> graphics processing abilities have been good if not amazing (because I need a system I can connect a 4k monitor to, not that must have the ultimate framerate for gaming).
Maybe you don't mind crappy 30 FPS, but us graphics guys certainly need some beefy power. The nVidia 750M, on my Mid 2014 MBP is getting a little long in the tooth.
Thank-god for Bizon Box eGPU where I can use a real GPU. I need to get one of these bad boys -- I see that it supports my GTX 980 TI with the option to remove the front plate.
I guess the Mac Mini was cutting into the Laptop side too much. Uh, how you you stop gimping a good product turning it into something people don't want.
Expandable RAM, an upgraded CPU, an upgraded GPU, lots of ports and you're good to go.
> because it limits file writing to a single file at any one time
How do you write to more then one file a time when there is only one disk head ???
> because you ignored the effects of the 'EX' value. > This requires that there be up to 32 directory entries for a large file.
Which is fucking stupid. Why the fuck would a large file mean there is LESS room in the directory for files on a disk ?!?!
> 8.3 is perfectly adequte for the use by the types of software that CP/M was used for
Where adequate means cryptic filenames which is one of the reasons why CP/M died. It was stuck in a mainframe mindset, complete UNABLE to understand that there was more then a single use case.
> but with so few files available on a diskette, short names are not a problem because there are so few to search through.
64 files is not just "a few files". It is also artificially low when you can store 100+ files on a disk on a better designed File System, not something half-assed.
> rant is completely uninformed.
Translation: I'm going to completely ignore the fact that CP/M Directory format changed numerous times because it was a fucking hack job. First due to the stupidity that for file to be initially larger then 16 KB one needs to waste directory entries spreading the meta-data all over the place and artificially lower the maximum files on disk even though may be more then enough room, and later kludge upon kludge upon kludge. Not to mention the stupidity of "reserved" filenames due to a brain-dead device naming schema, dumb drive letters, and no sub-directories. And yet somehow 5 years earlier Unix had/usr seamlessly use the second disk drive.
But I shouldn't expect anything more from a clueless apologist.
There is a line between "legal content being censored" and "illegal content".
i.e. We're not talking about illegal content, such as illegal numbers (sic.).
We're talking about someone posting their opinions (however unpopular), and others trying to mandat, and dictate that it be removed simply because they are too immature and insecure to handle it.
We already went through this censorship crap with books. As long as someone isn't breaking the law, if you are offended by what you see, you are free to exercise your right to look away.
* Instead of browsers generating errors about missing tags, they silently accept it. *facepalm*
* Who was the idiot that thought case insensitivity for tags name was a good idea??
A) Browsers now have to accept twice as many tags. e.g. & and & both generate ampersands. You can start with <BLOCKQUOTE> and end with </blockquote>, etc.
B) We dumb grave accent tags, like À for À and à for à which prevents browsers from converting all tags to either uppercase (or lowercase) and generating a hash from _that_ that for fast lookup.
* Instead of using unique characters for begin tag: < >, and end tag: such as { }, browsers instead have to waste time looking ahead if the next character is a '/' when they find a '<' char.
i.e.
<a name='foo'>...</a>
compared to the simpler to parse:
<a name='foo'>...{a}
* Some of the HTML abbreviations make zero sense. These are the arrow glyphs:
It's fine to have your own opinion but when you dictates that others follow your own myopic viewpoint because you're too insecure, congratulations, you've just resorted to censorship.
> This has been a problem in the past - for example, earlier builds of Rage allowed more console options that allowed the disabling of certain graphical filters, which in certain cases actually improved graphics quality because there was less bullshit post-processing active.
Very interesting. You wouldn't happen to have a source for that by chance? Thanks!
I'm still trying to find the screenshot comparisons of the HDR / tone mapping before/after.
> something running on an 8-bit processor like the Intel 8080 or Zilog Z-80. There was a memory limit of 64K, and early on that 64K was expensive. > I encourage you to read up on how these old disk systems worked, so that you can understand why someone might limit the size of file names.
As someone who has *used* those 8-bit computers since the early 80's I'm quite intimate with the details of how all those old DOS's worked -- CP/M, DOS3.3, ProDOS. I'm even writing my own DOS for my 6502 Apple//e,//c, and//gs, because I hate DOS 3.3 and ProDOS.
> it was probably a hard-sectored, single-sided drive and the diskettes held 90K of information
A) You mean 87.5 KB when Shugart introduced the first 5.25" SA 400 drive, but OK. Later disc were soft-sectored and able to hold (35 tracks * 18 sectors) = 157.5 KB SD (Apple 2) or (40 tracks * 18 sectors * double density) 360 KB DD (IBM) respectively.
CP/M 1.4 was designed to work with 8" 250k discs. Thus a CP/M 1.4 disc will be laid out in the following way:
77 tracks in total;
26 128-byte sectors per track, software skewed;
2 reserved tracks;
2 1k directory blocks, giving 64 directory entries; 240 1k data blocks, numbered 2-241.
> It made sense to limit file name sizes, etc, for the diskette catalogs, so that the space available for data could be maximized.
1. It is obvious you've never done the math, so I'm calling bullshit.
You mean to tell me that increasing the filename...
from 8.3 (CP/M never stored the '.' extension) which takes 11*100 / 87.5K = 1200 / 89,600 = 0.012% disk space to 16 characters = 16*100 / 90K = 1600 / 89,600 = 0.017% disk space...
is going to have anyactual impact on maximizing space for data?!?!?! Riiight. Can I have some of what your smoking please!
2. Furthermore, looking at the CP/M disk format, particularly the directory entry, Tanenbaum has this picture. We see 2 unused bytes!
3. Lastly, CP/M used a retarded allocation schema:
The CP/M 1.4 directory only has one type of entry:
SS F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 T1 T2 T3 EX S1 S2 RC.FILENAMETYP.... AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL................
Which means:
AL - Allocation. Each AL is the number of a 1k block on the disc. If an AL
number is zero, that section of the file has no storage allocated to it
(ie it does not exist). For example, a 3k file might have allocation
5,6,8,0,0.... - the first 1k is in block 5, the second in block 6, the
third in block 8.
Instead of wasting 16 bytes for allocation (WTF!) you store the _starting_ block number (4 bytes) and number of blocks (4 bytes), which leaves 8 more characters for filenames.
The point remains Gary completely fucked up filenames. MS, in typical fashion, just blindly copied others without actually *thinking*.
So yeah, I *do* hold him responsible for his retarded file system -- he never act
> Is there a reason you add it to your Contacts list, instead of just blocking the number itself?
I've been using this method since the iPhone 3GS days -- it didn't support call blocking only the carrier did. Adding them Contacts seemed like the easiest "work-around". Remember, this was in back in the days before there was even a blacklist option or app.
> and block the number without having to add it.
Thanks for the tip! I'll keep this in mind when/if I upgrade to a newer iPhone.
> Apparently you click on the "i" icon and scroll to the bottom.
> Several calls a week? I'm envious. I get a minimum of several a day.
Here is my solution to deal with those shenanigans:
* Every spam call you get, counterintuitively, ADD it to your Contacts under "Spam" BUT append a number.
i.e.
I get a call from 555-1234, it gets added to contact "Spam1" I get a call from 555-9999, it gets added to contact "Spam2" I get a call from 555-1234... oh look, Spam1 is phoning. *Ignore* I get a call from 555-6666, it gets added to contact "Spam3" I get a call from 555-1234... oh look, Spam1 is phoning. *Ignore* I get a call from 555-1234,... oh look, spam1 is harassing me again. *Reports them my carrier for what little good it does.*
This way I have timestamps of when, and how often they phoned !
What is real bullshit is that trying to report these spam calls to the phone company and Better Business bureau (for harassment) is almost impossible. The phone companies are making money off robocalling so they have _zero_ incentive to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
ANY belief that teaches mass genocide is evil / satanic / definitely NOT holy.
Jesus taught compassion first, repentance later. "Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more."
He **never** attempted to convert anyone.
Radical Muslims seem to forget one KEY verse: "all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
However, the REAL problem is not the radicals; it is the silent majority who do NOTHING to stop this evil of intolerance.
--
cult, noun, the belief that our belief is the only way. Religion and Science become cults when dogma is more important then facts.
> graphics processing abilities have been good if not amazing (because I need a system I can connect a 4k monitor to, not that must have the ultimate framerate for gaming).
Maybe you don't mind crappy 30 FPS, but us graphics guys certainly need some beefy power. The nVidia 750M, on my Mid 2014 MBP is getting a little long in the tooth.
Thank-god for Bizon Box eGPU where I can use a real GPU. I need to get one of these bad boys -- I see that it supports my GTX 980 TI with the option to remove the front plate.
I stand corrected. :-)
Their security has a been a joke for *decades*.
+1 amen.
I guess the Mac Mini was cutting into the Laptop side too much. Uh, how you you stop gimping a good product turning it into something people don't want.
Expandable RAM, an upgraded CPU, an upgraded GPU, lots of ports and you're good to go.
Exactly. Fazebook forgets:
My Device. My Rules.
> because it limits file writing to a single file at any one time
How do you write to more then one file a time when there is only one disk head ???
> because you ignored the effects of the 'EX' value.
> This requires that there be up to 32 directory entries for a large file.
Which is fucking stupid. Why the fuck would a large file mean there is LESS room in the directory for files on a disk ?!?!
> 8.3 is perfectly adequte for the use by the types of software that CP/M was used for
Where adequate means cryptic filenames which is one of the reasons why CP/M died. It was stuck in a mainframe mindset, complete UNABLE to understand that there was more then a single use case.
> but with so few files available on a diskette, short names are not a problem because there are so few to search through.
64 files is not just "a few files". It is also artificially low when you can store 100+ files on a disk on a better designed File System, not something half-assed.
> rant is completely uninformed.
Translation: I'm going to completely ignore the fact that CP/M Directory format changed numerous times because it was a fucking hack job. First due to the stupidity that for file to be initially larger then 16 KB one needs to waste directory entries spreading the meta-data all over the place and artificially lower the maximum files on disk even though may be more then enough room, and later kludge upon kludge upon kludge. Not to mention the stupidity of "reserved" filenames due to a brain-dead device naming schema, dumb drive letters, and no sub-directories. And yet somehow 5 years earlier Unix had /usr seamlessly use the second disk drive.
But I shouldn't expect anything more from a clueless apologist.
Part of problem is that people have more money then time.
They would rather remain ignorant and pay someone else to solve the problem.
Aren't you conflating the two though?
There is a line between "legal content being censored" and "illegal content".
i.e. We're not talking about illegal content, such as illegal numbers (sic.).
We're talking about someone posting their opinions (however unpopular), and others trying to mandat, and dictate that it be removed simply because they are too immature and insecure to handle it.
We already went through this censorship crap with books. As long as someone isn't breaking the law, if you are offended by what you see, you are free to exercise your right to look away.
The simply solution would be to make everything lower case like C.
No SHOUTING
No MiXeDcAsE.
Thanks!
A very pithy saying!
> today's UIs are harder to use than the GUIs of the 90s, including even the command line interfaces of the same period.
You have any examples of this? Because the Bash command line for OSX and Linux really hasn't changed much in 20 years.
Anyone know where this quote is from?
* Instead of browsers generating errors about missing tags, they silently accept it. *facepalm*
* Who was the idiot that thought case insensitivity for tags name was a good idea??
A) Browsers now have to accept twice as many tags.
e.g. & and & both generate ampersands. You can start with <BLOCKQUOTE> and end with </blockquote>, etc.
B) We dumb grave accent tags, like À for À and à for à which prevents browsers from converting all tags to either uppercase (or lowercase) and generating a hash from _that_ that for fast lookup.
* Instead of using unique characters for begin tag: < >, and end tag: such as { }, browsers instead have to waste time looking ahead if the next character is a '/' when they find a '<' char.
i.e.
<a name='foo'>...</a>
compared to the simpler to parse:
<a name='foo'>...{a}
* Some of the HTML abbreviations make zero sense. These are the arrow glyphs:
←
→
↑
↓
/Sarcasm Argh, matey! What, &left; &right; &up; &down; weren't available?!
At least it isn't a badly designed and bloated as XML.
Sadly, all too true. :-(
Exactly. Hate Speech == Censored Speech.
It's fine to have your own opinion but when you dictates that others follow your own myopic viewpoint because you're too insecure, congratulations, you've just resorted to censorship.
Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.
--
SJW, noun, acronym for Stupid Justice Whiner
> This has been a problem in the past - for example, earlier builds of Rage allowed more console options that allowed the disabling of certain graphical filters, which in certain cases actually improved graphics quality because there was less bullshit post-processing active.
Very interesting. You wouldn't happen to have a source for that by chance? Thanks!
I'm still trying to find the screenshot comparisons of the HDR / tone mapping before/after.
False equivalence much?
Asking for Long-Term Studies, aka Show me the data is not anti-science. Where is the data for the 5, 10, 20, and 40+ year environmental impact?
For every "problem" technology promises to fix it almost always raises 2 more problems.
All you've done is trade one dogma for another. Healthy Skepticism helps keep blind faith (in Science) in check.
> Can someone from the UK please explain to me the reason a 'TV' license still exists? It's not the 1950's!
$$$.
--
brain-dead, noun, examples include the CP/M File System (v1.4) which wastes 2 bytes (S1, S2) instead of using them for the 8.3 filename.
> something running on an 8-bit processor like the Intel 8080 or Zilog Z-80. There was a memory limit of 64K, and early on that 64K was expensive.
> I encourage you to read up on how these old disk systems worked, so that you can understand why someone might limit the size of file names.
As someone who has *used* those 8-bit computers since the early 80's I'm quite intimate with the details of how all those old DOS's worked -- CP/M, DOS3.3, ProDOS. I'm even writing my own DOS for my 6502 Apple //e, //c, and //gs, because I hate DOS 3.3 and ProDOS.
> it was probably a hard-sectored, single-sided drive and the diskettes held 90K of information
A) You mean 87.5 KB when Shugart introduced the first 5.25" SA 400 drive, but OK. Later disc were soft-sectored and able to hold (35 tracks * 18 sectors) = 157.5 KB SD (Apple 2) or (40 tracks * 18 sectors * double density) 360 KB DD (IBM) respectively.
See Floppy Disk - Performance and Capacity
B) CP/M was software skewed
> It made sense to limit file name sizes, etc, for the diskette catalogs, so that the space available for data could be maximized.
1. It is obvious you've never done the math, so I'm calling bullshit.
You mean to tell me that increasing the filename ...
from 8.3 (CP/M never stored the '.' extension) which takes 11*100 / 87.5K = 1200 / 89,600 = 0.012% disk space ...
to 16 characters = 16*100 / 90K = 1600 / 89,600 = 0.017% disk space
is going to have any actual impact on maximizing space for data?!?!?! Riiight. Can I have some of what your smoking please!
2. Furthermore, looking at the CP/M disk format, particularly the directory entry, Tanenbaum has this picture. We see 2 unused bytes!
For comparison:
Ver 1.4 wastes 2 bytes
Ver 2.2 wastes 1 bytes
So your argument is completely bogus.
3. Lastly, CP/M used a retarded allocation schema:
Which means:
Instead of wasting 16 bytes for allocation (WTF!) you store the _starting_ block number (4 bytes) and number of blocks (4 bytes), which leaves 8 more characters for filenames.
The point remains Gary completely fucked up filenames. MS, in typical fashion, just blindly copied others without actually *thinking*.
So yeah, I *do* hold him responsible for his retarded file system -- he never act
Indeed.
Stupid Justice Whiners have nothing better to do.
Don't forget the wheel, which is so -4000s.
> Is there a reason you add it to your Contacts list, instead of just blocking the number itself?
I've been using this method since the iPhone 3GS days -- it didn't support call blocking only the carrier did.
Adding them Contacts seemed like the easiest "work-around".
Remember, this was in back in the days before there was even a blacklist option or app.
> and block the number without having to add it.
Thanks for the tip! I'll keep this in mind when/if I upgrade to a newer iPhone.
> Apparently you click on the "i" icon and scroll to the bottom.
I don't see that option on iOS 6. :-/
> Several calls a week? I'm envious. I get a minimum of several a day.
Here is my solution to deal with those shenanigans:
* Every spam call you get, counterintuitively, ADD it to your Contacts under "Spam" BUT append a number.
i.e.
I get a call from 555-1234, it gets added to contact "Spam1" ... oh look, Spam1 is phoning. *Ignore* ... oh look, Spam1 is phoning. *Ignore* ... oh look, spam1 is harassing me again. *Reports them my carrier for what little good it does.*
I get a call from 555-9999, it gets added to contact "Spam2"
I get a call from 555-1234
I get a call from 555-6666, it gets added to contact "Spam3"
I get a call from 555-1234
I get a call from 555-1234,
This way I have timestamps of when, and how often they phoned !
What is real bullshit is that trying to report these spam calls to the phone company and Better Business bureau (for harassment) is almost impossible. The phone companies are making money off robocalling so they have _zero_ incentive to stop.
--
Banning Hate Speech is Censorship
> Filenames of that size, or shorter, were usual at that time, even with mainframes. Floppy disk drives were 256Kb or less, memory was 64Kb or less.
I'm calling shenanigans. Unix V6FS (1972) had 14 character files, while CP/M (1974) had 8.3.
> Long filenames would have had an impact on system usability.
And your proof is where?
Long filenames had zero impact on usability.
Short filenames hindered people for 22+ years.