When you "calibrate" swap for specific uses, it becomes non-general.
Metric, not swap. I'm talking about compressing memory pages before swapping out, possibly to another memory region, and calibrating the metric to balance between CPU cycles used vs. disk traffick saved, possibly dynamically.
In that situation it is far better to let the application use on-disk storage, because _it_ knows the data profile.
And the OS knows the general state of the system. Also, virtual memory systems are far from trivial to create, and can't really be done via libraries or such since every memory access could potentially require swapping data in first so your algorithms get littered with calls to swap_in and swap_out. On the other hand, the OS can use hardware features to do this transparently.
There is no right to a game designed the way you would want to design it. Your right is to vote with your wallets. If the second companies instituted DRM everyone stopped buying their products, then companies would not see DRM as a valid business model.
The question is, do you have an obligation to follow a corrupt law enacted solely to protect corporate interests?
Copyright law, along with the Prohibition and the War on Drugs, are interesting case studies about the limits of law.
A "combined score" for speed and ratio is useless, as that relation is not linear.
A combined score could be quite useful when implementing, for example, compressed swap. Obviously you'd need to calibrate it for the specifics of a case.
true, i took the ** to note hyperbole but perhaps i shouldnt have made that leap
Seem more like emphasis to me. And besides, there is a qualitative rather than just quantitative difference between "many things", "most things" and "all things", so hyperbole is just a fancy term for lying in this case.
It is not actually possible to look at someone's post history*, which is clearly what you are counting on.
Just google site:slashdot.org "Zero__Kelvin (151819)".
Oh, I'm sorry, let me translate... "Don't you know how to motherfucking google, pinhead?" Was that correct? Does it need more fucks? Should I use "moron" instead? My Tough Nerd is a bit rusty.
We all like to think leaders all command respect and everyone just follows them because they're the leader. Bullshit. One technique, employed by MANY leaders is being a total fucking asshole, at least part of the time.
Yes, and the result it gets is that those who can, leave, and you're left with those desperate enough to put up with you taking your personal problems out on them. And even they will do their best to hide anything that might set you off from you, so you'll get the winning combo of bottom of the barrel workers and bad situational awareness.
You don't get respect by acting like an asshole. You get treated like the crazy person you are.
If you're coding GCC, maybe you might at least sub-consciously think "boy, I better not release utter shit, or I'll catch some serious shit from that asshole Linus Torvalds... what a cock gobbling asshole that Torvalds is".
Or you'll just start deleting messages from him without bothering to read them. If there's a serious bug, a person who isn't an asshole will report it eventually. Even if you're getting paid and must open the message, there are other bugs not submitted by assholes, and guess which - or rather, who - gets priority?
Is that the ONLY way to run an organization? Probably not, but as another thread points out, it's a common pattern of effective leaders.
It's a common pattern for people who get power, even through pure luck. Lots of people only behave because of peer pressure, and when that pressure eases a little, they lose control and degenerate into schoolyard bullies. That doesn't mean their behaviour was the reason of their success - especially since they only start manifesting it after gaining power - rather than a personality flaw that makes them less effective.
Compare this article about the rampant use of cocaine in Silicon Valley. Is the cocaine abuse there the reason to Silicon Valley's success, or a symptom?
No, the assumption is that when the private operator screws up he will get fired and replaced.
Thus he has an incentive to hide the mistake for as long as possible. At the same time he has an incentive to cut as many corners as possible to minimize costs, so he can make the lowest offer. You can counter these by making him unfirable for anything short of intentional sabotage, and by providing the contract at profit + costs, but then you have lost all the supposed benefits of privatization and are actually paying more - those profits.
Apparently you are unaware of this basic economic principle which those who push privatization take as a basic assumption.
Economics has nothing to do with either proposing or opposing privatization, it's all about ideology.
Greenpeace is for a move away from nuclear, coal and gas towards renewable energy sources.
But those renewable energy sources can't take the load, so in reality they're causing a move from nuclear to coal and gas.
Like what Germany is doing. In 30 or 40 years they will be nuclear and probably coal free as well.
And running on what? Hot air from election promises?
Just because you like what a politician is saying doesn't mean they're able to actually deliver. And just because you don't like an option doesn't mean there are better alternatives. Renewables cannot produce energy at a guaranteed rate, which means using them exclusively will result in rolling blackouts. I doubt germans are willing to put up with those, so either they return to nuclear power or continue using coal.
John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.
Which is fine if you have the resources to consider it right down to first principles and performing any relevant experiments yourself. If you don't, which is usually the case, then trust enters the picture. And that means an argument by Greenpeace has a high cost - they're untrustworthy, so you need to fact-check very thoroughly before accepting anything they say - and low expected return - they're untrustworthy, so an argument by them has a low chance of actually being correct - of consideration.
Effectively you harm yourself by dismissing things that could be beneficial for you, simply because you dislike the messenger.
Only until you take into account the opportunity cost. There are plenty of messengers so you have to decide how much of your limited resources to invest into considering each one's argument.
Greenpeace is crying wolf again, and maybe this time there really is one there, but is that likely enough to justify dropping what you're doing to go investigate?
And people ask me why I consider it immoral to vote...
Because you'd prefer a King who rules by Divine Right and doesn't need to try to hide his misdeeds, since there's nothing you can do about them anyway? Or are an anarchist who thinks any kind of governance is a bad thing?
The choices are unelected leaders, elected leaders or no leaders. If you find electing them immoral, then one of the others must, in your opinion, be a superior choice, since picking the best available option isn't immoral. So which one is it?
When installing software and are 'forced' to 'agree' to many paragraphs of legalese before the OK button will become clickable, do you tick "I agree" and think "I agree" or do you tick it whilst thinking "I'm only clicking 'I agree' because I've discovered that that's what's necessary to proceed to the next installation-step?"
When people cheer for a tinpot dictator, do they think "this guy is awesome" or "I'm only cheering because I've discovered that's what's necessary to avoid getting killed"?
Internalizes helplessness isn't about being deceived, that's called stupidity. Internalized helplessness is about saying "I agree" no matter what you think, because you don't think "I disagree" would go well for you. You're treating having to jump through hoops to use a software you've already purchased as a fact of life you can do nothing about. Your spirit has, in however small way, been broken; you've begun to accept the will of various institutions and forces of human creation as defining the very parameters of your life.
You're not rejecting the idea of helpless subjectdom, you're embodying it. And so do Americans as a whole, more and more every year, as the powers that be continue slipping out of their control and consequently carry their tasks out without any real oversight, to the point of insanity and beyond. That won't end well.
It's all the ones that are useless to serve or be eaten by humans that are going extinct.
The problem is, most animal species are useful in the same way as nails in a wall are useful: sure, you can remove one or two without any apparent ill effect, but keep taking them off and the roof will fall on your head.
Ecosystem is a machine, and while it can adjust to a part going missing or operational parameters changing that capacity has limits. Kill enough species or warm the world enough and you trigger a domino effect. It won't be the end of the world, but it will be the end of our world.
But of course the temptation to take just one more is too much. It just goes to show that human brains and mindset aren't actually fit to handle our current level of power. I wonder if this is the Great FIlter.
Creating a PR incident like this will not go without notice.
Yes... but what will the effect be? Will people avoid Southwest Airlines? Can they (afford to) avoid them? Or do they simply avoid any criticism since they know that will invite retaliation?
I think the US is already past the tipping point, where stories like this won't cause a backlash so much as accomodation. People can only be treated as helpless subjects of the powers that be for so long before they internalize the attitude, after all.
As to ending up in jail or dead, nothing I did was illegal. He brandished a weapon at me and I showed him I had a bigger one.
Escalating a fight when you don't need to is stupid and, in most places, illegal.
As to your second point, I looked for a point in it... and couldn't see an actual argument in it. Please rephrase.
Nuclear war is a bad thing, since it'll kill you. Promoting behaviour that leads to it is stupid.
As to your third point, I have millions of years of natural selection humming in my veins. I am not some skittish herd beast. I not a rat. I am not a rabbit.
No, you're just some dude with serious impulse control issues and delusions of grandieur.
I am a homo sapian. A man. I'm the ape that cracks atoms and marks his territory on the moon.
Claiming credit for other people's achievements is not the least bit impressive.
You are of the opinion that nothing bad happens to men and it always happens to women.
Nope. I'm just doubting the OP.
You are doubting the OP solely on the basis that the OP is a male, since that's the only information you have about him. That only makes sense if you're of the opinion that nothing bad ever happens to men.
That is how a man deals with a threat of violence.
If he wants to end up dead or in jail, yes. Smart people simply speed away from the dumbass who's chasing a car on foot, and maybe report him to the police.
Men don't ask for that. We protect ourselves. Up to the point of going to thermonuclear war. Literally.
And you see this as such a desirable result that not only do you not seek to change your ways, but you actively recommend others to embrace them?
You realize that there's more difference between your average man and your average woman than between your average NFL linebacker and your average man, right? (seriously, compare the stats some time - height, average bench strength, etc). You do realize how commonly women are raped and abused by men, and how they might happen to be more sensitive to the implicit or explicit threats of violence from someone that they're highly unlikely to be able to fight off?
You know, if you complain about violence against your group yet dismiss violence against another group as inconsequential, you aren't likely to get - or deserve, for that matter - much sympathy, especially from that other group.
This is something many feminists - and other rights groups as well - seem to be unable to comprehend: you can get most people to back equality. You can't get them to back a power grab. No matter how justified you believe yourself, if you dismiss everyone's pain but yours then of course they're going to dismiss yours, and rightly so.
I'm tall, 182 centimeters, and I still once had a guy literally pick me up and carry me back to his apartment when I tried to walk away from him.
And I had a guy pull a knife on me. But that doesn't matter since I'm a man, and thus don't have a woman's sensitivity, right? Testicles make me immune to fear and pain, thus violence and threats against me don't count. Only real human beings like you matter. I can bloody well just "stop being a sissy", since unlike you, I don't have feelings. Someone attacking you is a tragedy, but someone attacking me is of no importance because, after all, I have a penis.
Sexist creep.
Re:I would like (just) a web browser please
on
Firefox 31 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Any chance we can just have a web browser which just does normal browsing, doesn't take hundreds of MB to run, and starts in under a couple of seconds ?
Next you'll be asking it to not leak memory like a sieve.
Smallpox isn't a weapon. Smallpox is a disease. Should someone be stupid enough to re-introduce it to the world, it will circle back and hit them, too. So the only thing destroying live smallpox samples does is reduce the chances of a catastrophic screw-up.
If Communism never actually existed, then what the heck was the deal with USSR, China, E. Germany, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, et al.? There are a lot of nations that insist they are following some Communist ideal, why would the non-practiced version be any more valid than the one these countries actually implemented?
North Korea insists it's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", does that mean it really is a democracy?
Propaganda and reality rarely have much to do with each other.
I suppose I'm discussing with some ukrainian "patriot".
A Finn who saw the scars your attempt to conquer our country left on innocent people. And now you're doing the exact same thing again - you prop up a puppet regime and have it request help. Only your puppet got ousted, so now you're going with plan B: russian troops posing as rebels.
Uncle Sam wants to fight "bad russkies" and he wants to do this with your hands beacuse it's cheaper.
You're wasting your time. Everyone who has the bad luck to live next to Russia knows the truth about you.
I'm so glad to see they can now sit and accomplish nothing under a welfare system that pacifies them by providing their basic needs and no more, while providing a disincentive to actually bettering themselves.
But if they bettered themselves, they would not be picking produce for sub-subsistence wages, now would they? So those poor farmers would still have to ship in exploitable people so you could keep getting produce for below its actual cost of production. Which is what this is really about: you want stuff for below its actual cost, even if this means exploiting desperate people.
In other words, you are against minimum wage because it makes it harder to transfer wealth from poor people to you. Damn looter.
Slashdot Mirror
Metric, not swap. I'm talking about compressing memory pages before swapping out, possibly to another memory region, and calibrating the metric to balance between CPU cycles used vs. disk traffick saved, possibly dynamically.
And the OS knows the general state of the system. Also, virtual memory systems are far from trivial to create, and can't really be done via libraries or such since every memory access could potentially require swapping data in first so your algorithms get littered with calls to swap_in and swap_out. On the other hand, the OS can use hardware features to do this transparently.
Yes, you do. And English too.
The question is, do you have an obligation to follow a corrupt law enacted solely to protect corporate interests?
Copyright law, along with the Prohibition and the War on Drugs, are interesting case studies about the limits of law.
A combined score could be quite useful when implementing, for example, compressed swap. Obviously you'd need to calibrate it for the specifics of a case.
Seem more like emphasis to me. And besides, there is a qualitative rather than just quantitative difference between "many things", "most things" and "all things", so hyperbole is just a fancy term for lying in this case.
Just google site:slashdot.org "Zero__Kelvin (151819)".
Oh, I'm sorry, let me translate... "Don't you know how to motherfucking google, pinhead?" Was that correct? Does it need more fucks? Should I use "moron" instead? My Tough Nerd is a bit rusty.
Yes, and the result it gets is that those who can, leave, and you're left with those desperate enough to put up with you taking your personal problems out on them. And even they will do their best to hide anything that might set you off from you, so you'll get the winning combo of bottom of the barrel workers and bad situational awareness.
You don't get respect by acting like an asshole. You get treated like the crazy person you are.
Or you'll just start deleting messages from him without bothering to read them. If there's a serious bug, a person who isn't an asshole will report it eventually. Even if you're getting paid and must open the message, there are other bugs not submitted by assholes, and guess which - or rather, who - gets priority?
It's a common pattern for people who get power, even through pure luck. Lots of people only behave because of peer pressure, and when that pressure eases a little, they lose control and degenerate into schoolyard bullies. That doesn't mean their behaviour was the reason of their success - especially since they only start manifesting it after gaining power - rather than a personality flaw that makes them less effective.
Compare this article about the rampant use of cocaine in Silicon Valley. Is the cocaine abuse there the reason to Silicon Valley's success, or a symptom?
So, Divine Right of the Kings with you wielding it?
Thus he has an incentive to hide the mistake for as long as possible. At the same time he has an incentive to cut as many corners as possible to minimize costs, so he can make the lowest offer. You can counter these by making him unfirable for anything short of intentional sabotage, and by providing the contract at profit + costs, but then you have lost all the supposed benefits of privatization and are actually paying more - those profits.
Economics has nothing to do with either proposing or opposing privatization, it's all about ideology.
But those renewable energy sources can't take the load, so in reality they're causing a move from nuclear to coal and gas.
And running on what? Hot air from election promises?
Just because you like what a politician is saying doesn't mean they're able to actually deliver. And just because you don't like an option doesn't mean there are better alternatives. Renewables cannot produce energy at a guaranteed rate, which means using them exclusively will result in rolling blackouts. I doubt germans are willing to put up with those, so either they return to nuclear power or continue using coal.
Which is fine if you have the resources to consider it right down to first principles and performing any relevant experiments yourself. If you don't, which is usually the case, then trust enters the picture. And that means an argument by Greenpeace has a high cost - they're untrustworthy, so you need to fact-check very thoroughly before accepting anything they say - and low expected return - they're untrustworthy, so an argument by them has a low chance of actually being correct - of consideration.
Only until you take into account the opportunity cost. There are plenty of messengers so you have to decide how much of your limited resources to invest into considering each one's argument.
Greenpeace is crying wolf again, and maybe this time there really is one there, but is that likely enough to justify dropping what you're doing to go investigate?
Because you'd prefer a King who rules by Divine Right and doesn't need to try to hide his misdeeds, since there's nothing you can do about them anyway? Or are an anarchist who thinks any kind of governance is a bad thing?
The choices are unelected leaders, elected leaders or no leaders. If you find electing them immoral, then one of the others must, in your opinion, be a superior choice, since picking the best available option isn't immoral. So which one is it?
Try bushes. Once they take root, they don't really need anything, can last for decades, and are fast and easy to harvest.
When people cheer for a tinpot dictator, do they think "this guy is awesome" or "I'm only cheering because I've discovered that's what's necessary to avoid getting killed"?
Internalizes helplessness isn't about being deceived, that's called stupidity. Internalized helplessness is about saying "I agree" no matter what you think, because you don't think "I disagree" would go well for you. You're treating having to jump through hoops to use a software you've already purchased as a fact of life you can do nothing about. Your spirit has, in however small way, been broken; you've begun to accept the will of various institutions and forces of human creation as defining the very parameters of your life.
You're not rejecting the idea of helpless subjectdom, you're embodying it. And so do Americans as a whole, more and more every year, as the powers that be continue slipping out of their control and consequently carry their tasks out without any real oversight, to the point of insanity and beyond. That won't end well.
The problem is, most animal species are useful in the same way as nails in a wall are useful: sure, you can remove one or two without any apparent ill effect, but keep taking them off and the roof will fall on your head.
Ecosystem is a machine, and while it can adjust to a part going missing or operational parameters changing that capacity has limits. Kill enough species or warm the world enough and you trigger a domino effect. It won't be the end of the world, but it will be the end of our world.
But of course the temptation to take just one more is too much. It just goes to show that human brains and mindset aren't actually fit to handle our current level of power. I wonder if this is the Great FIlter.
What's this socialist bullshit about providing a "free" knife? Use your shoelaces to strangle people, hippie.
Yes... but what will the effect be? Will people avoid Southwest Airlines? Can they (afford to) avoid them? Or do they simply avoid any criticism since they know that will invite retaliation?
I think the US is already past the tipping point, where stories like this won't cause a backlash so much as accomodation. People can only be treated as helpless subjects of the powers that be for so long before they internalize the attitude, after all.
Escalating a fight when you don't need to is stupid and, in most places, illegal.
Nuclear war is a bad thing, since it'll kill you. Promoting behaviour that leads to it is stupid.
No, you're just some dude with serious impulse control issues and delusions of grandieur.
Claiming credit for other people's achievements is not the least bit impressive.
Why?
You are doubting the OP solely on the basis that the OP is a male, since that's the only information you have about him. That only makes sense if you're of the opinion that nothing bad ever happens to men.
If he wants to end up dead or in jail, yes. Smart people simply speed away from the dumbass who's chasing a car on foot, and maybe report him to the police.
And you see this as such a desirable result that not only do you not seek to change your ways, but you actively recommend others to embrace them?
Dude, Broforce is fiction.
Grow up or die. Next crazy dude you humiliate might come visit you with ten friends. Natural selection only has so much patience for your bullshit.
You know, if you complain about violence against your group yet dismiss violence against another group as inconsequential, you aren't likely to get - or deserve, for that matter - much sympathy, especially from that other group.
This is something many feminists - and other rights groups as well - seem to be unable to comprehend: you can get most people to back equality. You can't get them to back a power grab. No matter how justified you believe yourself, if you dismiss everyone's pain but yours then of course they're going to dismiss yours, and rightly so.
And I had a guy pull a knife on me. But that doesn't matter since I'm a man, and thus don't have a woman's sensitivity, right? Testicles make me immune to fear and pain, thus violence and threats against me don't count. Only real human beings like you matter. I can bloody well just "stop being a sissy", since unlike you, I don't have feelings. Someone attacking you is a tragedy, but someone attacking me is of no importance because, after all, I have a penis.
Sexist creep.
Next you'll be asking it to not leak memory like a sieve.
Smallpox isn't a weapon. Smallpox is a disease. Should someone be stupid enough to re-introduce it to the world, it will circle back and hit them, too. So the only thing destroying live smallpox samples does is reduce the chances of a catastrophic screw-up.
North Korea insists it's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", does that mean it really is a democracy?
Propaganda and reality rarely have much to do with each other.
A Finn who saw the scars your attempt to conquer our country left on innocent people. And now you're doing the exact same thing again - you prop up a puppet regime and have it request help. Only your puppet got ousted, so now you're going with plan B: russian troops posing as rebels.
You're wasting your time. Everyone who has the bad luck to live next to Russia knows the truth about you.
And Otto Wille Kuusinen was a Finn and Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian. Good luck on your chosen career.
Then stop working for a madman.
But if they bettered themselves, they would not be picking produce for sub-subsistence wages, now would they? So those poor farmers would still have to ship in exploitable people so you could keep getting produce for below its actual cost of production. Which is what this is really about: you want stuff for below its actual cost, even if this means exploiting desperate people.
In other words, you are against minimum wage because it makes it harder to transfer wealth from poor people to you. Damn looter.