Laws vary from state to state, but in some states it's illegal to use the passing lane while not passing. In most, if not all, other states the law strictly requires "slower traffic move right" and "passing" lanes are referred to as "fast lanes". Regardless of the state, you are most certainly in violation of the law.
In Texas, state law does not explicitly recognize the posted speed as the maximum allowable speed (posted limits are guidelines). If it can be shown that the posted speed is not justifiable then it is irrelevant (for example). Your claim that "you can't exceed the speed limit to pass" is simply incorrect. Besides, as a driver you aren't empowered to decide for others. You are required by law to yield right-of-way to faster traffic and we each have the freedom to choose our speed. Drive as slow as you want but get out of the fast lane.
As a driver, nothing entitles you to judge others or to drive deliberately discourteously. Remember that when you are rushing your loved one to the hospital.
"all it takes is for the device to report on suspiciously long periods without reception."
you mean like when it's parked in a garage?
I would expect my son's response to such a challenge would be "It must not work right". What are you going to do?
Frankly, I wouldn't be bothered to check such a device each time my child drove, just like I won't check security cameras. Too much trouble for questionable gain. What will you do with the information? It's a fantasy to think that you have control over your teenager.
Many teens aren't easily influenced by anything their parents will do anyway. Such was the case with my son. Of those that can be influenced, I question whether such a device is really useful. Besides, excessive speed while driving isn't what I'd be most concerned about. Drug/alcohol abuse and constant distractions (phone, friends, music) make teens bad drivers. Yes, some teens will drive excessive speeds but, frankly, I don't see how this device will have the slightest impact on that. They are liars, rebels, and cheats. I know because I had one.
"In fact, even driving 10-15mph over the speed limit greatly decreases control one has over their vehicle."
What kind of fact is that? What does the speed limit have to do with the amount of control a driver has? Are you saying that lowering the speed limit lowers drivers' control over the vehicle? That's exactly what your "fact" says.
If we set the speed limit to 0 all our traffic injuries would be solved, right?
"I understand that everyone needs to eat, but I don't see why any artist, no matter how great, thinks he or she needs to drink Cristal."
That is not strictly the domain of artists. Everyone is vulnerable to that disease.
Artists tend to get the big heads like elite athletes do; the camera is on them and they come to believe they are truly great. In their minds they're deserving.
An interesting thing about people coming into money is that, no matter their background, education, or talents, once wealthy they come to believe that they're wealthy because they are better. It doesn't matter if it's inherited wealth, earning power from privelege, or pure luck from the stock market boom. It's a rare exception that a man remains humble after attaining wealth.
It locks up frequently and required a battery removal to fix it. Often it grinds to a halt and takes over a minute to snap out of it. When I get calls it frequently jumps into the messaging app once I answer instead of the phone app. The email functions seems to be the greatest cause of stability problems so I avoid using email when it's not necessary. I still reset it more than once a day. Often I get no alerts on calls of text messages.
As far as ergonomics, the E61 is pretty bad. There's a nonprogrammable button that launches the voice recorder that's always getting activated by mistake. The messaging app is clunky and requires enormous numbers of key presses to get anything done. You can't program the main screen to launch favorite apps so 3rd party apps require navigating folders to start. Basically, it's as though no one has thought about how you'd like to use one. Sad since Nokia has been doing this so long.
As far as 3rd party apps go, there's no good alternative to several apps I like such as IM clients and Pocket Express. Games are not as good either IMO. WM5 has a great selection of apps and so does Palm. Symbian has a large global marketshare but there are so many variations that are incompatible.
I may be trying the SE 990. I had a 910 and the OS was very stable. The apps, on the other hand, were buggy and slow. Hopefully they'll be improved.
i agree. i don't know which is worse between the horrible usability and performance of WM5 and the wretched instability of PalmOS on the 650. The reset button is one of the more used features though. I know that for a fact.
I replaced my Treo 650 with a T-mobile MDA because the 650 was so unstable and it became clear that Palm would never fix it. Trouble was that the MDA was horribly slow, buggy, and poorly thought out. I replaced the MDA with a Nokia E61 (a Symbian device) and have found that it is also poorly thought out, difficult to use, and buggy as well. Very infuriating. Even though Nokia has used Symbian for a long time, 3rd party apps are in short supply and they still can't keep the device from crashing. I'm still looking for a full keyboard phone that works.
I agrees. MS faces a serious problem with having to support such vast amounts of hardware. If they control drivers themselves, which they've tried in the past, they can't hope to keep up. If they allow anyone to write drivers then their product image suffers. If they allow both then ultimately most all drivers won't get certified.
No doubt Apple can't be held responsible for bugs in 3rd party software. They are in a position to minimize the amount of hardware that is supported that way and they do a good job of that IMO. Not many are motivated to run 3rd party WiFi products.
It's sad that user errors or unexpected events can cause stability problems and even kernel panics but it's a fact of life. No product is perfect and my personal opinion is that both OS X and XP are good provided the hardware is stable. I've had more clear kernel problems in Linux recently than either of the other two (but that's distribution-specific as well).
What we're seeing here is a dance between the accusers and Apple. Neither will want to admit to being wrong. Ultimately what seems most fishy to me is why the demonstration didn't include Apple software if they knew that they could. I don't buy that Apple pressured them into avoiding it considering the nature of these programmers and their stated contempt for smugness in the mac community.
"As stated Sony doesn't make plasmas anymore, so of course they will be advocating LCDs since that is ALL they make!"
That argument would make sense if Sony never made or couldn't make plasmas. It makes much more sense to say that Sony doesn't make plasmas because they don't believe in them.
"You don't see Panasonic, Philips, or Pioneer putting this kind of crap out there because all three of them produce both LCDs AND plasmas."
Of course not. You wouldn't trash your own products even if they were trash.
"They will give you more straight up answers as to which one to use for your situation. Not this kind of PR sh---..."
No they won't. It's all "PR sh---".
It doesn't matter how a set is made. It only matters how it performs.
"If Dell determined that their notebooks blew up, they'd have to weigh the odds, the cost of litigation, and the cost of bad press versus the cost of fixing the problem."
If Dell determines that their notebooks blew up they wouldn't have to weigh anything. The cost of such a defective product would be obviously prohibitive and the product would never make out of system test in the first place.
If the problem were less obvious then what you say makes sense. You credit management with being far more capable and intelligent than they are, though, and anyone would have to expect any company (even Apple) to make a similar judgement. It's just business and management politics at work. I doubt Dell's middle management is any more stupid than the rest and that's a scary thought.
Funny that you worked for Dell for 6 years. I worked for Dell for 15 years starting before they went public. I witnessed the development of corporate culture there and was around in the early days before chasing the mighty dollar was the end-all-be-all of their existence. Dell is not an an evil, murderous corporation, it is simply one whose corporate motivation is maximizing stockholder value (one that it has historically done better than any other). Dell is a soul-less shell overrun by the shallow greed of incompetent middle management---a reflection of its longstanding corporate values. Where actual work gets done Dell has competence, though probably not as much as it should. Anyone who was really good got run off long ago.
On the flipside, Dell understands well the cost of customer service calls. Any machine that requires a single service becomes a net loss for the company because of the thin margins. People here seem to conveniently ignore that when they accuse Dell, or any other major supplier, of intentionally using inferior parts. Doing that makes terrible business sense, and in my history with the company it was more the rule that Dell struggled to qualify enough suppliers of certain parts, chiefly memory, because of quality concerns. Dell doesn't like to accept sole source suppliers due to its volume, yet it strives to have relatively few suppliers because it's cheaper and easier that way. Parts quality is paramount when margins are so low and Dell has mastered this year after year better than anyone.
Ultimately, Dell's mistakes are more likely due to incompetence than evil. Dell prefers not to employ engineering expertise because an engineer's salary is a fixed cost and fixed costs are the enemy of ROIC. Sad but true that Dell is happy paying management big money for doing nothing but not willing to pay anyone with a technical education.
Fascinating that calling someone out on an obvious flamebait post modded "+5 interesting" would itself get modded "-1 flamebait" despite having no flamebait content annd being entirely correct.
"We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something..."
Why did you leave off "We're not picking specifically on Macs here..."? Seems pretty relevant to the topic, doesn't it?
There appears to be plenty of ire to go around.
If anyone bothers to read the entire article, it's clear that the programmers have no special love for the smugness they perceive in the mac community. They also make clear that their security issue exists in multiple platforms and hardware implementations. They may be lying but, so far, nothing has been said or done to refute it.
You said that your kernel panic was mostly likely due to user error, a claim that's clearly not possible and you know it. What possible reason would you have for making such a silly statement other than making macs seem better than they are?
It's good that macs work well for you. No computers are perfect. Windows machines can vary a great deal in their stability due to the great number of suppliers of parts and drivers. Macs, due to their sole source nature, have an inherent stability advantage.
"It's not surprising at all that it turned out to be total bullshit."
Apple made no statement denying the claims. All the said was that a 3rd party adapter was used and that no flaw in their product had been demonstrated to them. Both could be telling the truth and both could be lying. Nothing new here.
"in general, I think the most probable conclusion is that these guys are full of shit."
What stake do you, or anyone here, have in Apple being shown innocent here?
"...their ire about the Mac community in general..."
When did they display that?
You clearly have an axe to grind with anyone who dares threaten the reputation of Apple. Ire indeed.
how can a user error produce a kernel panic without there being a flaw?
I run all my machines 24/7, they share resources on networks, and my mini isn't any more robust than my XP systems. It locks up periodically just like everything else. What is interesting is how frequently it goes unresponsive for long periods of time. The color wheel is one of it's most familiar mouse pointers to me. Perhaps it's a dying harddrive, but, considering that it's on its second motherboard and second harddrive, I'd say my mini isn't a paragon of home computing virtue. Quite the opposite.
"A Raid 0+1 can tolerate at least 1 arbitrary drive failure. This brings down one stripe set and so you are running essentially on a non-redundant volume. In the mean time, there are 4 disks running that also could fail with no additional consequences and 5 drives that would take down the volume."
RAID 1 (which includes RAID 0+1 and 1+0 except for the unintelligent) can tolerate precisely 1 arbitrary drive failure, no more and no less. It can tolerate perhaps more than one non-arbitrary failure but you can't choose which ones fail. The difference between 0+1 and 1+0 is internal implementation and the better choice is to stripe across mirrored pairs. Read the original RAID paper and you'll see that there is no reason for 1+0 or 0+1 termnology. That was invented by stupid programmers and marketers.
"Now, a better way availability wise against 0+1 would be 1+0. Drive failures wouldn't destroy all of the redundancy and there are better odds that the next drive failure would not bring it down."
You need to read up on RAID. There is no functional difference between those approaches and no need to even discuss them separately. The only possible outcome of distiguishing is being forced to do far more reconstruction work should a drive fail and your implementation is flawed. Read optimization may be harder as well. Ever written RAID firmware?
"He was first to make a notable stand on being responsible for the code you make."
I doubt it
"But the important algorythms [sic] he developed were used (and I'm sure that the developers of wordperfect even admitted it) in the word processors that followed."
Got any links? I don't recall any such admissions.
"TeX was certainly not a WYSIWYG, and while that was important innovation for the mac, that did not stop wordstar/wordperfect 5.1 from selling a millions of copies before the mac came along."
TeX was not an editor either, something that all wordprocessors are, WYSIWYG or not.
"Even though TeX was not a wordprocessor, it still provided a watershed moment for the wordprocessors that followed that any system specific text entry method earlier could not provide."
No other software in the day could provide what TeX did but that's not proof that TeX was a "watershed" for wordprocessors. TeX was not a wordprocessor and it's hard to prove that TeX had any significant impact on wordprocessors at all. Metafont was more likely to have impact IMO.
"First, TeX addressed a very important need for typesetting that was not being met at the time. But more importantly it was accessible, put in the public domain to promote the public interest (before gnu was even known widely, if at all), used key algorythms that would be incorporated in other programs that followed, and meaningful effort was made to make the code error free - all combine to make TeX truly great software. Outside of all the other huge contributions that Knuth has made."
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't make TeX the father of wordprocessors.
GCC is a free compiler of which there are many. It's novelty when it was new was its free-ness but didn't innovate in any particular way, and now it main feature is broad processor support (tho none especially well). It's a useful tool but not one that should appear anywhere on a list such as this. On the freeway of great software, GCC is an onramp (and one of many at that).
TeX is not a wordprocessor and certainly not the "father of all wordprocessors that followed". It's a typesetting system that compiles its results from a typesetting language.
Knuth also did not pay for each bug found in his code. Once his code was sufficiently stable he began doing so, but his "bounty hunters" editions were mainly for fun since the early ones only paid pennies. The real goal of a bounty hunter was to show off a trophy check written by Don Knuth; the cash itself was inconsequential.
Knuth is clearly one of the foremost computer scientists and has made countless contributions, but if you are speaking of TeX perhaps you should consider his concepts of literate programming as equally influential. I personally think Metafont is equally influential as well. Along with TeX, Knuth developed a tool to create a companion typeface of great sophistication and developed that typeface as well. TeX itself only contributes to wordprocessors today to the extent that Knuth developed typesetting algorithms. I would wager that not a line of Knuth code exists in any word processor, and if you'd ever seen such code gawdawful code outside its original source you'd understand why.
I would choose C over Java as well but I wouldn't put it how you did. Modern processors are designed to run compiled code fast rather than assembler code, and C's ubiquity means that ALL modern processors ultimately intend to run C fast. No processor is designed to run C per se, whereas there are processors specifically designed to run Java.
The fact is that there has been no language with as much impact, influence, and universal usefulness as C. C succeeded specifically as a viable alternative to assembler and that's what the world needed at the time. It allowed programmers to do what they wanted to do and was suitable for a huge range of applications including those where only assembler was used prior. Java is a flash in the pan by comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws vary from state to state, but in some states it's illegal to use the passing lane while not passing. In most, if not all, other states the law strictly requires "slower traffic move right" and "passing" lanes are referred to as "fast lanes". Regardless of the state, you are most certainly in violation of the law.
In Texas, state law does not explicitly recognize the posted speed as the maximum allowable speed (posted limits are guidelines). If it can be shown that the posted speed is not justifiable then it is irrelevant (for example). Your claim that "you can't exceed the speed limit to pass" is simply incorrect. Besides, as a driver you aren't empowered to decide for others. You are required by law to yield right-of-way to faster traffic and we each have the freedom to choose our speed. Drive as slow as you want but get out of the fast lane.
As a driver, nothing entitles you to judge others or to drive deliberately discourteously. Remember that when you are rushing your loved one to the hospital.
"all it takes is for the device to report on suspiciously long periods without reception."
you mean like when it's parked in a garage?
I would expect my son's response to such a challenge would be "It must not work right". What are you going to do?
Frankly, I wouldn't be bothered to check such a device each time my child drove, just like I won't check security cameras. Too much trouble for questionable gain. What will you do with the information? It's a fantasy to think that you have control over your teenager.
Many teens aren't easily influenced by anything their parents will do anyway. Such was the case with my son. Of those that can be influenced, I question whether such a device is really useful. Besides, excessive speed while driving isn't what I'd be most concerned about. Drug/alcohol abuse and constant distractions (phone, friends, music) make teens bad drivers. Yes, some teens will drive excessive speeds but, frankly, I don't see how this device will have the slightest impact on that. They are liars, rebels, and cheats. I know because I had one.
"In fact, even driving 10-15mph over the speed limit greatly decreases control one has over their vehicle."
What kind of fact is that? What does the speed limit have to do with the amount of control a driver has? Are you saying that lowering the speed limit lowers drivers' control over the vehicle? That's exactly what your "fact" says.
If we set the speed limit to 0 all our traffic injuries would be solved, right?
"I understand that everyone needs to eat, but I don't see why any artist, no matter how great, thinks he or she needs to drink Cristal."
That is not strictly the domain of artists. Everyone is vulnerable to that disease.
Artists tend to get the big heads like elite athletes do; the camera is on them and they come to believe they are truly great. In their minds they're deserving.
An interesting thing about people coming into money is that, no matter their background, education, or talents, once wealthy they come to believe that they're wealthy because they are better. It doesn't matter if it's inherited wealth, earning power from privelege, or pure luck from the stock market boom. It's a rare exception that a man remains humble after attaining wealth.
It's totally intuitive. You may not consider it ergonomic but you don't need to be trained to use it.
You might want to learn what "intuitive" means.
It locks up frequently and required a battery removal to fix it. Often it grinds to a halt and takes over a minute to snap out of it. When I get calls it frequently jumps into the messaging app once I answer instead of the phone app. The email functions seems to be the greatest cause of stability problems so I avoid using email when it's not necessary. I still reset it more than once a day. Often I get no alerts on calls of text messages.
As far as ergonomics, the E61 is pretty bad. There's a nonprogrammable button that launches the voice recorder that's always getting activated by mistake. The messaging app is clunky and requires enormous numbers of key presses to get anything done. You can't program the main screen to launch favorite apps so 3rd party apps require navigating folders to start. Basically, it's as though no one has thought about how you'd like to use one. Sad since Nokia has been doing this so long.
As far as 3rd party apps go, there's no good alternative to several apps I like such as IM clients and Pocket Express. Games are not as good either IMO. WM5 has a great selection of apps and so does Palm. Symbian has a large global marketshare but there are so many variations that are incompatible.
I may be trying the SE 990. I had a 910 and the OS was very stable. The apps, on the other hand, were buggy and slow. Hopefully they'll be improved.
i agree. i don't know which is worse between the horrible usability and performance of WM5 and the wretched instability of PalmOS on the 650. The reset button is one of the more used features though. I know that for a fact.
just wait---it gets worse (and worse and worse)
I replaced my Treo 650 with a T-mobile MDA because the 650 was so unstable and it became clear that Palm would never fix it. Trouble was that the MDA was horribly slow, buggy, and poorly thought out. I replaced the MDA with a Nokia E61 (a Symbian device) and have found that it is also poorly thought out, difficult to use, and buggy as well. Very infuriating. Even though Nokia has used Symbian for a long time, 3rd party apps are in short supply and they still can't keep the device from crashing. I'm still looking for a full keyboard phone that works.
my experience as well. The MDA is total garbage. Unfortunately, the Treo 650 would crash in the same ways and more fequently.
"And who's to say that the Windows Mobile OS won't crash just as much?"
I say for one. I've owned both and they're both horrible but nothing crashes as frequently as a Treo 650. It is pathetic.
"Plus you have to worry about viruses and security issues with Windows."
Virus and security concerns are not significantly different among mobile platforms. Windows Mobile is not Windows.
I agrees. MS faces a serious problem with having to support such vast amounts of hardware. If they control drivers themselves, which they've tried in the past, they can't hope to keep up. If they allow anyone to write drivers then their product image suffers. If they allow both then ultimately most all drivers won't get certified.
No doubt Apple can't be held responsible for bugs in 3rd party software. They are in a position to minimize the amount of hardware that is supported that way and they do a good job of that IMO. Not many are motivated to run 3rd party WiFi products.
It's sad that user errors or unexpected events can cause stability problems and even kernel panics but it's a fact of life. No product is perfect and my personal opinion is that both OS X and XP are good provided the hardware is stable. I've had more clear kernel problems in Linux recently than either of the other two (but that's distribution-specific as well).
What we're seeing here is a dance between the accusers and Apple. Neither will want to admit to being wrong. Ultimately what seems most fishy to me is why the demonstration didn't include Apple software if they knew that they could. I don't buy that Apple pressured them into avoiding it considering the nature of these programmers and their stated contempt for smugness in the mac community.
"As stated Sony doesn't make plasmas anymore, so of course they will be advocating LCDs since that is ALL they make!"
That argument would make sense if Sony never made or couldn't make plasmas. It makes much more sense to say that Sony doesn't make plasmas because they don't believe in them.
"You don't see Panasonic, Philips, or Pioneer putting this kind of crap out there because all three of them produce both LCDs AND plasmas."
Of course not. You wouldn't trash your own products even if they were trash.
"They will give you more straight up answers as to which one to use for your situation. Not this kind of PR sh---..."
No they won't. It's all "PR sh---".
It doesn't matter how a set is made. It only matters how it performs.
"If Dell determined that their notebooks blew up, they'd have to weigh the odds, the cost of litigation, and the cost of bad press versus the cost of fixing the problem."
If Dell determines that their notebooks blew up they wouldn't have to weigh anything. The cost of such a defective product would be obviously prohibitive and the product would never make out of system test in the first place.
If the problem were less obvious then what you say makes sense. You credit management with being far more capable and intelligent than they are, though, and anyone would have to expect any company (even Apple) to make a similar judgement. It's just business and management politics at work. I doubt Dell's middle management is any more stupid than the rest and that's a scary thought.
Funny that you worked for Dell for 6 years. I worked for Dell for 15 years starting before they went public. I witnessed the development of corporate culture there and was around in the early days before chasing the mighty dollar was the end-all-be-all of their existence. Dell is not an an evil, murderous corporation, it is simply one whose corporate motivation is maximizing stockholder value (one that it has historically done better than any other). Dell is a soul-less shell overrun by the shallow greed of incompetent middle management---a reflection of its longstanding corporate values. Where actual work gets done Dell has competence, though probably not as much as it should. Anyone who was really good got run off long ago.
On the flipside, Dell understands well the cost of customer service calls. Any machine that requires a single service becomes a net loss for the company because of the thin margins. People here seem to conveniently ignore that when they accuse Dell, or any other major supplier, of intentionally using inferior parts. Doing that makes terrible business sense, and in my history with the company it was more the rule that Dell struggled to qualify enough suppliers of certain parts, chiefly memory, because of quality concerns. Dell doesn't like to accept sole source suppliers due to its volume, yet it strives to have relatively few suppliers because it's cheaper and easier that way. Parts quality is paramount when margins are so low and Dell has mastered this year after year better than anyone.
Ultimately, Dell's mistakes are more likely due to incompetence than evil. Dell prefers not to employ engineering expertise because an engineer's salary is a fixed cost and fixed costs are the enemy of ROIC. Sad but true that Dell is happy paying management big money for doing nothing but not willing to pay anyone with a technical education.
Fascinating that calling someone out on an obvious flamebait post modded "+5 interesting" would itself get modded "-1 flamebait" despite having no flamebait content annd being entirely correct.
you mean this quote?
"We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something..."
Why did you leave off "We're not picking specifically on Macs here..."? Seems pretty relevant to the topic, doesn't it?
There appears to be plenty of ire to go around.
If anyone bothers to read the entire article, it's clear that the programmers have no special love for the smugness they perceive in the mac community. They also make clear that their security issue exists in multiple platforms and hardware implementations. They may be lying but, so far, nothing has been said or done to refute it.
"I never said OS X was without flaws."
You said that your kernel panic was mostly likely due to user error, a claim that's clearly not possible and you know it. What possible reason would you have for making such a silly statement other than making macs seem better than they are?
It's good that macs work well for you. No computers are perfect. Windows machines can vary a great deal in their stability due to the great number of suppliers of parts and drivers. Macs, due to their sole source nature, have an inherent stability advantage.
"It's not surprising at all that it turned out to be total bullshit."
Apple made no statement denying the claims. All the said was that a 3rd party adapter was used and that no flaw in their product had been demonstrated to them. Both could be telling the truth and both could be lying. Nothing new here.
"in general, I think the most probable conclusion is that these guys are full of shit."
What stake do you, or anyone here, have in Apple being shown innocent here?
"...their ire about the Mac community in general..."
When did they display that?
You clearly have an axe to grind with anyone who dares threaten the reputation of Apple. Ire indeed.
how can a user error produce a kernel panic without there being a flaw?
I run all my machines 24/7, they share resources on networks, and my mini isn't any more robust than my XP systems. It locks up periodically just like everything else. What is interesting is how frequently it goes unresponsive for long periods of time. The color wheel is one of it's most familiar mouse pointers to me. Perhaps it's a dying harddrive, but, considering that it's on its second motherboard and second harddrive, I'd say my mini isn't a paragon of home computing virtue. Quite the opposite.
..."and now they have been caught with their lies."
Have they been?
"...I didn't believe it then, nobody should have ever believed it without evidence,..."
Where is the evidence now?
"Shame on everyone who reported it without checking the facts."
What facts have you checked? The truth is there, but it's not clear we've seen any of it yet.
"A Raid 0+1 can tolerate at least 1 arbitrary drive failure. This brings down one stripe set and so you are running essentially on a non-redundant volume. In the mean time, there are 4 disks running that also could fail with no additional consequences and 5 drives that would take down the volume."
RAID 1 (which includes RAID 0+1 and 1+0 except for the unintelligent) can tolerate precisely 1 arbitrary drive failure, no more and no less. It can tolerate perhaps more than one non-arbitrary failure but you can't choose which ones fail. The difference between 0+1 and 1+0 is internal implementation and the better choice is to stripe across mirrored pairs. Read the original RAID paper and you'll see that there is no reason for 1+0 or 0+1 termnology. That was invented by stupid programmers and marketers.
"Now, a better way availability wise against 0+1 would be 1+0. Drive failures wouldn't destroy all of the redundancy and there are better odds that the next drive failure would not bring it down."
You need to read up on RAID. There is no functional difference between those approaches and no need to even discuss them separately. The only possible outcome of distiguishing is being forced to do far more reconstruction work should a drive fail and your implementation is flawed. Read optimization may be harder as well. Ever written RAID firmware?
"He was first to make a notable stand on being responsible for the code you make."
I doubt it
"But the important algorythms [sic] he developed were used (and I'm sure that the developers of wordperfect even admitted it) in the word processors that followed."
Got any links? I don't recall any such admissions.
"TeX was certainly not a WYSIWYG, and while that was important innovation for the mac, that did not stop wordstar/wordperfect 5.1 from selling a millions of copies before the mac came along."
TeX was not an editor either, something that all wordprocessors are, WYSIWYG or not.
"Even though TeX was not a wordprocessor, it still provided a watershed moment for the wordprocessors that followed that any system specific text entry method earlier could not provide."
No other software in the day could provide what TeX did but that's not proof that TeX was a "watershed" for wordprocessors. TeX was not a wordprocessor and it's hard to prove that TeX had any significant impact on wordprocessors at all. Metafont was more likely to have impact IMO.
"First, TeX addressed a very important need for typesetting that was not being met at the time. But more importantly it was accessible, put in the public domain to promote the public interest (before gnu was even known widely, if at all), used key algorythms that would be incorporated in other programs that followed, and meaningful effort was made to make the code error free - all combine to make TeX truly great software. Outside of all the other huge contributions that Knuth has made."
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't make TeX the father of wordprocessors.
GCC is a free compiler of which there are many. It's novelty when it was new was its free-ness but didn't innovate in any particular way, and now it main feature is broad processor support (tho none especially well). It's a useful tool but not one that should appear anywhere on a list such as this. On the freeway of great software, GCC is an onramp (and one of many at that).
TeX is not a wordprocessor and certainly not the "father of all wordprocessors that followed". It's a typesetting system that compiles its results from a typesetting language.
Knuth also did not pay for each bug found in his code. Once his code was sufficiently stable he began doing so, but his "bounty hunters" editions were mainly for fun since the early ones only paid pennies. The real goal of a bounty hunter was to show off a trophy check written by Don Knuth; the cash itself was inconsequential.
Knuth is clearly one of the foremost computer scientists and has made countless contributions, but if you are speaking of TeX perhaps you should consider his concepts of literate programming as equally influential. I personally think Metafont is equally influential as well. Along with TeX, Knuth developed a tool to create a companion typeface of great sophistication and developed that typeface as well. TeX itself only contributes to wordprocessors today to the extent that Knuth developed typesetting algorithms. I would wager that not a line of Knuth code exists in any word processor, and if you'd ever seen such code gawdawful code outside its original source you'd understand why.
I would choose C over Java as well but I wouldn't put it how you did. Modern processors are designed to run compiled code fast rather than assembler code, and C's ubiquity means that ALL modern processors ultimately intend to run C fast. No processor is designed to run C per se, whereas there are processors specifically designed to run Java.
The fact is that there has been no language with as much impact, influence, and universal usefulness as C. C succeeded specifically as a viable alternative to assembler and that's what the world needed at the time. It allowed programmers to do what they wanted to do and was suitable for a huge range of applications including those where only assembler was used prior. Java is a flash in the pan by comparison.