True, but if you behave like an ass when expressing your opinion you will be moderated accordingly.
Good grief. "-1 I wouldn't have said it that way" isn't a valid mod option either.
Face it. Moderation here is pitifully lame because there is zero relevant accountability. No after-the-fact hand slapping does anything at all to recover a ruined post. I almost always end up spending my mod points trying to undo asshat "I disagree", "I'm offended", "I'm republican", "I'm shedding SJW tears of the eyelash forest", "I'm democrat", "I'm libertarian" moderation malfuckery. Not to mention having to spend mod points correcting mod stalking, where those with mod points go around modding their "enemies" down. It's obvious, but it's a real waste of a very scarce resource -- there are tons of good AC posts, for instance, that deserve more than a zero. Not to mention interesting opinion and true bit, pieces and whole blobs of good information mods clearly "don't like" something about, such as your "I don't like the way you put that" concept. Another problem that arises is that when a mod point has to be spent correcting a pernicious or wrongheaded moderation, it can't be spent bringing a good post into higher profile. And mod points are scarce, so this really has an impact.
Some moderation is also astonishingly deficient in dealing with humor and wordplay (case in point, look up at first few posts in this story.)
The only *possible* way these problems can be remediated under the current system is to get someone sane, or several someone's, into a position where they can moderate continuously (and without crippling their ability to participate -- for instance, although I have the time, and I like spending time on slashdot, I wouldn't be the least interested in such a position if it meant I could only comment anonymously anywhere I moderated. I can barely tolerate it now, with it only impacting me every few days, for only one story.)
As always, the posts represent a large portion of the site's actual value; the moderation system as it stands reduces that value more often than it increases it.
My own partial solution to the broken moderation system here is to browse at -1 all the time so that irresponsible (and worse) moderation can't hide things from me. It doesn't solve the problem of good posts being excised from some (or all) of the conversation, but at least I get to read what they said in the first place.
I know, I know. First rule of moderation club is "-1 offtopic, don't talk about moderation." That's likely a large part of why it never gets fixed, too.
Sorry, this isn't that serious. You can't just walk up to a geisha 1 day and in fits and starts handle all the encoding black-hattery of some random pasha 1 character per line. Seriously, duh All this won't flip anyone's ricksha 1 morning. Another thing: SSL's still safe. At best it's a 1-time (or... maybe 2) opportunity to replace someone's kasha 1 grain at a time. But probably 1
They think we'll just lap this stuff up. But I'm here to wave it off. Not just to rip tides, but to surf something else entirely. This kind of article-fishing eventually turns into website breakers. Which is to say, the editors are all wet.
Yes, if you really did something bad, it needs to be addressed.
No, the system cannot be counted on to address it proportionally or responsibly.
No, you should not ever, and I mean ever, freely converse about anything within the context of our (note USA-centric presumption) current legal system. A lawyer should do that. You can make your situation much, much worse in very short order with as little as one "yes" or "no." Worse in a context where "worse" can be far more severe than anything that was actually appropriate.
Confine your responses to politely agreeable responses to specific commands for compliance WRT your custody from the officers. Anything else: "That will have to be addressed to my lawyer, sir." First thing -- and the only thing -- you really need to say, politely, contextually, WRT to any accusations or charges, is "Lawyer."
When they say, as they almost certainly will, that your compliance with them may ease your penalties, you say "Thank you, I understand that, and will convey that to my lawyer as soon as possible." Nothing else. Nothing. Until you do, in fact, discuss it with your lawyer.
The previous events seem to point towards a problem in the company's culture, rather than just a couple engineers. Maybe I'm too cynical. But that's what it "smells" like.
No, it isn't 4.91% of their OS market share. It's 4.91% of all the machines on the net, of which Windows and OS X are both going to be pretty much mostly there. Read again. "Desktop Operating System Market Share" -- OS X has 4.91% of the desktop market against other operating systems and the billion computers is a likely very conservative number for "desktop market."
2nd link says OS X 10.10 has 4.91% of overall market share, which they figured from browsing stats, which seems to me to be a sane proxy for the vast majority of computers running Windows and OS X both.
This link says there were over a billion computers out there (in 2008, no doubt more now, but I used the 1,000,000,000 figure anyway.)
So. 1,000,000,000 * 0.0491 = 49,100,000 computers running OS X 10.10.
Maybe I'm just being (repeatedly) dense but I don't see the problem with the math. You (or anyone who cares to correct me) can be snarky if you like and I won't complain, but would you please point out where I went wrong?
There's no such thing as a WIFI amplifier. At least not for commonly used WIFI modes (i.e. everything that is doing MIMO).
Sure there is. It's called a "cantenna.":)
Or more broadly, any sufficiently broadband / multiband antenna with more gain (and probably more directivity) than those nasty little probes sticking up on the back of most people's hardware.
Cheap, effective, etc. For some use cases.
Also, has the benefit of adding gain in BOTH directions, whereas a transmit amplifier would get the signal to the device better, but will not help (and may hinder) on the receive side.
The heartbleed bug demonstrates exactly why router code should be modifyable. The word "prevention" doesn't address the problem. Heartbleed demonstrates that after-the-fact remediation can help -- a lot. The argument here is essentially that (a) bugs and vulnerabilities happen / turn up, and that when they do, those with the skills (the dd-wrt project is a fine example for this particular instance) can go after it, and that's a good thing.
Adding a chip, or even a jumper, would be prohibitively expensive in terms of losing the market share.
Chip: yes (adding to assembly complexity typically incurs additional manufacturing costs, reliability costs, and inventory costs), jumper: not necessarily.
And it's going to get worse, because they way they get lower cost (driving to IoT models) is by increasing the level of integration.
This is where the jumper comes in, more or less for free. This is because a "jumper" can be nothing but a trace on the board that can be cut (closed jumper), or conversely (open jumper), a couple extra through-holes in the PCB where a wire or a pin rack can be soldered in later. Which doesn't have to come WITH a pin rack, nor, really, does it have to have pins at all, although that tends to imply a bit more commitment about adding the jumper, especially on modern PCBs. And if this a logic input to an SOC, it makes no difference if you choose open or closed -- the software can see it as true or false in either physical state with no penalty at all.
The only question is, at the time of "increasing the level of integration", will they have an input available on the SOC (or wherever) that can read the state of the jumper and respond accordingly?
That's harder to say, but it is probably safe to say that if the SOC has been respun for any reason, odds are excellent that this can also be added for an extremely low, one-time cost. This is because as integration climbs, more is inside the chip as opposed to outside it, and so pins that were in use can be repurposed, presuming more-or-less the same SOC/pinout configuration, which is also a somewhat reasonable assumption if we are actually talking about "lower cost (driving to IoT models)... by increasing the level of integration."
In any case, it's definitely not a given that a jumper is a high-cost change when implemented as part of a re-design that's happening anyway.
Pretty sure we'd recognize any constant you've mentioned, likewise any math-savvy aliens. For that matter I think we, and the putative "they", would recognize any number .
There are over a billion computers in use (as of 2008... probably more now.) OS X 10.10 (10.11 is literally only days old, so...) seems to be on 4.91% of the OS X machines out there based on browsing stats and this thing.
That's 49.1 million machines, if I didn't slip a decimal place somewhere.
Have you always been psychotic? If so, clearly you've forgotten your meds. Otherwise, I suggest you see a healthcare professional specializing in the profoundly disturbed immediately.
Say what you will, but perl is very, very good at parsing text.
Yes, it is. Unfortunately, it isn't maintainable the way the vast majority of programmers use it, and to do that you have to give up quite a large set of its features -- the ones that read like Sanskrit or APL. For that reason, I won't allow it to be used for any of our projects. If speed is an issue, we can always drop to c, which can be *both* maintainable *and* faster than Perl or Python. Because our style requirements don't rule out any language features. Just poor style, such as K&R.
For most anything else Python v2.latest is the obvious choice. Unless you need backwards compatibility (older OS envs), and then Python.notcurrent is the choice.
I used REXX too, BTW. On the Amiga (which would be William S. Hawes's AREXX, of course.) The Amiga OS was the only OS where Rexx was properly integrated, IMO, along with a decent range of applications with ARexx ports you could use. It certainly isn't in Windows or Linux. Don't know about OS2, never dipped a toe in that.
I built an ARexx interface into our Imagemaster application when ARexx first came out, and every Amiga application we did thereafter (my company was one of the most broadly known, and easily one of the most profitable doing software for the Amiga -- small team, great products, proper compensation, great tech support, and only one competitor who was always playing catch-up (ASDG Inc.)), you could do just about anything you could think of with it high-level IPC the way it should be done, and doesn't seem to have been done since then. A real shame. Oh, and as a current OS X user, Apple-script is a horrific, broken kluge by comparison. Again, a real shame.
But viable beyond that... not really. Perl was what the powers that be always seemed to insist on, and Rexx simply didn't have the string handling chops that Perl did, so arguing always pretty much foundered on that point alone.
Today, we have Python, and Perl is not a viable choice in comparison. The only reason to choose Perl now is if you can't, or refuse to, learn a better way. Although there certainly is a lot of that, lol.
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief. "-1 I wouldn't have said it that way" isn't a valid mod option either.
Face it. Moderation here is pitifully lame because there is zero relevant accountability. No after-the-fact hand slapping does anything at all to recover a ruined post. I almost always end up spending my mod points trying to undo asshat "I disagree", "I'm offended", "I'm republican", "I'm shedding SJW tears of the eyelash forest", "I'm democrat", "I'm libertarian" moderation malfuckery. Not to mention having to spend mod points correcting mod stalking, where those with mod points go around modding their "enemies" down. It's obvious, but it's a real waste of a very scarce resource -- there are tons of good AC posts, for instance, that deserve more than a zero. Not to mention interesting opinion and true bit, pieces and whole blobs of good information mods clearly "don't like" something about, such as your "I don't like the way you put that" concept. Another problem that arises is that when a mod point has to be spent correcting a pernicious or wrongheaded moderation, it can't be spent bringing a good post into higher profile. And mod points are scarce, so this really has an impact.
Some moderation is also astonishingly deficient in dealing with humor and wordplay (case in point, look up at first few posts in this story.)
The only *possible* way these problems can be remediated under the current system is to get someone sane, or several someone's, into a position where they can moderate continuously (and without crippling their ability to participate -- for instance, although I have the time, and I like spending time on slashdot, I wouldn't be the least interested in such a position if it meant I could only comment anonymously anywhere I moderated. I can barely tolerate it now, with it only impacting me every few days, for only one story.)
As always, the posts represent a large portion of the site's actual value; the moderation system as it stands reduces that value more often than it increases it.
My own partial solution to the broken moderation system here is to browse at -1 all the time so that irresponsible (and worse) moderation can't hide things from me. It doesn't solve the problem of good posts being excised from some (or all) of the conversation, but at least I get to read what they said in the first place.
I know, I know. First rule of moderation club is "-1 offtopic, don't talk about moderation." That's likely a large part of why it never gets fixed, too.
LOL, I successfully trolled a mod. :)
That's going to keep me smiling all day!
Sorry, this isn't that serious. You can't just walk up to a geisha 1 day and in fits and starts
handle all the encoding black-hattery of some random pasha 1 character per line. Seriously, duh
All this won't flip anyone's ricksha 1 morning. Another thing: SSL's still safe. At best it's a
1-time (or... maybe 2) opportunity to replace someone's kasha 1 grain at a time. But probably 1
Oh, the troll, of course. Any other questions?
They think we'll just lap this stuff up. But I'm here to wave it off. Not just to rip tides, but to surf something else entirely. This kind of article-fishing eventually turns into website breakers. Which is to say, the editors are all wet.
and all trolls
Yes, if you really did something bad, it needs to be addressed.
No, the system cannot be counted on to address it proportionally or responsibly.
No, you should not ever, and I mean ever, freely converse about anything within the context of our (note USA-centric presumption) current legal system. A lawyer should do that. You can make your situation much, much worse in very short order with as little as one "yes" or "no." Worse in a context where "worse" can be far more severe than anything that was actually appropriate.
Confine your responses to politely agreeable responses to specific commands for compliance WRT your custody from the officers. Anything else: "That will have to be addressed to my lawyer, sir." First thing -- and the only thing -- you really need to say, politely, contextually, WRT to any accusations or charges, is "Lawyer."
When they say, as they almost certainly will, that your compliance with them may ease your penalties, you say "Thank you, I understand that, and will convey that to my lawyer as soon as possible." Nothing else. Nothing. Until you do, in fact, discuss it with your lawyer.
The previous events seem to point towards a problem in the company's culture, rather than just a couple engineers. Maybe I'm too cynical. But that's what it "smells" like.
No, it isn't 4.91% of their OS market share. It's 4.91% of all the machines on the net, of which Windows and OS X are both going to be pretty much mostly there. Read again. "Desktop Operating System Market Share" -- OS X has 4.91% of the desktop market against other operating systems and the billion computers is a likely very conservative number for "desktop market."
Your fail, fails, I think.
Lemme see. Sigh.
2nd link says OS X 10.10 has 4.91% of overall market share, which they figured from browsing stats, which seems to me to be a sane proxy for the vast majority of computers running Windows and OS X both.
This link says there were over a billion computers out there (in 2008, no doubt more now, but I used the 1,000,000,000 figure anyway.)
So. 1,000,000,000 * 0.0491 = 49,100,000 computers running OS X 10.10.
Maybe I'm just being (repeatedly) dense but I don't see the problem with the math. You (or anyone who cares to correct me) can be snarky if you like and I won't complain, but would you please point out where I went wrong?
Sure there is. It's called a "cantenna." :)
Or more broadly, any sufficiently broadband / multiband antenna with more gain (and probably more directivity) than those nasty little probes sticking up on the back of most people's hardware.
Cheap, effective, etc. For some use cases.
Also, has the benefit of adding gain in BOTH directions, whereas a transmit amplifier would get the signal to the device better, but will not help (and may hinder) on the receive side.
That remark is disingenuous tripe.
The heartbleed bug demonstrates exactly why router code should be modifyable. The word "prevention" doesn't address the problem. Heartbleed demonstrates that after-the-fact remediation can help -- a lot. The argument here is essentially that (a) bugs and vulnerabilities happen / turn up, and that when they do, those with the skills (the dd-wrt project is a fine example for this particular instance) can go after it, and that's a good thing.
Just money. But there, as the wag has it, is the rub.
Engineer here.
Chip: yes (adding to assembly complexity typically incurs additional manufacturing costs, reliability costs, and inventory costs), jumper: not necessarily.
This is where the jumper comes in, more or less for free. This is because a "jumper" can be nothing but a trace on the board that can be cut (closed jumper), or conversely (open jumper), a couple extra through-holes in the PCB where a wire or a pin rack can be soldered in later. Which doesn't have to come WITH a pin rack, nor, really, does it have to have pins at all, although that tends to imply a bit more commitment about adding the jumper, especially on modern PCBs. And if this a logic input to an SOC, it makes no difference if you choose open or closed -- the software can see it as true or false in either physical state with no penalty at all.
The only question is, at the time of "increasing the level of integration", will they have an input available on the SOC (or wherever) that can read the state of the jumper and respond accordingly?
That's harder to say, but it is probably safe to say that if the SOC has been respun for any reason, odds are excellent that this can also be added for an extremely low, one-time cost. This is because as integration climbs, more is inside the chip as opposed to outside it, and so pins that were in use can be repurposed, presuming more-or-less the same SOC/pinout configuration, which is also a somewhat reasonable assumption if we are actually talking about "lower cost (driving to IoT models) ... by increasing the level of integration."
In any case, it's definitely not a given that a jumper is a high-cost change when implemented as part of a re-design that's happening anyway.
Pretty sure we'd recognize any constant you've mentioned, likewise any math-savvy aliens. For that matter I think we, and the putative "they", would recognize any number .
There are over a billion computers in use (as of 2008... probably more now.) OS X 10.10 (10.11 is literally only days old, so...) seems to be on 4.91% of the OS X machines out there based on browsing stats and this thing.
That's 49.1 million machines, if I didn't slip a decimal place somewhere.
Not too bad. :)
It sure doesn't. In fact, it may signal that you're dealing with an utter dolt:
George W. Bush. I rest my case.
Sad, they can't read and then the junior primary can't speak...
Oh. English. You mean your mom. Never mind. Most of us don't actually speak English over here, you know. :)
Have you always been psychotic? If so, clearly you've forgotten your meds. Otherwise, I suggest you see a healthcare professional specializing in the profoundly disturbed immediately.
I'm just wondering. Is one of these guys named "Lex Luthor" or "Padraic Ratigan"?
Oh, Look, a "Moderator is uninformed about nuclear power -1 mod." How fun. :)
Slashdot. Where anyone can moderate. For any reason. And does.
Yes, it is. Unfortunately, it isn't maintainable the way the vast majority of programmers use it, and to do that you have to give up quite a large set of its features -- the ones that read like Sanskrit or APL. For that reason, I won't allow it to be used for any of our projects. If speed is an issue, we can always drop to c, which can be *both* maintainable *and* faster than Perl or Python. Because our style requirements don't rule out any language features. Just poor style, such as K&R.
For most anything else Python v2.latest is the obvious choice. Unless you need backwards compatibility (older OS envs), and then Python.notcurrent is the choice.
Like I said. Viable.
I used REXX too, BTW. On the Amiga (which would be William S. Hawes's AREXX, of course.) The Amiga OS was the only OS where Rexx was properly integrated, IMO, along with a decent range of applications with ARexx ports you could use. It certainly isn't in Windows or Linux. Don't know about OS2, never dipped a toe in that.
I built an ARexx interface into our Imagemaster application when ARexx first came out, and every Amiga application we did thereafter (my company was one of the most broadly known, and easily one of the most profitable doing software for the Amiga -- small team, great products, proper compensation, great tech support, and only one competitor who was always playing catch-up (ASDG Inc.)), you could do just about anything you could think of with it high-level IPC the way it should be done, and doesn't seem to have been done since then. A real shame. Oh, and as a current OS X user, Apple-script is a horrific, broken kluge by comparison. Again, a real shame.
But viable beyond that... not really. Perl was what the powers that be always seemed to insist on, and Rexx simply didn't have the string handling chops that Perl did, so arguing always pretty much foundered on that point alone.
Today, we have Python, and Perl is not a viable choice in comparison. The only reason to choose Perl now is if you can't, or refuse to, learn a better way. Although there certainly is a lot of that, lol.
Were, sigh. Stupid voice input.
No, a truly virtuous cycle would be one in which continuously polluting plants where eliminated in the process.