The equation stays about the same though the scale of memory sizes involved increases. If one ran a set number of processes that all fit within core (RAM) memory and did not increase in size over time, one wouldn't need virtual memory at all. When using a properly sized computer of a given generation, the typical set of processes being run fits in or almost fits in core memory, so a virtual memory size equal to the core size provides ample protection against memory exhaustion (both core and virtual memories full). Exactly how much memory this is increases as the sizes of those typical processes increase. These days 2gb of core is usually large enough to avoid the need to use virtual memory, but it can be consumed pretty quickly by either large numbers of typical processes or a few memory intensive ones. Memory exhaustion is a very unpleasant situation and leads to data loss and service outages. The computer does not react well to having literally no room to think. So given this, and that virtual memory (disk space) gets cheaper at (somewhat) the same pace as core (RAM), it is much safer and cost effective to err on the side of caution and make the virtual memory bigger than necessary for day to day operation. Regardless of the scale of the current generation memory sizes, a virtual memory space equal to one or so times the core space of a properly equiped machine is the right size. For small core machines, the larger the core memory deficit, the more times larger the virtual memory space must be to avoid running out of total memory. A machine running the latest Windows environment in 512mb of core would need a virtual memory much larger than one or two times that size to be safe. Said machine would still perform very poorly due to the cost of continually accessing the virtual memory, but it would avoid crashing due to memory shortage. Systems with much more than average core memory may be able to do safely with less or even no virtual space, but it is arguably a foolish place to conserve since disk space is cheap and maintaining at least a one times core sized virtual memory space is insurance against the pain of memory exhaustion.
Or distilled: less RAM than average needs more than two times that for virtual, average RAM needs one to two times that, and lots more RAM than average can probably get away with less than one times or even none but probably should use one times anyway.
Again note that average refers to the RAM size of a current generation machine configured to run the typical number of typical current programs with reasonable performance.
Um, locks that are actually in service are embedded in doors and until unlocked cannot be removed. And unless they're removed, you can't rotate them around in your hand to find the magic bump spot. So unless the bump spot is on the face of the lock, the security impact of the girl's talent is zero.
As someone else noted and I remarked on in my reply to another, less polite comment by an AC, your interpretation of Shakespeare's intent behind the line is not universally excepted.
As far as "lawyers are the defenders of the rule of law, which is our bulwark against tyranny", you'll have to pardon me while I laugh with caustic sarcasm. Lawyers defend their profit margin, and their interest in fighting tyranny exists only if there is one involved. And as our torture endorsing Attorney General and the RIAA lawyers prove, if there's a profit (political or financial), they're just as willing to enforce tyranny as fight it. Per Sturgeon's Law (or as Wikipedia would have it, Sturgeon's Revelation), only 90% of everything is crap. If you are one of the 10% who lives the Perry Mason ideal, my apologies. But as I've never encountered a lawyer in that 10%, and my family has been screwed over multiple times by members of the 90%, I have very little sympathy for or belief in the goodness of lawyers.
Given that the technology used in the new electronic passports has already been broken, why the $&#* is deployment continuing? Corruption or stupidity, it's a criminal waste of tax money and dangerous to our security.
The Earth is continually bathed in various very powerful energy fields. Harvesting this freely available energy does not violate physics' law against free as in from nothing energy.
No chance. As noted, the lack of Office is a key factor in limiting desktop migration to Linux. Microsoft will never voluntarily act against its own interests. Any gain it would reap from Office for Linux would be at the loss of desktops and associated OS sales and related profits. Office for Linux has been predicted many times. Microsoft itself claimed it was forthcoming during the anti-trust trial. But it never has and never will actually arrive. Unfortunately.
Of course they have no interest in helping you. There's no profit in it. The US legal and law enforcement systems are about profit, politics and powertrips, not justice. If it's worth it to you, pay a lawyer to get the address from Verizon and then hire some bounty hunters to retrieve it. It probably isn't. A more cost effective form of justice would be to modify your script to hard format the media in case of theft, and would ensure your data is protected from abuse.
It is a sad day for competition and software development. TiVo's patent is another example of why patents suck. Subtracting the amount of time passed in the media stream during the real time it takes someone to press the play button is obvious, and in fact also reportedly appears in XP Media Center Edition. Obvious things are not patentable, yet TiVo has their patent and is using it to destroy competition. If I were someone who owned one of the EchoStars that will be disabled in the next 60 days, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Well, in retrospect I should have put a smiley at the end of the quote, as I was aware the context of the remark complicates its possible true meaning. However, if you had read the previous comments about said context you would know that your analysis is not universally accepted. Regarding your link to the defense of lawyers by a lawyer: I have never met a lawyer whose interest in justice was not proportional to their own self-interest (outside of Perry Mason reruns), but I have met some that were utter shysters. The legal profession, like all others, has a few competent, morally motivated members, more that are either incompetent or evil or both, and the majority that fall in the middle of those extremes. But lawyers have great and some would argue near-ultimate power over people's lives, which means they have an equally great responsibility to ensure they do not abuse that power. As the RIAA lawyers demonstrate, too many of them have the former but no concern for the latter. The defense that they are only doing what their clients wish has no more validity now than it did at Nuremberg. Those who perform acts of evil bear the moral responsibility for those actions even if they are ordered by another.
Given the number of comments relating to my ill thought out words regarding souls, I am addressing the issue here instead of to each comment in particular.
I apologize for any offense to atheists and non-atheists. My intended point was that unless someone is an atheist it would seem foolish for them to ignore the possibility of Divine Justice for their sins here even if, being rich lawyers, they are immune while alive. I did not mean to imply that atheists do not have morals or souls or belief in non-theistic spirituality as none of these things require belief in a personified God or Gods, nor did I mean to imply that those who are religous are motivated by a desire to avoid punishment.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI (Part 2), Act IV, Scene II.
Expecting morality from an amoral organization or its lawyers leads to disappointment. The RIAA exists to maximize profit without concern for anything else be it fair play, Fair Rights or human decency. One has to wonder just what kind of person would work as a lawyer for the RIAA, since they must know as does anyone who's been following along on Slashdot that their lawsuits are unfair and an abuse of the legal system by a very powerful organization funded by multinational corporations against comparatively powerless individuals. They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls. The person is dead. Find an unrelated living person to extort money from and leave the poor grieving family in peace.
The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?
Yes, it should not. However, "should" means nothing to Microsoft. As makes sense, given how they flagrantly violated anti-trust law and received no effective punishment despite being convicted.
It sounds like the 'black hats' will be able to bypass this security feature (which will be in all copies of Vista) but force security software companies to give up developing software for Windows.
What? Microsoft exploit its control of the operating system to destroy competitors? Surely you jest. HA HA HA!
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life it's the only weapon we have," Roger Rabbit
For $500 it'd better be the best.:-) The DSM-520 is less than half that. This is not meant as a pejorative comment, just a different-in-cost-range comment.
The "Media PC" may not have arrived, but set-top boxes that allow you to access digital content in your living room are slowly making progress. I bought and abandoned the ViewSonic WMA100 after one too many crashes of its internal operating system, wtf that is, and reading on their website faq that no, they weren't planning on any updates -- way to kiss off future business, ViewSonic -- and replaced it with the D-Link DSM-520. Its internal software is also not perfect, but D-Link has been releasing updates. The vendor supplied server software may or may not be the most useful to you.;-)
I don't think it's fair to blame Nintendo too much. They did the best they could with the technology available at the time, which as you say wasn't "there" yet. You can blame them for not reading the market correctly or underestimating the negative effect of the red display on usability. But as far as concept, build quality, and titles it was as well handled as the their other hardware platforms. As far as the LED color, green and yellow were both only slightly more costly than red at the time of the Virtual Boy (it was blue and only blue that didn't exist until 1996) and both are much easier on the eyes than red. Red being about the worst possible color to use. Funny how fast everyone forgot the lessons of the monochrome terminal era -- green is good, amber is better. If they'd gone with a green or yellow array and charged $499 it would probably have been more successful. As it was, it was both horribly expensive and horribly painful or at least harmful to use for extended periods. It came with a dire warning about not letting children under x (I forget the exact age) use it at all to avoid vision damage. Not. Good. Though admittedly I seem to have survived my multi-hour marathons of Wario Land and Red Alarm (another truely great game trapped on a dead platform) with no long term ill effects. Color perception sure took short term hits.:-/
The Virtual Boy wasn't a bad platform aside from the all red display and the insane price. Many of the games were excellent. Virtual Boy Wario Land is one of the best games in the Wario series. Two very enjoyable titles that were not mentioned in the article are Golf and 3D Tetris. Fwiw, the all red display and the insanely high price were limitations of the available technology at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes a good sound system test. :-)
Your courage is telling it like it is is admirable.
"The way to be safe is never to be secure" --Benjamin Franklin
Wow, I will remember that one.
The equation stays about the same though the scale of memory sizes involved increases. If one ran a set number of processes that all fit within core (RAM) memory and did not increase in size over time, one wouldn't need virtual memory at all. When using a properly sized computer of a given generation, the typical set of processes being run fits in or almost fits in core memory, so a virtual memory size equal to the core size provides ample protection against memory exhaustion (both core and virtual memories full). Exactly how much memory this is increases as the sizes of those typical processes increase. These days 2gb of core is usually large enough to avoid the need to use virtual memory, but it can be consumed pretty quickly by either large numbers of typical processes or a few memory intensive ones. Memory exhaustion is a very unpleasant situation and leads to data loss and service outages. The computer does not react well to having literally no room to think. So given this, and that virtual memory (disk space) gets cheaper at (somewhat) the same pace as core (RAM), it is much safer and cost effective to err on the side of caution and make the virtual memory bigger than necessary for day to day operation. Regardless of the scale of the current generation memory sizes, a virtual memory space equal to one or so times the core space of a properly equiped machine is the right size. For small core machines, the larger the core memory deficit, the more times larger the virtual memory space must be to avoid running out of total memory. A machine running the latest Windows environment in 512mb of core would need a virtual memory much larger than one or two times that size to be safe. Said machine would still perform very poorly due to the cost of continually accessing the virtual memory, but it would avoid crashing due to memory shortage. Systems with much more than average core memory may be able to do safely with less or even no virtual space, but it is arguably a foolish place to conserve since disk space is cheap and maintaining at least a one times core sized virtual memory space is insurance against the pain of memory exhaustion.
Or distilled: less RAM than average needs more than two times that for virtual, average RAM needs one to two times that, and lots more RAM than average can probably get away with less than one times or even none but probably should use one times anyway.
Again note that average refers to the RAM size of a current generation machine configured to run the typical number of typical current programs with reasonable performance.
Doheth. That'll teach me to follow the video link without following the article link. You are of course quite correct. Sorry.
Um, locks that are actually in service are embedded in doors and until unlocked cannot be removed. And unless they're removed, you can't rotate them around in your hand to find the magic bump spot. So unless the bump spot is on the face of the lock, the security impact of the girl's talent is zero.
As someone else noted and I remarked on in my reply to another, less polite comment by an AC, your interpretation of Shakespeare's intent behind the line is not universally excepted.
As far as "lawyers are the defenders of the rule of law, which is our bulwark against tyranny", you'll have to pardon me while I laugh with caustic sarcasm. Lawyers defend their profit margin, and their interest in fighting tyranny exists only if there is one involved. And as our torture endorsing Attorney General and the RIAA lawyers prove, if there's a profit (political or financial), they're just as willing to enforce tyranny as fight it. Per Sturgeon's Law (or as Wikipedia would have it, Sturgeon's Revelation), only 90% of everything is crap. If you are one of the 10% who lives the Perry Mason ideal, my apologies. But as I've never encountered a lawyer in that 10%, and my family has been screwed over multiple times by members of the 90%, I have very little sympathy for or belief in the goodness of lawyers.
Well, those mice are. They also produced miserable mice in the process of doing so. Which isn't funny.
P.S. Your singing mice link points to the plague-infected story?
Given that the technology used in the new electronic passports has already been broken, why the $&#* is deployment continuing? Corruption or stupidity, it's a criminal waste of tax money and dangerous to our security.
The Earth is continually bathed in various very powerful energy fields. Harvesting this freely available energy does not violate physics' law against free as in from nothing energy.
'In reality, how likely is Office for Linux?'
No chance. As noted, the lack of Office is a key factor in limiting desktop migration to Linux. Microsoft will never voluntarily act against its own interests. Any gain it would reap from Office for Linux would be at the loss of desktops and associated OS sales and related profits. Office for Linux has been predicted many times. Microsoft itself claimed it was forthcoming during the anti-trust trial. But it never has and never will actually arrive. Unfortunately.
Of course they have no interest in helping you. There's no profit in it. The US legal and law enforcement systems are about profit, politics and powertrips, not justice. If it's worth it to you, pay a lawyer to get the address from Verizon and then hire some bounty hunters to retrieve it. It probably isn't. A more cost effective form of justice would be to modify your script to hard format the media in case of theft, and would ensure your data is protected from abuse.
It is a sad day for competition and software development. TiVo's patent is another example of why patents suck. Subtracting the amount of time passed in the media stream during the real time it takes someone to press the play button is obvious, and in fact also reportedly appears in XP Media Center Edition. Obvious things are not patentable, yet TiVo has their patent and is using it to destroy competition. If I were someone who owned one of the EchoStars that will be disabled in the next 60 days, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Well, in retrospect I should have put a smiley at the end of the quote, as I was aware the context of the remark complicates its possible true meaning. However, if you had read the previous comments about said context you would know that your analysis is not universally accepted. Regarding your link to the defense of lawyers by a lawyer: I have never met a lawyer whose interest in justice was not proportional to their own self-interest (outside of Perry Mason reruns), but I have met some that were utter shysters. The legal profession, like all others, has a few competent, morally motivated members, more that are either incompetent or evil or both, and the majority that fall in the middle of those extremes. But lawyers have great and some would argue near-ultimate power over people's lives, which means they have an equally great responsibility to ensure they do not abuse that power. As the RIAA lawyers demonstrate, too many of them have the former but no concern for the latter. The defense that they are only doing what their clients wish has no more validity now than it did at Nuremberg. Those who perform acts of evil bear the moral responsibility for those actions even if they are ordered by another.
Given the number of comments relating to my ill thought out words regarding souls, I am addressing the issue here instead of to each comment in particular.
I apologize for any offense to atheists and non-atheists. My intended point was that unless someone is an atheist it would seem foolish for them to ignore the possibility of Divine Justice for their sins here even if, being rich lawyers, they are immune while alive. I did not mean to imply that atheists do not have morals or souls or belief in non-theistic spirituality as none of these things require belief in a personified God or Gods, nor did I mean to imply that those who are religous are motivated by a desire to avoid punishment.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI (Part 2), Act IV, Scene II.
Expecting morality from an amoral organization or its lawyers leads to disappointment. The RIAA exists to maximize profit without concern for anything else be it fair play, Fair Rights or human decency. One has to wonder just what kind of person would work as a lawyer for the RIAA, since they must know as does anyone who's been following along on Slashdot that their lawsuits are unfair and an abuse of the legal system by a very powerful organization funded by multinational corporations against comparatively powerless individuals. They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls. The person is dead. Find an unrelated living person to extort money from and leave the poor grieving family in peace.
The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?
Yes, it should not. However, "should" means nothing to Microsoft. As makes sense, given how they flagrantly violated anti-trust law and received no effective punishment despite being convicted.
It sounds like the 'black hats' will be able to bypass this security feature (which will be in all copies of Vista) but force security software companies to give up developing software for Windows.
What? Microsoft exploit its control of the operating system to destroy competitors? Surely you jest. HA HA HA!
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life it's the only weapon we have," Roger Rabbit
For $500 it'd better be the best. :-) The DSM-520 is less than half that. This is not meant as a pejorative comment, just a different-in-cost-range comment.
It's possible to tunnel Google Earth's data exchanges around whatever they're blocking?
The "Media PC" may not have arrived, but set-top boxes that allow you to access digital content in your living room are slowly making progress. I bought and abandoned the ViewSonic WMA100 after one too many crashes of its internal operating system, wtf that is, and reading on their website faq that no, they weren't planning on any updates -- way to kiss off future business, ViewSonic -- and replaced it with the D-Link DSM-520. Its internal software is also not perfect, but D-Link has been releasing updates. The vendor supplied server software may or may not be the most useful to you. ;-)
I don't think it's fair to blame Nintendo too much. They did the best they could with the technology available at the time, which as you say wasn't "there" yet. You can blame them for not reading the market correctly or underestimating the negative effect of the red display on usability. But as far as concept, build quality, and titles it was as well handled as the their other hardware platforms. As far as the LED color, green and yellow were both only slightly more costly than red at the time of the Virtual Boy (it was blue and only blue that didn't exist until 1996) and both are much easier on the eyes than red. Red being about the worst possible color to use. Funny how fast everyone forgot the lessons of the monochrome terminal era -- green is good, amber is better. If they'd gone with a green or yellow array and charged $499 it would probably have been more successful. As it was, it was both horribly expensive and horribly painful or at least harmful to use for extended periods. It came with a dire warning about not letting children under x (I forget the exact age) use it at all to avoid vision damage. Not. Good. Though admittedly I seem to have survived my multi-hour marathons of Wario Land and Red Alarm (another truely great game trapped on a dead platform) with no long term ill effects. Color perception sure took short term hits. :-/
The Virtual Boy wasn't a bad platform aside from the all red display and the insane price. Many of the games were excellent. Virtual Boy Wario Land is one of the best games in the Wario series. Two very enjoyable titles that were not mentioned in the article are Golf and 3D Tetris. Fwiw, the all red display and the insanely high price were limitations of the available technology at the time.
"1984" on the front, "Just a little behind schedule" on the back. Quite prophetic.
Well said.