Exactly how are you going to run this malicious code?
I'm serious. If you've setup your system correctly, there will be no way to save anything to run it (note - all web malicious code a user wants to execute has to save somewhere to run). Also, if your mail client won't let you run executables directly without saving....
As for not being terribly useful? Sure it is - it's a web portal. It's what many people use 99% of their PC time for. Web based email, Web based photos, web everything. Now, for you and me that's probably not feasible, since I couldn't imagine trying to do video editing with a web-based app. But, it is useful for those things where malicious code is the problem.
i've had a number of candidates who can't talk about refactoring (in spite of its IDE support), can't talk about design patterns beyond "Singleton" (I make that an exception to the "Describe a design pattern" question), can't even write simple pseudo-code on a markerboard to draw a "tree" or write (or even just *use*) an iterator from a collection. to the work they've done they are very "productive" with an IDE, and are probably ok programmers.
but they've gotten so slaved by the IDE they've really lost the ability to think about programming to the level I need to see. these are "senior" developer candidates who don't know what i would consider to be the basic minimums of software development and the level of programming skills it requires.
they can use the IDE but they have no clue why it works.
While agree about the quality of candidates out there, I will say this: in the modern programming language world, those that can't even talk about refactoring generally aren't even jr level programmers - I don't care what their "resume" says.
That design pattern question being limited to "Singleton" (or Command Pattern) screams "procedural programmer" to me at best, and immediately lowers them to at most jr level with most likely heavy mentoring required to make them even moderately useful.
If they don't know a tree, see above. In the Java realm, depending upon domain, Iterators should either be carefully and barely tolerated or not used at all. I can understand why some wouldn't use them, but they should know why. If you wonder about this statement, review concurrent access (lack of) guarantees regarding iterators and the backdoor into synchronized code they allow. But that's another whole story that I don't have time to delve into.
I tend to disagree with your base premise that these are probably ok programmers slaved to their IDEs. I hold the position that these folks are able to do some "programming" (the basic working with code) due to the IDE existance, but in no way are "real" programmers or software developers. I agree that there are lots of these types of folks out there.
In my mind, a SR dev can take a set of requirements, validate and create an estimate for meeting those requirements. They can also be handed a mess of code and understand it in relatively short periods of time. They might even have flashes of insight into how to create better code for a particular problem domain than general best practices, which they are familiar with.
Lastly, on the JSP/JSF/Spring/Ajax/JS/HTML/etc front - worry, worry a lot. There's new toolkits/frameworks coming out for these almost daily.;) Some are good, and will help those who understand the problem domain be excessively productive. It will allow those who don't to badly hack code. As for CSS - that's mostly outside my realm as my experience with it has been minor, but there seem to be some neat tools for messing with it available for Firefox/Mozilla. Same goes for JS/Ajax. Check out Bookmarklets, a better Error Console, and Firebug, not to forget the venerable Web Dev. I have yet to check out Google's GWT.
stop assuming that thinking and stating that IDEs are a bain to learning to program doesn't mean they aren't a boon to software development. Those are two completely different fields of CS education (one certainly dependent on the other).
Software development is an activity involving programming, usually. IDE's assist with this type of activity. If you don't know how to program, an IDE is going to do exactly zilch for you in this regard.
I personally utilize eclipse extensively, but for some things I still drop into vim. It's just easier and faster to do complex regex with vim than in eclipse, despite its recently added regex support.
No level of OS security known can protect from the user deliberately executing malicious code.
Sure there is. It's the read only, can't write to the disk, can't create/save any files with executable privs security level. You can achieve this simply via a CD/DVD only boot machine sans HD, or via a well secured system. Even windows can be secured at this level, although you won't be able to run much on it, especially no MS software.
I've seriously considered creating this type of installation for certain relatives. After infection #6 of a particular person, and the fact that another machine in that house has 0 issues, has finally made this person see the light. (Hooray, and less support calls for me I hope!)
I have Comcast and Dish on the same TV. Until cable upgrades its signal to digital, I don't see the point in switching. Comcast's analog stations are crap compared to even the lower quality dish digital signals. So, to answer the question, I'd rather stick with a supposed "hamstrung" PVR that doesn't phone home over a Tivo connected to a crappy signal.
IE displaced Netscape due to bundling. The version that displaced Netscape was worse (IE 3.x).
Actually, even from a web developers' standpoint, IE was superior even as early as IE 3.x. It was more w3c compliant in its interpretation of HTML.
IE 3.0 still sucked, like all x.0 versions of any MS product does. That whole "wait for the first service pack before installing" came out of many a miserable experience, with no counterpoints. I don't see the point in devolving this into specifics about which parts of the W3C spec which browser supported "better", as that will go on all day.
MS used money from the OS and Office suite to fund IE development, and created something that appeared smoother than Netscape.
In other words, what you are saying is that Microsoft used its available resources to create a software product (web browser)that was more appealing to consumers. Terrible that a company should be allowed to utilize cash flow from one product to fund the development of another product. If that's the case, then every company since the dawn of time is guilty of something sinister.
It's one thing to fund development, it's another to dump the developed product to destroy your competitors, esp when you're a monopoly. Note that Netscape didn't roll over until MS bundled IE. So even if IE 3.x was better, it wasn't displacing Netscape fast enough for MS's tastes (meaning, fast enough to destroy Netscape), hence MS bundled it to put it on everyone's machine by default.
Netscape made a tactical error by deciding to rewrite the entire engine in order to combat IE
Had they not made such a tactical blunder, who can say what the result of the "Browser War" would have been? No matter how you slice it, Netscape et al failed to compete in the marketplace, then went snivelling to the SEC and anyone else with an ear for the underdog, and managed to win a suit that should never have been brought. This is what fair competition is about....
Despite the blunder, there's no way Netscape could have succeeded. MS cut off one of their main revenue conduits by dumping their browser. That's what the suit was about, and that's why they won. The suit finding was just, but we agree, justice was not done. Justice would be MS's IE being spun off as a separate company, left to sink or swim on its own.
Hmmm... Netscape was no longer a serious contender in the market by the time IE 5 was released; IE 7 is about to be released - Are you contending that IE 5, 6, & 7 are just new names on the same code?
IE 5 was most likely the IE team's last real hurrah. Up to 5.5 were mostly bug fixes, IIRC. IE 6, well, when you release a new OS, you can't have an "integral part" of the OS remain as an old version, can you? Not that in XP, IE became the Windows explorer as well, at least as far as users were concerned. Bleah.
As for IE 7, well, we all know why IE 7 is coming out sooner than Vista and why it has certain borrowed...err..."innovative" features. FF is eating IE's lunch at this point, in user mindshare, and MS wants to stop the defections. Black eyes hurt.
Firefox... is winning regular people over because while IE has been broken for a long time, people have just recently been negatively impacted to an extent that they've noticed....
That is far from the truth. FF is by far the better browser. People aren't migrating in droves just becasue of some mythical breakage. I have yet to hear a user complain that his IE is broken.... FF has a better interface, tabbed browsing, all the goodies that the people have been asking for, and Microsoft has failed to provide (until IE 7). This is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.... Companies C
volatile means pretty much the same thing in Java - use the main memory value only. And many many texts, and the new concurrency package in Java 5 (JSR166), as well as the oswego concurrent utils and the backport of JSR166 for JDK 1.4 show that you don't need both cache synchronization and in-order execution in order to write reliable multi-threaded code.
Double checked locking is commonly used to show why you cannot get away without synchronizing certain types of actions.
Namely, something along the lines of
MyClass c = new MyClass();
where the construction of MyClass is non-atomic.
The out-of-order execution allows the assignment to occur at any point during the construction of the new instance of MyClass. The only way to force in order execution is via synchronized blocks, but even then there are issues. While there is a class of applications that benefit greatly from lazy loading (the primary reason to have the double checked locks)
Volatile works fine in most common JVMs post 1.3.x for work with primitives and existing objects (those created elsewhere and guaranteed complete, usually via synchronization). This is one reason why multi-threaded code can be very fast when locking can be removed with long-lived objects. Architectures that contain lots of object churn and attempt to share short-lived objects across multiple threads perform more poorly as they require synchronization, at least in the general case.
In Java 1.5, or Java 5, the volatile keyword got a new guarantee or two, but I'm hazy on what it was. The double-locking algorithm still won't work, though, and can't work, because of the way synchronization itself is defined in the spec. The compiler/vm can move the start of the block ahead in the codestream, only the exit point of the block is guaranteed.
Synchronization was improved in JDK 1.4, IIRC. So its impact is considerably reduced in the latest JVMs, and smart use of synchronization will have minimal impact on your code's performance.
I think we agree in principal, I just didn't write enough to be perfectly clear in my first response (to a troll, no less).
volatile - causes a read or write out to main memory, ie, not the local CPU cache. It's slower, obviously. The implementation is supposed to be pretty consistent since JDK 1.4.
now go eat your porridge, you babbling idiot troll.
It really is funny... Microsoft seems to wind up in A/T suits only when they build a better mousetrap.
Mozilla came out with a browser, and Microsoft clobbered them in the market; not just because it came pre-installed with Windows. Clearly not. As the previous user pointed out, Adobe isn't exactly hurting in their Photoshop market because of pre-installations of Paint.... missing the point about RealPlayer vs Windows Media Player and a bad analogy about car stereos...
Look at Firefox! They are gaining market share all the time, and why? Because they made a good thing that people actively CHOOSE over IE.
You realize that Mozilla is Firefox and vice versa, and that Mozilla came out after IE "won" the browser war against Netscape? (I'm actually guessing that your "Mozilla" quote above should have been "Netscape")
IE displaced Netscape due to bundling. The version that displaced Netscape was worse (IE 3.x).
MS used money from the OS and Office suite to fund IE development, and created something that appeared smoother than Netscape.
Netscape made a tactical error by deciding to rewrite the entire engine in order to combat IE
IE development stopped once MS "won" the browser wars even though IE was far from a "good" product
Firefox (originally Phoenix) arose from the ashes of the Netscape codebase (via Mozilla, but that kind of ruins the "Phoenix" reference;) It is winning regular people over because while IE has been broken for a long time, people have just recently been negatively impacted to an extent that they've noticed. There's also the plug-in architecture for FF, with that, I can't help but think that a nice plug-in or two that would enhance experiences on sites like MySpace would cause FF to become a majority use browser.
Competition is 100% about trying to steal market share. Microsoft did not create Windows Media Player for the sole purpose of putting RealNetworks in the tank, or IE to put Mozilla in the toilet. They made something better for everyone, and the natural progression of a healthy market and consumer-driven choice put them down. Part of that is making sure people are using your products, and not the next guys.
The issue isn't so much the player, as it is the player's payload, the codec. With MS's media player, you get windows codec. The codec will control what's playable, and basically allows MS to control the distribution of media. That's MS's real goal. If RealPlayer had to license MS's codec to replay everything, MS wouldn't care one iota if you used Windows Media Player or RealPlayer.
Lastly, I don't think MS made anything better. They made something "easier", by bundling a package, but they didn't make it better. If they couldn't bundle it, and couldn't use their monopoly profits to fund development of media player, then perhaps the playing field would be level. Don't forget, Realplayer needs to make a profit somehow. With MS essentially killing the market by bundling media player, that's hard to do.
The last thing we need (which we have now) is another five Nickelbacks getting mass airplay on radio and then hearing them and their label and agents complaining that sales are down strictly because of downloading.
Well, no reason to unplug my iPod yet then.:) Bleah!
Clear Channel, we already got your message, loud and clear. We're not going to your subscription service on XM. Apple won. Stop screwing up the airwaves.
Check your hardware specs. NCQ is a new addition created for SATA drives. It is a less capable version of TCQ. TCQ currently exists on SCSI only. As far as I know, it was never actually implemented in IDE even though the original spec called for it. Hence, the ability to completely bork your system with a simple file request with IDE hardware.
On a side note, you'd trust MS to properly deal with resource allocation? This would be the same company that had a single threaded GDI module in their supposedly multi-threaded OS for years?
Lastly, in another post in this thread, I gave two simple test cases to try on your single drive IDE system. I guarantee you both will shed unwelcome light on the shortcomings of IDE and improperly written software, including MS software.
I agree with what you've said. However, here's the real deal on Windows, and you can verify this yourself if you have a single IDE drive and Windows. (I'm not sure whether this is MS's IDE driver, or the actual HD hardware, although I suspect it is the HD hardware, for reasons that follow)
If you have an Exchange server and outlook, email yourself a nice large file, perhaps a 10MB JPG. Now open that JPG from the server. Note that you are pretty much hamstring until the file is downloaded locally and opened. This is especially effective if you throttle your connection speed to really show off the locking effect.
second test: Get a nice video image (for DVDs) and have that image located on your HD. Using DVD Shrink, open the image/files. Now try to open anything (app, doc, generic file).
On 3 different systems, these actions all have resulted in action 1 completing before action 2 even appeared to start.
Now try these on a SCSI system. You're no longer locked out. IIRC, effective CQ doesn't exist on IDE hardware. It's why SATA drives that actually support TCQ is such big news, and why SATA drives that support it are closer to SCSI than IDE drives in price (for similar drive specs, of course).
Unfortunately, I have no Linux/Solaris comparisons, as those all run SCSI HDs.
Apparently you don't understand I/O bottlenecks, how disk access works, and what the differences are between IDE/ATA/SATA(non-queuing) collectively referred to as IDE henceforth, and SCSI systems.
On the IDE front, when you load a file, you load the entire file. If it's a 10MB file, you load all 10MB. Thread priority is irrelevant. Hence, your anti-virus software appears to be hogging the drive while it's reading it. (I should note this depends upon how the software accesses the file. It's also possible to only read in segments of a large file, thus allowing other processes access to the disk in-between requests for segments, I would hope most AV software uses this approach)
On the SCSI front, if a process starts loading a file, you can request multiple other files from the same drive while AV requested file loads. The large file load only has bandwidth impact on I/O, which if the thread is low-priority will allow the higher priority game thread(s) 100% access.
Then you get to the point of RAID, and true theoretical bus bandwidths. But that's another story. Ever wonder why all enterprise servers use SCSI? (We're not talking about the cheap webservers, but real servers). It's because IDE as a whole sucks rocks in the performance world with multiple access.
Now as for being I/O bound: generally this means you've saturated the platter to internal buffer limits of the drive, which is much lower than bus bandwidths or the burst speeds listed on drives (eg, ATA100 or ATA133). On carefully designed RAID systems, you can actually exceed bus limitations, and reach the theoretical bandwidth of the PCI bus you're on (a maximum of 512MB/s on a 64bit 66MHz PCI bus). A 2 or 3 channel SCSI controller can get you there with 4-5 disks per channel, but there are other bottlenecks.
Lastly: to allow yourself to speed up disk access in general, buy a second disk and place it on a different channel than your system disk. Use this disk for games only. Remove it from AV scans, and you'll be able to run both with 0 impact.
Sure you can - depends upon your I/O subsystem. IDE/SATA isn't the be-all end-all of I/O you know, SCSI/SCSI RAID will actually allow for multiple operations simultaneously (although the new SATA with queuing I haven't checked out yet, if it truly works as advertised, the old standard SCSI might finally have met its match. SAS, however, will still smoke full SATA/SATA II).
It sounds like you haven't had the pleasure of meeting the average MD driver. MA may be stupid, I esp love the "2 cars have gone by I'm making my left right now" turn, but at least that's predictable. MD drivers drive in the left lane, then cut across 4-6 lanes of traffic with 100 feet to go to an exit. Staying in a lane is as foreign to them as a desert to a porpoise. I moved to Dallas, and in my first month here, I'm driving on 75 and see an SUV almost make a right turn to exit right in front of me, crossing the grass even to "make" the exit. I'm like wow - it's like being back in DC. I pull up behind them at the light, lo and behold - MD license plates.
If you're that uptight about clothes or appearance, be ready for a long long long trip down misery lane. The world is largely about conforming, however loosely, to the "normal".
If you put 20 people in a group, even those that look conservative, you won't find a single "normal" person as you'd think of "normal". Perhaps you should widen your horizons a little, or seek the help of a good psychiatrist.
Lastly, clothes are just clothes, jewelry is just jewelry, hair is just hair. While shaving your head indicates to me that you're covering the fact that you're balding;) Overdoing either of the others to "stand out" indicates to me the lack of ability to work with others.
I have a question for the evolutionists though. How on earth did sexual reproduction ever evolve? Besides the jokes about recreation versus procreation (grow up), can anyone explain it to me?
A life form that reproduces asexually (as is believed about the simplest, earliest life forms) would have to produce a life form that is capable of reproducing both sexually and asexually. This intermediate step is necessary unless you believe both male and female life forms evolved simultaneously.
So this organism can now reproduce sexually, but it has no mate. So it reproduces asexually again.
Check out the "modern" hermaphroditic slug. Also check out fish and frogs.
Hopefully this will answer your question.
If you need it spelled out - Slugs can reproduce sexually or asexually. Fish and frogs can't copulate, as they have extremely primitive sex organs. Some fish and frogs also have the ability to change sex. Some do as a regular part of their life cycle.
Lastly, to address your implied question about evolution, all of these are branched near the bottom of the tree of evolution.
BTW, I've taken your duplicated points and addressed them in single cohesive blocks.
But seriously now, believing the Bible as literaly true means I belive Jesus died for my sins and that I am no longer under the law given by God through Moses.
That alone seems disingenuous. So a single line in the new testament invalidates the rest of both books? Cool rationalization, but one that more than one has pointed out to the church of your choice as the reason for that church to not exist. BTW, note that that particular line can also be used to disprove hell, or at least that there's no hell for anyone. Jesus didn't say you must believe in me, he said I die for your sins.
I believe the Bible is historically true, correct and ESPECIALLY the new testament! So lets start... I bet you are referring to at least some of the following: 1 Supposed irregularities between the Gospels. One leppar here, two over there etc...
Actually, the more serious ones. Such as the discrepancy in old texts about Jesus being the son of god, or becoming the son of god when John baptizes him. That one has minor implications.
2 Then, did Jesus really exist?
I'm sure at least one someone named Jesus exist(ed). Heck, go to any Latin area of town in the US. You'll find several. Joking aside, there most likely was a person named Jesus in the time of interest that was causing, from the Roman POV, issues/discontent/whatever you want to call it.
3 The supposed gospel of Judas Iskariot....Ah, the Gospel of Judas. It has been proven to be written about ad 180(? it will check that date if you want.) but has been credited to a religious sect that tried to discredit Jesus teachings and glorify Bible villains. The Cainites methinks.
You're denying there is one? You do realize that men decided to remove that "gospel". There are several others as well that were removed from the collection. All by men. All written by men. Actually, there are many gospels, at least 50 acknowledged and possibly at least as many as 100. There likely were many more, as the church went on a mission to destroy all non-accepted (heretical) gospels in the 3rd-5th centuries. I'll ask you how someone decided which where "pure" and which were "heretical"?
What's funny is that one of the four recognized gospels, John, apparently did not even exist until AD 180 (the first mention of that gospel) Of the other 3, there's only one that dates possibly as early as 125AD. The rest have a "first draft" dating from 200-400 AD.
BTW, the gospel of "John" is now generally considered written by "smart" theologians several generations after the first three. Of course, the gospel of Matthew is considered the oldest, which brings into question just when the other two were written, and there's even suggestions that none of these were exactly written, but were more documenting the oral history of the time.
4 Was many of the characters mentioned in the Gospels really there, for instance Herod, John the baptist, Jesus, Annanias, and James the brother of Jesus.
I'm sure many of the characters existed, and that many others are symbols, aggregations, or purely fictional. James is an interesting person, if he existed, he was older, and thus Mary was not a virgin. There's a can of worms in self-contradiction.
5 The eclipse of the sun at the Crucifiction.... The eclipse, yep a biggie lol: Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun
A document written after the fact...years after the fact. By
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how are you going to run this malicious code?
I'm serious. If you've setup your system correctly, there will be no way to save anything to run it (note - all web malicious code a user wants to execute has to save somewhere to run). Also, if your mail client won't let you run executables directly without saving....
As for not being terribly useful? Sure it is - it's a web portal. It's what many people use 99% of their PC time for. Web based email, Web based photos, web everything. Now, for you and me that's probably not feasible, since I couldn't imagine trying to do video editing with a web-based app. But, it is useful for those things where malicious code is the problem.
While agree about the quality of candidates out there, I will say this: in the modern programming language world, those that can't even talk about refactoring generally aren't even jr level programmers - I don't care what their "resume" says.
That design pattern question being limited to "Singleton" (or Command Pattern) screams "procedural programmer" to me at best, and immediately lowers them to at most jr level with most likely heavy mentoring required to make them even moderately useful.
If they don't know a tree, see above. In the Java realm, depending upon domain, Iterators should either be carefully and barely tolerated or not used at all. I can understand why some wouldn't use them, but they should know why. If you wonder about this statement, review concurrent access (lack of) guarantees regarding iterators and the backdoor into synchronized code they allow. But that's another whole story that I don't have time to delve into.
I tend to disagree with your base premise that these are probably ok programmers slaved to their IDEs. I hold the position that these folks are able to do some "programming" (the basic working with code) due to the IDE existance, but in no way are "real" programmers or software developers. I agree that there are lots of these types of folks out there.
In my mind, a SR dev can take a set of requirements, validate and create an estimate for meeting those requirements. They can also be handed a mess of code and understand it in relatively short periods of time. They might even have flashes of insight into how to create better code for a particular problem domain than general best practices, which they are familiar with.
Lastly, on the JSP/JSF/Spring/Ajax/JS/HTML/etc front - worry, worry a lot. There's new toolkits/frameworks coming out for these almost daily.
Software development is an activity involving programming, usually. IDE's assist with this type of activity. If you don't know how to program, an IDE is going to do exactly zilch for you in this regard.
I personally utilize eclipse extensively, but for some things I still drop into vim. It's just easier and faster to do complex regex with vim than in eclipse, despite its recently added regex support.
Sure there is. It's the read only, can't write to the disk, can't create/save any files with executable privs security level. You can achieve this simply via a CD/DVD only boot machine sans HD, or via a well secured system. Even windows can be secured at this level, although you won't be able to run much on it, especially no MS software.
I've seriously considered creating this type of installation for certain relatives. After infection #6 of a particular person, and the fact that another machine in that house has 0 issues, has finally made this person see the light. (Hooray, and less support calls for me I hope!)
I have heard that it is still of lower quality than dish's offerings.
However, I have not personally verified this in the past couple of years. Do you have personal experience comoparing the two side by side?
I have Comcast and Dish on the same TV. Until cable upgrades its signal to digital, I don't see the point in switching. Comcast's analog stations are crap compared to even the lower quality dish digital signals. So, to answer the question, I'd rather stick with a supposed "hamstrung" PVR that doesn't phone home over a Tivo connected to a crappy signal.
Everyone knows it's
-Executive Chief Officer Peter Henry Barret
IE 3.0 still sucked, like all x.0 versions of any MS product does. That whole "wait for the first service pack before installing" came out of many a miserable experience, with no counterpoints. I don't see the point in devolving this into specifics about which parts of the W3C spec which browser supported "better", as that will go on all day.
It's one thing to fund development, it's another to dump the developed product to destroy your competitors, esp when you're a monopoly. Note that Netscape didn't roll over until MS bundled IE. So even if IE 3.x was better, it wasn't displacing Netscape fast enough for MS's tastes (meaning, fast enough to destroy Netscape), hence MS bundled it to put it on everyone's machine by default.
Despite the blunder, there's no way Netscape could have succeeded. MS cut off one of their main revenue conduits by dumping their browser. That's what the suit was about, and that's why they won. The suit finding was just, but we agree, justice was not done. Justice would be MS's IE being spun off as a separate company, left to sink or swim on its own.
IE 5 was most likely the IE team's last real hurrah. Up to 5.5 were mostly bug fixes, IIRC. IE 6, well, when you release a new OS, you can't have an "integral part" of the OS remain as an old version, can you? Not that in XP, IE became the Windows explorer as well, at least as far as users were concerned. Bleah.
As for IE 7, well, we all know why IE 7 is coming out sooner than Vista and why it has certain borrowed...err..."innovative" features. FF is eating IE's lunch at this point, in user mindshare, and MS wants to stop the defections. Black eyes hurt.
Double checked locking is commonly used to show why you cannot get away without synchronizing certain types of actions.
Namely, something along the lines of
where the construction of MyClass is non-atomic.
The out-of-order execution allows the assignment to occur at any point during the construction of the new instance of MyClass. The only way to force in order execution is via synchronized blocks, but even then there are issues. While there is a class of applications that benefit greatly from lazy loading (the primary reason to have the double checked locks)
Volatile works fine in most common JVMs post 1.3.x for work with primitives and existing objects (those created elsewhere and guaranteed complete, usually via synchronization). This is one reason why multi-threaded code can be very fast when locking can be removed with long-lived objects. Architectures that contain lots of object churn and attempt to share short-lived objects across multiple threads perform more poorly as they require synchronization, at least in the general case.
In Java 1.5, or Java 5, the volatile keyword got a new guarantee or two, but I'm hazy on what it was. The double-locking algorithm still won't work, though, and can't work, because of the way synchronization itself is defined in the spec. The compiler/vm can move the start of the block ahead in the codestream, only the exit point of the block is guaranteed.
Synchronization was improved in JDK 1.4, IIRC. So its impact is considerably reduced in the latest JVMs, and smart use of synchronization will have minimal impact on your code's performance.
I think we agree in principal, I just didn't write enough to be perfectly clear in my first response (to a troll, no less).
volatile - causes a read or write out to main memory, ie, not the local CPU cache. It's slower, obviously. The implementation is supposed to be pretty consistent since JDK 1.4.
now go eat your porridge, you babbling idiot troll.
Mozilla came out with a browser, and Microsoft clobbered them in the market; not just because it came pre-installed with Windows. Clearly not. As the previous user pointed out, Adobe isn't exactly hurting in their Photoshop market because of pre-installations of Paint.
Look at Firefox! They are gaining market share all the time, and why? Because they made a good thing that people actively CHOOSE over IE.
You realize that Mozilla is Firefox and vice versa, and that Mozilla came out after IE "won" the browser war against Netscape? (I'm actually guessing that your "Mozilla" quote above should have been "Netscape")
Competition is 100% about trying to steal market share. Microsoft did not create Windows Media Player for the sole purpose of putting RealNetworks in the tank, or IE to put Mozilla in the toilet. They made something better for everyone, and the natural progression of a healthy market and consumer-driven choice put them down. Part of that is making sure people are using your products, and not the next guys.
The issue isn't so much the player, as it is the player's payload, the codec. With MS's media player, you get windows codec. The codec will control what's playable, and basically allows MS to control the distribution of media. That's MS's real goal. If RealPlayer had to license MS's codec to replay everything, MS wouldn't care one iota if you used Windows Media Player or RealPlayer.
Lastly, I don't think MS made anything better. They made something "easier", by bundling a package, but they didn't make it better. If they couldn't bundle it, and couldn't use their monopoly profits to fund development of media player, then perhaps the playing field would be level. Don't forget, Realplayer needs to make a profit somehow. With MS essentially killing the market by bundling media player, that's hard to do.
automatically get downloaded as a "fix" from your friendly monopolistic OS provider, linking to its own service.
We finally had an RPG released, the first in quite a while. You may not have heard of it, it's called Oblivion.
The last thing we need (which we have now) is another five Nickelbacks getting mass airplay on radio and then hearing them and their label and agents complaining that sales are down strictly because of downloading.
:) Bleah!
Well, no reason to unplug my iPod yet then.
Clear Channel, we already got your message, loud and clear. We're not going to your subscription service on XM. Apple won. Stop screwing up the airwaves.
Check your hardware specs. NCQ is a new addition created for SATA drives. It is a less capable version of TCQ. TCQ currently exists on SCSI only. As far as I know, it was never actually implemented in IDE even though the original spec called for it. Hence, the ability to completely bork your system with a simple file request with IDE hardware.
On a side note, you'd trust MS to properly deal with resource allocation? This would be the same company that had a single threaded GDI module in their supposedly multi-threaded OS for years?
Lastly, in another post in this thread, I gave two simple test cases to try on your single drive IDE system. I guarantee you both will shed unwelcome light on the shortcomings of IDE and improperly written software, including MS software.
I agree with what you've said. However, here's the real deal on Windows, and you can verify this yourself if you have a single IDE drive and Windows. (I'm not sure whether this is MS's IDE driver, or the actual HD hardware, although I suspect it is the HD hardware, for reasons that follow)
If you have an Exchange server and outlook, email yourself a nice large file, perhaps a 10MB JPG. Now open that JPG from the server. Note that you are pretty much hamstring until the file is downloaded locally and opened. This is especially effective if you throttle your connection speed to really show off the locking effect.
second test: Get a nice video image (for DVDs) and have that image located on your HD. Using DVD Shrink, open the image/files. Now try to open anything (app, doc, generic file).
On 3 different systems, these actions all have resulted in action 1 completing before action 2 even appeared to start.
Now try these on a SCSI system. You're no longer locked out. IIRC, effective CQ doesn't exist on IDE hardware. It's why SATA drives that actually support TCQ is such big news, and why SATA drives that support it are closer to SCSI than IDE drives in price (for similar drive specs, of course).
Unfortunately, I have no Linux/Solaris comparisons, as those all run SCSI HDs.
Apparently you don't understand I/O bottlenecks, how disk access works, and what the differences are between IDE/ATA/SATA(non-queuing) collectively referred to as IDE henceforth, and SCSI systems.
On the IDE front, when you load a file, you load the entire file. If it's a 10MB file, you load all 10MB. Thread priority is irrelevant. Hence, your anti-virus software appears to be hogging the drive while it's reading it. (I should note this depends upon how the software accesses the file. It's also possible to only read in segments of a large file, thus allowing other processes access to the disk in-between requests for segments, I would hope most AV software uses this approach)
On the SCSI front, if a process starts loading a file, you can request multiple other files from the same drive while AV requested file loads. The large file load only has bandwidth impact on I/O, which if the thread is low-priority will allow the higher priority game thread(s) 100% access.
Then you get to the point of RAID, and true theoretical bus bandwidths. But that's another story. Ever wonder why all enterprise servers use SCSI? (We're not talking about the cheap webservers, but real servers). It's because IDE as a whole sucks rocks in the performance world with multiple access.
Now as for being I/O bound: generally this means you've saturated the platter to internal buffer limits of the drive, which is much lower than bus bandwidths or the burst speeds listed on drives (eg, ATA100 or ATA133). On carefully designed RAID systems, you can actually exceed bus limitations, and reach the theoretical bandwidth of the PCI bus you're on (a maximum of 512MB/s on a 64bit 66MHz PCI bus). A 2 or 3 channel SCSI controller can get you there with 4-5 disks per channel, but there are other bottlenecks.
Lastly: to allow yourself to speed up disk access in general, buy a second disk and place it on a different channel than your system disk. Use this disk for games only. Remove it from AV scans, and you'll be able to run both with 0 impact.
Sure you can - depends upon your I/O subsystem. IDE/SATA isn't the be-all end-all of I/O you know, SCSI/SCSI RAID will actually allow for multiple operations simultaneously (although the new SATA with queuing I haven't checked out yet, if it truly works as advertised, the old standard SCSI might finally have met its match. SAS, however, will still smoke full SATA/SATA II).
It sounds like you haven't had the pleasure of meeting the average MD driver. MA may be stupid, I esp love the "2 cars have gone by I'm making my left right now" turn, but at least that's predictable. MD drivers drive in the left lane, then cut across 4-6 lanes of traffic with 100 feet to go to an exit. Staying in a lane is as foreign to them as a desert to a porpoise. I moved to Dallas, and in my first month here, I'm driving on 75 and see an SUV almost make a right turn to exit right in front of me, crossing the grass even to "make" the exit. I'm like wow - it's like being back in DC. I pull up behind them at the light, lo and behold - MD license plates.
If you're that uptight about clothes or appearance, be ready for a long long long trip down misery lane. The world is largely about conforming, however loosely, to the "normal".
;) Overdoing either of the others to "stand out" indicates to me the lack of ability to work with others.
If you put 20 people in a group, even those that look conservative, you won't find a single "normal" person as you'd think of "normal". Perhaps you should widen your horizons a little, or seek the help of a good psychiatrist.
Lastly, clothes are just clothes, jewelry is just jewelry, hair is just hair. While shaving your head indicates to me that you're covering the fact that you're balding
I'll need a little time - things were a little tight this weekend, and will probably continue on this week.
I'll think about it - check back here tomorrow (Sat). I'll respond by then.
Check out the "modern" hermaphroditic slug. Also check out fish and frogs.
Hopefully this will answer your question.
If you need it spelled out - Slugs can reproduce sexually or asexually. Fish and frogs can't copulate, as they have extremely primitive sex organs. Some fish and frogs also have the ability to change sex. Some do as a regular part of their life cycle.
Lastly, to address your implied question about evolution, all of these are branched near the bottom of the tree of evolution.
That alone seems disingenuous. So a single line in the new testament invalidates the rest of both books? Cool rationalization, but one that more than one has pointed out to the church of your choice as the reason for that church to not exist. BTW, note that that particular line can also be used to disprove hell, or at least that there's no hell for anyone. Jesus didn't say you must believe in me, he said I die for your sins.
Actually, the more serious ones. Such as the discrepancy in old texts about Jesus being the son of god, or becoming the son of god when John baptizes him. That one has minor implications.
I'm sure at least one someone named Jesus exist(ed). Heck, go to any Latin area of town in the US. You'll find several. Joking aside, there most likely was a person named Jesus in the time of interest that was causing, from the Roman POV, issues/discontent/whatever you want to call it.
You're denying there is one? You do realize that men decided to remove that "gospel". There are several others as well that were removed from the collection. All by men. All written by men. Actually, there are many gospels, at least 50 acknowledged and possibly at least as many as 100. There likely were many more, as the church went on a mission to destroy all non-accepted (heretical) gospels in the 3rd-5th centuries. I'll ask you how someone decided which where "pure" and which were "heretical"?
What's funny is that one of the four recognized gospels, John, apparently did not even exist until AD 180 (the first mention of that gospel) Of the other 3, there's only one that dates possibly as early as 125AD. The rest have a "first draft" dating from 200-400 AD.
BTW, the gospel of "John" is now generally considered written by "smart" theologians several generations after the first three. Of course, the gospel of Matthew is considered the oldest, which brings into question just when the other two were written, and there's even suggestions that none of these were exactly written, but were more documenting the oral history of the time.
I'm sure many of the characters existed, and that many others are symbols, aggregations, or purely fictional. James is an interesting person, if he existed, he was older, and thus Mary was not a virgin. There's a can of worms in self-contradiction.
A document written after the fact...years after the fact. By
I seem to recall Acrobat and Photoshop having keys way way back when. Were they generic? I couldn't tell you.