I think there's a lot of antipathy out there for Apple. I happen to like some of their products, but I wouldn't say I "love" them, or any other company.
Where did I say "the only performance-jump in the Linux Kernel happened during the move from 2.4 to 2.6?" Where did I say that they aren't still improving the kernel's performance? In addition to putting words in my mouth, you completely missed the point. The GP had specifically noted the performance improvement from 2.4-2.6 being dramatic, and I was simply saying that that was an anomalous relative improvement that has no parallel in OS X's history, and is unlikely to repeat regularly in Linux's development.
I actually forgot to mention another significant, revolutionary improvement in the 2.6 kernel of preemption points that further supports this thesis. It's a reasonable statement to say that it's unlikely that Linux is going to have as dramatic a performance improvement between foreseeable releases as is evident from 2.4-2.6. The fact that there was a radical improvement from 2.4-2.6 doesn't preclude incremental or even significant improvements from taking place afterwards.
If you're having trouble understanding this idea, picture a graph of both OS's performance over time. It would be linear for both, but Linux would suddenly hit a vertical slope from 2.4-2.6. OS X has no such spike.
As for "bloat," things like a nondeterministic stack are what I'm referring to. I don't know the effect on performance, and I know such things are optional, but in any OS bloat can offset future performance gains. I didn't say OS X doesn't suffer from it either. In any case, that was pure speculation.
That's true, but don't expect another jump of that relative magnitude anytime soon. The 2.6 introduced a new scheduling algorithm that boosted speed and concurrency significantly. When your scheduler goes from an O(n) to an O(1) algorithm, implements CPU affinity, and eliminates lock contention for the run queue, the speed boost is significant. I guess there could be filesystem improvements or paging improvements in the pipeline that could provide significant speed boosts, but I kind of doubt they would be as critical as that brilliant new scheduling algorithm.
OTOH the inter-version speed boosts in OS X have been due to more subtle tweakage, except perhaps for speed boosts related to launchd, and have been more incremental in nature than the anomalous 2.4-2.6 improvement.
I guess my point is that the 2.4-2.6 improvement is more of a leap than it is a trend, where OS X's improvements have been less revolutionary and more evolutionary. I hope Linux continues to improve in performance, but it's very possibly going to suffer from bloat down the road that could offset some performance improvements. It's unrealistic to expect the performance improvements to continue along the lines of 2.4-2.6, in any case. OS X is still lagging in performance, so it's even more imperative that it continue its trend. Hopefully the researchers at Apple will soon find a revolutionary improvement on the order of the 2.6 scheduler to catch up a bit.
I know I'm in the minority here (though perhaps less-so on/.), but I actually prefer the sardonic, nerdy wit of Futurama to even early episodes of the Simpsons.
I don't think the reordering is valid. I think the fact that it still flows is a product of the music being based on underlying formulae, and of themes running throughout the piece, and therefore being reconfigurable with respect to order, like the puzzle the record is. That doesn't mean that it's intended to be listened to in a different order. The mastering indicates that songs were intended to go in the order in which they originally flow. At the end of Reflection, you can hear the beginning of Triad. If you have to butcher the product with Cool Edit to get it to flow, then I think it's a stretch. That said, there are plenty of secrets embedded in the CD, and they are mystics in the tradition of the (real or imagined) occult practices of (real or imagined) secret societies.
Frankly, this guy's off his rocker:
A lot of VERY IMPORTANT information is encoded on the actual cd. Ever notice how everyone who has lost or broken that cd has IMMEDIATELY gone out and bought a new copy?
He's suggesting that there is some sort of subconscious or mystic encoding of information that cannot withstand lossy encoding.
If you're a non-believer, like I am, all of this is moot--the whole thing is either about the world John lived in, or he got dosed with some grain ergot while in prison
...or he could have had a hallucinatory psychotic episode.
Think of the lack of perspective people have with regard to their faith. Most Christians today would want a mother who murdered her child because she claimed God told her to locked up if not killed (since the death penalty is yet another example where two wrongs make a right, and yet another exception to "Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Yet when Abraham almost murders Isaac (before God supposedly stays his hand), it is accepted uncritically.
Today if someone told us a burning bush was talking to him, we would put him in a straightjacket--few Christians would accept the testimony. Yet when they read of a similar testimony from a faraway time, somehow it has more credibility.
Christians are perfectly willing to seek medical treatment, and seem to accept the findings of medical science. Yet the defer to the disproved biological knowledge of the ancient Jews with regard to questions on the origin of life and diversity. Creationists shouldn't go to the doctor. You cannot accept a fairy tale on the origin of life on the one hand, and then seek treatment using techniques and understanding derived in part from evolutionary biology on the other. Yet Creationists do so and experience no cognitive dissonance in the process. Catholics are against birth control on the mistaken Biblical premise that semen is the seed of life--they didn't understand, certainly in Old Testament times at least, that women host an egg that is fertilized. So ejaculating anywhere but a womb was considered to be abortion in those times--and Catholics still uncritically accept teachings based on this false premise, while accepting other scientific findings, such as evolution. Similarly, the pro-life movement seems to have some confusion about where life begins. Some pro-lifers assume life begins the moment a seed is fertilized-again citing documents that were written in a time when there was very little understanding of biology. But these documents were divinely inspired, right? And so were the ones saying men should not spill his seed, even though the premise for it is now widely accepted by all, Christian and otherwise, as false.
They point to prophecies in Isaiah that Jesus fulfills in the Gospels, and they point to similarities between the gospels as validating their truth. I'm not going to debate the truthfulness of the Gospels, but since the authors of the Gospels were learned in the Old Testament, and since they were written so many years after Jesus' death, one wonders why more Christians don't consider how easy it would have been to construct and refine narratives that fulfill those prophecies post hoc. But since the narratives are accepted uncritically as absolute truth, this possibility never arises, and the weakness of the apologetic argument is never exposed.
"If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today, He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA."
--The The, "Armageddon Days Are Here Again"
I'd say Christianity is a series of cults, not a single cult. I think you have to treat each denomination as a cult, and perhaps each sect as a separate cult. I would include Mormonism as one of the Christian cults as well.
I agree that assuming a culture will fail is a post hoc logical fallacy, though perhaps statistically a wise prediction. Unfortunately, however, there are signs of fissure in our civilization that look alarmingly familiar in historical context. It appears that we are undergoing the same transition from republic to empire as the Romans. I also see signs of decay that could spell the end of our civilization, eventually. But the most important signs that we are in trouble is that our civilization is environmentally unsustainable, and that, history being a precedent, disease, violence, criminality, and warfare all correlate directly to population.
Except that looking at your examples (Mayans, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks), I'd say that greed, capitalism and consolidation have been around for a long, long time indeed.
You completely missed the point. None of those cultures persisted. He is arguing that ours will not either due to those three factors.
Don't you understand anything? Those billions of suffering people are just there so that 1/10 of 1% of the world can have the good, blessed lives they so richly deserve. Think of the unwashed billions as cattle, or a bacterial colony. That's why it's okay to rob and kill them.
I write this assuming from context that by "literary validation" you mean popularity. "Literary validation" would actually mean something like scholars of literature widely citing the book as some sort of masterpiece. The Bible is not a single piece of literature, so I don't think that would apply.
Sorry, but an appeal to popularity is yet another logical fallacy. At one point (and perhaps still today), the majority of people in America thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. The popularity of that (deliberately implanted) falsehood does not make it true. Truth is independent of popularity. In fact, many of the greatest scientific revolutions (continental drift and heliocentrism come to mind) were initially met with contempt, disbelief, and even censorship and threats. The popularity of the Bible, and even the fact that some of the events in the Bible are historically verifiable, do not make the other events in the Bible, particularly the ones that are unprecedented, any more credible.
Let's examine your enlightened negative view of alJazeera.
You claim they are the "propaganda arm of Al Queda (sic)" because al-Qaeda sends them tapes, which they air. Where do you expect al-Qaeda to go with these tapes? Doesn't it makes sense for them to go to a global news network serving the Arab world? If so, then alJazeera is the only choice that will get them maximal distribution in the Arab world. That just means al-Qaeda is smart, not that alJazeera is complicit. If you have some evidence that al-Qaeda is in any way in thrall of Osama bin Laden, then please provide it--all the coverage I've seen is very negative to bin Laden. In fact, when alJazeera airs these tapes, it is always done with pundits hostile to al Qaeda's cause analyzing the tapes and the situation live--they do not allow al-Qaeda to use them as a mouthpiece, but as a journalistic body, they are obligated to report on al-Qaeda.
So it looks like your enlightened, negative view is actually an ignorant negative view. You wouldn't be one of those people who talks about things without actually investigating them for himself, would you?
"Think different" isn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, it depends upon how you interpret the statement. Think of the term "think big" as opposed to "think largely." "Think different" could be interpreted with "different" being an adjective instead of an adverb modifying "think:"
A job is a means to an end, and facilitates the other things in life that you really enjoy.
Is that really always the case? Think of social workers, teachers, and other professions that involve self-sacrifice--professions that could be called "callings." If you are pursuing a calling, then your job is a means to a greater end than financial restitution: it becomes a source of pride, identity, and purpose.
I, for example, had a decent job and a comfortable life before I realized that I had to go back to school for a computer science degree to realize a higher calling. I love programming and administering computers, and find the work meaningful and satisfying. So a job is a means to an end for me, yes, but those ends are meaningful. To actually enjoy going to work, and to be compensated well for it, becomes an unbelievable state of affairs: "They're paying me for this? I'd do it for free!" It's not always just about money, and people who think that way might carve out happiness during their nonworking hours, but for the rest of the week, they're stuck doing something they'd rather not be doing.
Considering you could spend most of your waking hours at work, the answer is of course. Life is too short to be dissatisfied with the activities you spend a great deal of wakeful hours engaged in.
There's a balance that can be struck between job satisfaction and income. That balance is the full measure of the quality of your professional life. If you only attend to one side of that balance, you cannot expect a satisfying life, unless you happen to love doing something that is lucrative, like being a doctor, for example.
What you're describing is Financial Engineering, which you can get a Master's degree for in one year from several programs (Columbia, Berkeley, Rutgers, to name a few). I don't think merely understanding trading is enough, there is a lot of very advanced math involved:
The MBA in marketing is probably about market research and product development, which is much different than Madison Avenue, sell-you-what-you-don't-want marketing, which is what I suspect you're thinking about.
I'm willing to take a considerable slash in starting pay in order to say NO to proprietary technology. I know it's foolish, but that's just how I feel. I must resist the Borg.
Slashdot Mirror
ditto
I think there's a lot of antipathy out there for Apple. I happen to like some of their products, but I wouldn't say I "love" them, or any other company.
Are Ballmer's children really brainwashed or are they just afraid he'll throw furniture at them if they dare to use superior technology?
I actually forgot to mention another significant, revolutionary improvement in the 2.6 kernel of preemption points that further supports this thesis. It's a reasonable statement to say that it's unlikely that Linux is going to have as dramatic a performance improvement between foreseeable releases as is evident from 2.4-2.6. The fact that there was a radical improvement from 2.4-2.6 doesn't preclude incremental or even significant improvements from taking place afterwards.
If you're having trouble understanding this idea, picture a graph of both OS's performance over time. It would be linear for both, but Linux would suddenly hit a vertical slope from 2.4-2.6. OS X has no such spike.
As for "bloat," things like a nondeterministic stack are what I'm referring to. I don't know the effect on performance, and I know such things are optional, but in any OS bloat can offset future performance gains. I didn't say OS X doesn't suffer from it either. In any case, that was pure speculation.
OTOH the inter-version speed boosts in OS X have been due to more subtle tweakage, except perhaps for speed boosts related to launchd, and have been more incremental in nature than the anomalous 2.4-2.6 improvement.
I guess my point is that the 2.4-2.6 improvement is more of a leap than it is a trend, where OS X's improvements have been less revolutionary and more evolutionary. I hope Linux continues to improve in performance, but it's very possibly going to suffer from bloat down the road that could offset some performance improvements. It's unrealistic to expect the performance improvements to continue along the lines of 2.4-2.6, in any case. OS X is still lagging in performance, so it's even more imperative that it continue its trend. Hopefully the researchers at Apple will soon find a revolutionary improvement on the order of the 2.6 scheduler to catch up a bit.
j/k :P
I know I'm in the minority here (though perhaps less-so on /.), but I actually prefer the sardonic, nerdy wit of Futurama to even early episodes of the Simpsons.
according to this story, which is a kind of "Greatest Hits" for DHS that will curl your toes.
Frankly, this guy's off his rocker:
He's suggesting that there is some sort of subconscious or mystic encoding of information that cannot withstand lossy encoding.Think of the lack of perspective people have with regard to their faith. Most Christians today would want a mother who murdered her child because she claimed God told her to locked up if not killed (since the death penalty is yet another example where two wrongs make a right, and yet another exception to "Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Yet when Abraham almost murders Isaac (before God supposedly stays his hand), it is accepted uncritically.
Today if someone told us a burning bush was talking to him, we would put him in a straightjacket--few Christians would accept the testimony. Yet when they read of a similar testimony from a faraway time, somehow it has more credibility.
Christians are perfectly willing to seek medical treatment, and seem to accept the findings of medical science. Yet the defer to the disproved biological knowledge of the ancient Jews with regard to questions on the origin of life and diversity. Creationists shouldn't go to the doctor. You cannot accept a fairy tale on the origin of life on the one hand, and then seek treatment using techniques and understanding derived in part from evolutionary biology on the other. Yet Creationists do so and experience no cognitive dissonance in the process. Catholics are against birth control on the mistaken Biblical premise that semen is the seed of life--they didn't understand, certainly in Old Testament times at least, that women host an egg that is fertilized. So ejaculating anywhere but a womb was considered to be abortion in those times--and Catholics still uncritically accept teachings based on this false premise, while accepting other scientific findings, such as evolution. Similarly, the pro-life movement seems to have some confusion about where life begins. Some pro-lifers assume life begins the moment a seed is fertilized-again citing documents that were written in a time when there was very little understanding of biology. But these documents were divinely inspired, right? And so were the ones saying men should not spill his seed, even though the premise for it is now widely accepted by all, Christian and otherwise, as false.
They point to prophecies in Isaiah that Jesus fulfills in the Gospels, and they point to similarities between the gospels as validating their truth. I'm not going to debate the truthfulness of the Gospels, but since the authors of the Gospels were learned in the Old Testament, and since they were written so many years after Jesus' death, one wonders why more Christians don't consider how easy it would have been to construct and refine narratives that fulfill those prophecies post hoc. But since the narratives are accepted uncritically as absolute truth, this possibility never arises, and the weakness of the apologetic argument is never exposed.
"If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today, He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA."
--The The, "Armageddon Days Are Here Again"
I'd say Christianity is a series of cults, not a single cult. I think you have to treat each denomination as a cult, and perhaps each sect as a separate cult. I would include Mormonism as one of the Christian cults as well.
and the guy wasn't even from/in the country in which he was prosecuted.
I agree that assuming a culture will fail is a post hoc logical fallacy, though perhaps statistically a wise prediction. Unfortunately, however, there are signs of fissure in our civilization that look alarmingly familiar in historical context. It appears that we are undergoing the same transition from republic to empire as the Romans. I also see signs of decay that could spell the end of our civilization, eventually. But the most important signs that we are in trouble is that our civilization is environmentally unsustainable, and that, history being a precedent, disease, violence, criminality, and warfare all correlate directly to population.
"Were a virus with shoes."
--Bill Hicks
Sorry, but an appeal to popularity is yet another logical fallacy. At one point (and perhaps still today), the majority of people in America thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. The popularity of that (deliberately implanted) falsehood does not make it true. Truth is independent of popularity. In fact, many of the greatest scientific revolutions (continental drift and heliocentrism come to mind) were initially met with contempt, disbelief, and even censorship and threats. The popularity of the Bible, and even the fact that some of the events in the Bible are historically verifiable, do not make the other events in the Bible, particularly the ones that are unprecedented, any more credible.
You claim they are the "propaganda arm of Al Queda (sic)" because al-Qaeda sends them tapes, which they air. Where do you expect al-Qaeda to go with these tapes? Doesn't it makes sense for them to go to a global news network serving the Arab world? If so, then alJazeera is the only choice that will get them maximal distribution in the Arab world. That just means al-Qaeda is smart, not that alJazeera is complicit. If you have some evidence that al-Qaeda is in any way in thrall of Osama bin Laden, then please provide it--all the coverage I've seen is very negative to bin Laden. In fact, when alJazeera airs these tapes, it is always done with pundits hostile to al Qaeda's cause analyzing the tapes and the situation live--they do not allow al-Qaeda to use them as a mouthpiece, but as a journalistic body, they are obligated to report on al-Qaeda.
So it looks like your enlightened, negative view is actually an ignorant negative view. You wouldn't be one of those people who talks about things without actually investigating them for himself, would you?
I hate MS too, but reading TFA instead of an edited blurb is probably a good idea if you're going to comment on it.
"Think different" isn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, it depends upon how you interpret the statement. Think of the term "think big" as opposed to "think largely." "Think different" could be interpreted with "different" being an adjective instead of an adverb modifying "think:"
I, for example, had a decent job and a comfortable life before I realized that I had to go back to school for a computer science degree to realize a higher calling. I love programming and administering computers, and find the work meaningful and satisfying. So a job is a means to an end for me, yes, but those ends are meaningful. To actually enjoy going to work, and to be compensated well for it, becomes an unbelievable state of affairs: "They're paying me for this? I'd do it for free!" It's not always just about money, and people who think that way might carve out happiness during their nonworking hours, but for the rest of the week, they're stuck doing something they'd rather not be doing.
There's a balance that can be struck between job satisfaction and income. That balance is the full measure of the quality of your professional life. If you only attend to one side of that balance, you cannot expect a satisfying life, unless you happen to love doing something that is lucrative, like being a doctor, for example.
Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_STRING in /home/denux/public_html/thom/index.html on line 1
on his homepage.
What a wunderkind. Some guy who can't write a simple Web page is trying to assess the security model of Unix.
What you're describing is Financial Engineering, which you can get a Master's degree for in one year from several programs (Columbia, Berkeley, Rutgers, to name a few). I don't think merely understanding trading is enough, there is a lot of very advanced math involved:
The MBA in marketing is probably about market research and product development, which is much different than Madison Avenue, sell-you-what-you-don't-want marketing, which is what I suspect you're thinking about.
I'm willing to take a considerable slash in starting pay in order to say NO to proprietary technology. I know it's foolish, but that's just how I feel. I must resist the Borg.