aren't really relevant, also not a big deal.
That's kind of a rare use of a database.
When most of use use databases we need real exact numbers from it. Foreign key enforcement is a must. 'Strict' is not an option.
That's why they can use a crappy database, because their answers don't have to be complete or entirely correct. Crappy is 'good enough'
Only if you are using MyISAM tables, which can't enforce foreign key constraints. (meaning you can have junk data and the database won't tell let you input garbage rather than require valid data).
Personally I prefer the right answer a tenth of a second slower, rather than a wrong answer fast.
If you use Innodb tables, you have no speed gain over postgresql, and you can't handle the number of concurrent users you could with postgresql.
True, but it does make for fast prototyping of forms/reports you might then do in another language.