Right, so you wouldn't punch a guy who called your mom, or someone close to you, a whore? We have to know exactly all those things that provoked Jeremy to punch this guy instead of rushing to a quick and inaccurate judgement.
Even if the guy intentionally put his food in the refrigerator, it would not justify flipping out and yelling for 20 minutes
The refrigerator thing would definitely deserve being yelled at, don't you think? Employees have been fired for lesser offences.
They say it was an unprovoked physical attack. Are they sure this producer wasn't behaving in a manner (both at the time of this incident and before) to provoke this exact type of response? For eg., what was his reason for serving cold food?
That flush() call is unnecessary. The writer object calls flush() as part of close()ing the stream. The writer object also flushes its buffer periodically to disk as it fills up due to the write() calls.
The point is about assuming that disk write will be slower, when, in real life, some specific programs can be sped up by writing directly to disk.
No, you can't speed up something by using something that is at least 10,000 times slower than the alternative.
// Second part: disk-only try { writer = new BufferedWriter( new FileWriter("test.txt")); startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) { writer.write(addString); } writer.flush(); writer.close(); endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
Their so-called code that "directly writes to disk" in fact writes several KB to memory (using a BufferedWriter object) and then writes that memory to disk at several intervals. So their argument that disk-based code can be faster than memory-based code is completely false in this case.
This is what the javadocs for BufferedWriter state:
Writes text to a character-output stream, buffering characters so as to provide for the efficient writing of single characters, arrays, and strings.
The buffer size may be specified, or the default size may be accepted. The default is large enough for most purposes.
There's nothing wrong with Java or Python, but the programmer is inexperienced. Java and Python strings are immutable. So, any time they concatenate a single character to an existing string, the Java runtime creates a brand new string, leaving the original string intact (since it is immutable). So if they create a million character string using using million concatenations, guess what, a million new strings are created and that's very slow. A better solution is to use a mutable String aka, StringBuilder.
But the right solution is to use a small buffer, say 16KB to 100KB in size, fill that with characters and flush that buffer to disk every time it's full. The speed would be same as any other method, but the max memory used is 20x smaller.
I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't give a crap about what 99% of developers do or say.
When most mobile developers make 1/5th or 1/10th minimum wage, you can treat them like panhandlers -- no respect. Even though the millions of 99 cent/free apps are the main and only reason Apple has sold hundreds of millions of iPhones/iPads. If desktops and laptops had such a vast array of apps created by modern-day slave labor, I doubt people would use the inferior, small screen phones or tablets.
Yes, they are so strict about commercial use they don't even allow non-profit orgs to make money off it. According to the ncr faq:
12. Can Non-Commercial RenderMan be used to create content by cultural, religious, or other 501c(3) non-profit organizations that generate revenue through entrance or member fees, service charges, subscriptions etc?
If a fee is charged to access content that is created by Non-Commercial RenderMan, then that usage falls into the category of commercial use. We appreciate there are borderline situations so please contact us at rendermansales@pixar.com if you require additional clarification.
Tablets are huge sellers, second only to smartphones, which outsell everything else by massive margins.
Any idea why tablets outsell laptops? I think it's because tablets have millions of apps for a dollar or for free. However, if you were to use tablets for 2-3 hours a day, won't you get arm/hand strain from carrying the tablet for hours at a time. There is no such strain with laptops as you typically place them on a table and don't have to carry them. Tablet type devices are useful for occasional use (like on Star Trek). But for constant use, laptops/desktops are far superior, ergonomically.
How else will you determine whether someone is worthy of entry to the next level of education or a job? Aren't job interviews tests? Do you just ship software to customers without doing any testing?
Socrates needed no tests. Buddha never taught with a closed fist holding some knowledge back.
These people loved knowledge and were probably already well off. To other people, education is a means to getting a job and therefore, survival.
... which millions of people use to connect to the internet... and there are dozens (thousands) of bugs still hidden where that bug came from. Do you still think browsers should be allowed for serious stuff like online banking, home automation and online elections?
And how do you know the binary code running on the server was generated using exactly the same open source code you have been provided with? IOW, the code could be modified without the customer knowing about privacy breaches. Don't be so naive when it comes to security.
The problem is the browser they switch to is very likely inferior to google search, so they won't switch search engines. Meanwhile Google is promoting their inferior non-search services on their search service to the detriment of the customer. Do you see the problem now?
The problem here is Google has over 75% of the search engine market and is pretty much the gateway to the Internet to many users. It should not be abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote their other non-monopoly services over that of their competitors' services.
As does Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and all the others which have complementary products and services
Maybe that's wrong. But Google search is a monopoly and the impact of abuse is greater.
If automated driving is so perfect, are you willing to fly in a pilot-less commercial plane? No? Remember, planes don't have deal with as much traffic as cars, and yet it not 100% automated. What does that tell you? If automated flying with little traffic is difficult, driving automation is not a fully solved problem, and won't be, for many decades.
Is this something people actually want, empty marketing rhetoric, or a frightening imminent example of 'manufactured consent'?
I definitely think this is manufactured consent. How many drivers complained they don't want to drive anymore? Maybe a few, but the vast majority of the drivers do enjoy driving. Being a passenger all the time sucks. For these people, self-driving cars are a solution to a non-existent problem.
What would be a lot of fun would be the rednecks encountering many state troopers a mile or so ahead. That's because these self-driving cars are made by Google so it will have all types of sensors up the wazoo. The second the car detects it's being "attacked," it will send a distress call over wifi, along with the license plates of the attackers.
This though, is the reason I don't like self-driving cars. The car manufacturer and the govt can track your every move. It's a ridiculous invasion of privacy.
Wait till there are 5 or 6 electric car manufacturers building cars similar to Tesla. At that point, do you one separate, unique showroom per brand? That seems like a waste of space, salesmen, and mechanics. A more practical solution would be 3 car brands per dealership.
But what if Apple, Microsoft and Google ban such apps from using NFC for payment or they have proprietary API not shared with app developers that you need to make an Apple Pay clone? After all, despite millions of apps, only 4 or 5 app stores exist in the mobile world and they belong to Apple, Google, Microsoft and other mobile OS vendors.
But what do you think about the blank space around keys? Isn't that kind non-user friendly and non-ergonomic? Does it use a mechanical switch or those ugly rubber dome key switches?
The target person's smile looks completely computer-generated and not natural at all. They are very far from a toothpaste smile. Real actors in movies need not fear Hollywood replacing them with no-acting-talent pretty faces.
As far as lunches go, I can and do get them cheaply by buying materials and making them myself.
I'm not talking about ordinary home-cooked meals, but tasty restaurant meals created by expert cooks. I'm willing to pay the cook for the ingredients + hourly wage + rent of his kitchen tools/or he can borrow my kitchen utensils.
My condition: the restaurant open sources all its recipes, so no we don't pay for any trade-secret IP.
Adding up these costs results in 1/5th the cost we pay at restaurants. Why should we pay so much for the IP and renting a table/chair for an hour or so?
No cost to anybody else involved. No noticeable use of scarce labor or materials.
But I specifically selected examples where labor or materials are not scarce. Cooking is thousands of years old, and cars, hundreds of years old. If I were to pay for all the materials and labor required to build cars, or prepare food the cost would be a tiny fraction of what we pay in retail. Why should we pay so much for non-digital IP? If you agree to apply the same low cost to physical products (which are simply, IP + raw materials), we can agree to reduce the cost of digital goods.
Why do you care about how a product is embodied: physical or digital? It requires the same cost structure (maybe more upfront costs than physical products), talent and genius to create both types of products. So why should you have the right to pay little for digital goods?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so you wouldn't punch a guy who called your mom, or someone close to you, a whore? We have to know exactly all those things that provoked Jeremy to punch this guy instead of rushing to a quick and inaccurate judgement.
The refrigerator thing would definitely deserve being yelled at, don't you think? Employees have been fired for lesser offences.
They say it was an unprovoked physical attack. Are they sure this producer wasn't behaving in a manner (both at the time of this incident and before) to provoke this exact type of response? For eg., what was his reason for serving cold food?
That flush() call is unnecessary. The writer object calls flush() as part of close()ing the stream. The writer object also flushes its buffer periodically to disk as it fills up due to the write() calls.
No, you can't speed up something by using something that is at least 10,000 times slower than the alternative.
try {
writer = new BufferedWriter( new FileWriter("test.txt"));
startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
writer.write(addString);
}
writer.flush();
writer.close();
endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
Their so-called code that "directly writes to disk" in fact writes several KB to memory (using a BufferedWriter object) and then writes that memory to disk at several intervals. So their argument that disk-based code can be faster than memory-based code is completely false in this case.
This is what the javadocs for BufferedWriter state:
There's nothing wrong with Java or Python, but the programmer is inexperienced. Java and Python strings are immutable. So, any time they concatenate a single character to an existing string, the Java runtime creates a brand new string, leaving the original string intact (since it is immutable). So if they create a million character string using using million concatenations, guess what, a million new strings are created and that's very slow. A better solution is to use a mutable String aka, StringBuilder.
But the right solution is to use a small buffer, say 16KB to 100KB in size, fill that with characters and flush that buffer to disk every time it's full. The speed would be same as any other method, but the max memory used is 20x smaller.
When most mobile developers make 1/5th or 1/10th minimum wage, you can treat them like panhandlers -- no respect. Even though the millions of 99 cent/free apps are the main and only reason Apple has sold hundreds of millions of iPhones/iPads. If desktops and laptops had such a vast array of apps created by modern-day slave labor, I doubt people would use the inferior, small screen phones or tablets.
Is it TCP/IP over hot air? If so, who installed the server software on the air-gapped PC?
Yes, but it's also an opportunity for many nerds to learn 3D rendering using a professional tool, for free.
Yes, they are so strict about commercial use they don't even allow non-profit orgs to make money off it.
According to the ncr faq:
Sure, as long as you don't re-sell the beer or use it somehow to make money (eg: in-house software for corp).
Any idea why tablets outsell laptops? I think it's because tablets have millions of apps for a dollar or for free. However, if you were to use tablets for 2-3 hours a day, won't you get arm/hand strain from carrying the tablet for hours at a time. There is no such strain with laptops as you typically place them on a table and don't have to carry them. Tablet type devices are useful for occasional use (like on Star Trek). But for constant use, laptops/desktops are far superior, ergonomically.
How else will you determine whether someone is worthy of entry to the next level of education or a job? Aren't job interviews tests? Do you just ship software to customers without doing any testing?
These people loved knowledge and were probably already well off. To other people, education is a means to getting a job and therefore, survival.
... which millions of people use to connect to the internet... and there are dozens (thousands) of bugs still hidden where that bug came from. Do you still think browsers should be allowed for serious stuff like online banking, home automation and online elections?
And how do you know the binary code running on the server was generated using exactly the same open source code you have been provided with? IOW, the code could be modified without the customer knowing about privacy breaches. Don't be so naive when it comes to security.
The problem is the browser they switch to is very likely inferior to google search, so they won't switch search engines. Meanwhile Google is promoting their inferior non-search services on their search service to the detriment of the customer. Do you see the problem now?
The problem here is Google has over 75% of the search engine market and is pretty much the gateway to the Internet to many users. It should not be abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote their other non-monopoly services over that of their competitors' services.
Maybe that's wrong. But Google search is a monopoly and the impact of abuse is greater.
If automated driving is so perfect, are you willing to fly in a pilot-less commercial plane? No? Remember, planes don't have deal with as much traffic as cars, and yet it not 100% automated. What does that tell you? If automated flying with little traffic is difficult, driving automation is not a fully solved problem, and won't be, for many decades.
I definitely think this is manufactured consent. How many drivers complained they don't want to drive anymore? Maybe a few, but the vast majority of the drivers do enjoy driving. Being a passenger all the time sucks. For these people, self-driving cars are a solution to a non-existent problem.
What would be a lot of fun would be the rednecks encountering many state troopers a mile or so ahead. That's because these self-driving cars are made by Google so it will have all types of sensors up the wazoo. The second the car detects it's being "attacked," it will send a distress call over wifi, along with the license plates of the attackers.
This though, is the reason I don't like self-driving cars. The car manufacturer and the govt can track your every move. It's a ridiculous invasion of privacy.
Wait till there are 5 or 6 electric car manufacturers building cars similar to Tesla. At that point, do you one separate, unique showroom per brand? That seems like a waste of space, salesmen, and mechanics. A more practical solution would be 3 car brands per dealership.
But what if Apple, Microsoft and Google ban such apps from using NFC for payment or they have proprietary API not shared with app developers that you need to make an Apple Pay clone? After all, despite millions of apps, only 4 or 5 app stores exist in the mobile world and they belong to Apple, Google, Microsoft and other mobile OS vendors.
But what do you think about the blank space around keys? Isn't that kind non-user friendly and non-ergonomic? Does it use a mechanical switch or those ugly rubber dome key switches?
According to that graph, 5% more IE users are likely to quit compared to FF users. So hire only FF users to save money?
The target person's smile looks completely computer-generated and not natural at all. They are very far from a toothpaste smile. Real actors in movies need not fear Hollywood replacing them with no-acting-talent pretty faces.
I'm not talking about ordinary home-cooked meals, but tasty restaurant meals created by expert cooks. I'm willing to pay the cook for the ingredients + hourly wage + rent of his kitchen tools/or he can borrow my kitchen utensils.
My condition: the restaurant open sources all its recipes, so no we don't pay for any trade-secret IP.
Adding up these costs results in 1/5th the cost we pay at restaurants. Why should we pay so much for the IP and renting a table/chair for an hour or so?
But I specifically selected examples where labor or materials are not scarce. Cooking is thousands of years old, and cars, hundreds of years old. If I were to pay for all the materials and labor required to build cars, or prepare food the cost would be a tiny fraction of what we pay in retail. Why should we pay so much for non-digital IP? If you agree to apply the same low cost to physical products (which are simply, IP + raw materials), we can agree to reduce the cost of digital goods.
Why do you care about how a product is embodied: physical or digital? It requires the same cost structure (maybe more upfront costs than physical products), talent and genius to create both types of products. So why should you have the right to pay little for digital goods?