On Windows 7, every program run in the batch file will be on a separate thread/CPU and the entire batch file will be multi-threaded.
The semantics of batch files is that every statement runs sequentially. This cannot be changed because all existing batch files assume that the previous line has completed processing, and the next one can use its results. Consequently, it doesn't make any sense to "multi-thread" a batch file, since it's entirely sequential.
Additionally, batch files spawn processes, not threads, so "multithreaded" is a misnomer here in any case.
Also on Windows 7+,.NET applications automatically put certain parts (UI for Windows Forms, garbage collector, etc.) on separate threads.
Okay, now you really don't know what you're talking about. First of all,.NET is not really tied to Windows, and it has the same behavior regardless of which version it runs on. Second, GC always runs on a separate thread, and this has been the case since 1.0. Third, WinForms is a Win32 wrapper, and as such it has to run on the main thread, which is trivially observable in debugger - and nothing has changed here in Win7 or any recent.NET version.
How to cheaply, efficiently and safely dispose of nuclear waste:
1. Enclose it in a huge solid block of glass (just melted sand, so it's cheap). 2. Take it to any deep ocean trench and dump it. 3. Tectonic plate subduction takes care of the rest.
Also natural gas from the Magreb (think Algeria and perhaps Libya)
Libya? So will they trade with ISIS once it's running the place? (and let's face it, the way it's going, it almost certainly will... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up running the entire North Africa)
I am not talking about carrying a weapon in a car. I am talking about mounting one on top of the vehicle to be used while driving it. This is the better analogy to the drone in the article.
What I'm saying is that "in" and "on" is not really something that is strictly defined (and, indeed, some existing laws already interpret "on" as "in"). And if you mount one on top of your vehicle, and then build an enclosure around it such that there is a hole for bullets to come out of, but the gun itself cannot be seen, which one is it?
Are you sure that's enough? They did just what you said in Australia in the 90s; now they're worried that lever-action guns are "too fast", and want to ban them, too. Pump-action is also pretty fast.
And then you have guns specifically designed to work around restrictions like these, which are still not technically semi-auto (because they require you to perform a manual action to chamber the round for every shot), but are almost as fast in practice. Presumably you'd want to prohibit them, too. How would you word such a law?
Oh, and no additional magazine restrictions? 10 rounds is good enough?
As a gun owner, I'll trust another person to pull or not pull the trigger as appropriate, but when it gets complicated enough that there are electronic components in play, I start getting twitchy. Too many variables. I mean, just try to mentally apply the four rules to this thing... you would have to actively maintain it in the right orientation to avoid pointing the barrel in the wrong direction, and the "finger" is basically always on the trigger (and that aside it could go haywire and activate by itself if it gets shortened or something). Since the gun is away it can't be safely cleared if there is say an FTF. There's no way to verify that a shot was not a squib, and firing a second one could just blow the whole thing up in pieces and rain shrapnel on anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.
It's not about criminals, it's about honest people playing with a fun new "toy" without proper understanding of how dangerous it can be, and with no proper protocols to even ensure said safety designed into it.
A puny.22 LR round can still punch through a frozen turkey wrapped in two layers of denim at 300 yards.
Actually hitting things at that distance will be difficult, and then there's bullet drop. But the bullet can still be plenty deadly at even extreme distances.
It depends on the state and the gun. In WA, for example, carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car is illegal (and "in" is defined very broadly here, often to the point of even just leaning a loaded gun against a parked car). But carrying a loaded handgun concealed (in the car) is fine so long as you have a permit. The question is, what counts as "concealed" here. If you were to, say, mount it inside and rig up a pipe such that it has a line of fire, I think it would, strictly speaking, meet the definition.
While we're at it, Python Tools for Visual Studio 2.2 has also been released at the same time. In addition to VS 2015 support, this is mainly a bugfix and do-small-features-that-never-make-the-bar release. If you're a Python developer on Windows, please give it a try, especially if you've never heard about it before. Feel free to tell me that we suck so long as you also file a bug in the tracker. ~
(Full disclosure: I am a developer on the PTVS team.)
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
In terms of ethnic descent, this is definitely the case. Not just steppes, though, but also forests. Most of what is Central and Northern European part of Russia today was one giant forest ~1000 years ago, with small settlements along the rivers living off the trade with passing ships selling fur, amber and other similar goods for export. Mostly Slavonic, but also a significant Finno-Ugric component.
The Byzantium "descent" is more spiritual in nature, through the acceptance Orthodoxy. Though there's also a partial blood claim specifically for the past ruling dynasties, because several rulers have married Byzantine princesses (most notably, Vladimir the Great, who forcibly converted the entire country to Greek Christianity, stipulated his marriage to the daughter of then-current Eastern Roman Emperor as one of his conditions, acceptance of which was forced basically at swordpoint). But for most people, it's about being the largest Eastern Orthodox country in the world.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
After the collapse of the USSR, there was a fairly significant religious revival movement that was primarily anti-communist in nature. Restoring the old traditions and all that. Most people didn't really become seriously religious, though, being more of a token Christians - you know, baptizing their kids and celebrating the prominent religious holidays (save for "inconvenient" ones like Lent), and occasionally attending Church services, but not really capable of articulating the theology well, and overall treating it more as a part of national identity. Government has contributed to the revival somewhat by transferring some of the original Church property that was confiscated from it under communists back, and in some cases funding new construction efforts, but otherwise not really stepping in. Atheism also remained pretty significant, though - more so than in, say, US today.
However, in the past decade or so, there has been a steady rise in government support of Orthodoxy as preferential religion, and clear attempts to make it into some kind of national ideology. Schools now have "the fundamentals of Orthodox culture" as a class, though it's still opt-in in theory (in practice it varies on the school, and some places put a strong social pressure on students to opt in). Most government-sponsored patriotic organizations for youth etc also emphasize religion. Blasphemy laws have been effectively introduced under the guise of "protecting the religious sentiment". There are still quite a few atheists, but the trend is clearly against them. I see a lot more religious kids online, and even my own generation (I'm 30) seems to be more outwardly religious now than we used to be in our 20s.
This all has accelerated especially with the whole Crimea/Ukraine thing going on - state TV channels during Maidan went to great lengths to point out that many protesters were affiliated with Catholic (often Eastern Rite) or Protestant churches, for example. And the ideological basis for the insurgents in Donbass is heavily rooted in religion and geopolitical messianism - they really think that they're fighting Satan there.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
It's an Orthodox thing in general. Catholics are considered heretics, originally because they have changed the Nicene Creed slightly - look up "Filioque" if you are interested in theological details - causing the Great Schism between the Western church in Rome, and the Eastern churches associated wi
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium.
You met me for one:)
In truth, though, "Third Rome" is part of the history textbooks. I don't know how it is presented today, but back when I studied history in school it was fairly neutral, but certainly featured quite prominently, largely because it was an important part of the founding myth of the first czars after post-Mongol reunification.
Also, pretty much any devout Eastern Orthodox Russian will know quite a lot about Byzantium for the simple reason that it's where the Russian church tradition originates - even many words for various associated concepts are basically transliterated Greek words. And most of the recognized Fathers of the Church, martyrs and saints are also from that period, and as religious people study their lives, they also learn about the history of that period, at least to the extent relevant to their goal (which includes some customs, government system etc).
There's one other related thing that was appropriated from Byzantium wholesale, and often presented as one of the key features of the "genuine Russian" (as opposed to Western democracy) sociopolitical arrangement by those with a religious bent - symphonia. It meshes very well with the authoritarian state backed by religious ideology that Putin has been building over the past few years, so it has a resurgence of popularity lately.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
The traditional Orthodox approach to that was to claim that Soviet rule was basically a kind of divine collective punishment for abandoning "Third Rome", divinely instituted autocracy etc. From that perspective, the rejection of communist ideology after the dissolution of the USSR and the revival of the Church were repentance, and, consequently, the present arrangement derives directly from Imperial Russia (and through it from Muscovy, Byzantium and Rome), skipping the Soviet period altogether.
Of late, though, this is a much less popular view, because it also glosses over WW2, the important part of the USSR/Russia (to most today this is synonymous) national mythology. Especially so as it goes along well with the overall messianic idea of Third Rome - you know, that whole "save the world from pure evil" thing. Consequently, there have been some, shall we say, creative reinterpretations. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a few: 123. Basically, Stalin is presented as a return to the theocratic-autocratic tradition after the "satanic" rule of the Bolsheviks, with emphasis on his revival of the Church, the return of conservative social mores (e.g. making homosexuality and abortions illegal again), and victory over external foes - all divinely inspired, of course.
In fact, there's now an entire new category of WW2 myths that seek to imbue it with a religious context - for example, there's one about the Battle of Moscow, which claims that when at some point defeat was practically inevitable, Stalin ordered a specific highly venerated Orthodox icon of Mary to be loaded on a plane, and that plane circled Moscow - and after that, the German advance was stopped and ultimately repulsed.
If this all sounds like a very dangerous concoction, that's because it is. Stalinists and Orthodox fanatics were both dangerous each in their own way, but at least they used to fight each other. Now they have mostly found common ground and a common enemy - individual freedom, liberalism in general, and most everything else associated with the Western civilization today.
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
They actually don't. They are very much aware of the Byzantine connection and are proud of it. Look up "Third Rome" to see what I mean.
its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong.:)
Yeah. It basically happens every time Russia goes on another period of anti-liberalism, because it's convenient to equate liberalism and Europe (esp. Western Europe) and its offshoots, and then go ranting about the clash of civilizations etc. Third Rome actually kinda sorta plays into this also, because from that perspective Russia is basically the only remaining piece of true Christian Europe, and everyone else are degenerate, distorted remains (well maybe except Serbs). Or, alternatively, temporary occupied and has to be liberated from whatever is the problem (ZOG, American influence etc - whatever is a convenient scapegoat in the circumstances).
You still don't get it, either. The existence of those stereotypes is well known to the authors. They have a choice of coming up with truly alien aliens, or at least mixing traits up such that they don't reflect any known stereotype. When they do quite obviously pick traits such that they add to a very distinct and recognizable existing stereotype, they cannot blame the audience for reacting accordingly.
(And, of course, reusing an existing accent is something that is inherently an Earth thing. The moment you bring that into the picture, there's no dodging the bullet of dragging the associated stereotypes.)
Culturally, Russia (well, the dominant culture in it, since it's technically multicultural) is very much Eastern European. It's quite obvious even from history alone, since it was always a major player specifically in the European political games, the elites (including the ruling dynasties) have actively intermarried etc. It had some periods during which it swung somewhat away from its European roots and towards Asian external influences - notably, the late Kievan Rus / early Muscovy period, roughly Mongol invasion to Peter the Great. But overall it always remained closer to Europe in overall feel.
Geographically, vast majority of the population (again, especially that of the dominant culture) is also located in Europe, i.e. west of Urals.
There's no reason why we can't combine these for greater efficiency. Here's a proposal for the story next week: "Does systemd suck because it has too few female developers?".
Are you confusing correlation and causation? Because race certainly correlates with education, and through it transitively with competence. No-one is saying that the race is what causes that correlation, but it's trivial to observe.
I'm getting GNU Screen as the first search result, as well, despite using Chrome on Win8.1 (and generally using Windows 99% of the time). Pretty sure that is based on personal profile / search history.
Slashdot Mirror
None of this make much sense. For starters,
On Windows 7, every program run in the batch file will be on a separate thread/CPU and the entire batch file will be multi-threaded.
The semantics of batch files is that every statement runs sequentially. This cannot be changed because all existing batch files assume that the previous line has completed processing, and the next one can use its results. Consequently, it doesn't make any sense to "multi-thread" a batch file, since it's entirely sequential.
Additionally, batch files spawn processes, not threads, so "multithreaded" is a misnomer here in any case.
Also on Windows 7+, .NET applications automatically put certain parts (UI for Windows Forms, garbage collector, etc.) on separate threads.
Okay, now you really don't know what you're talking about. First of all, .NET is not really tied to Windows, and it has the same behavior regardless of which version it runs on. Second, GC always runs on a separate thread, and this has been the case since 1.0. Third, WinForms is a Win32 wrapper, and as such it has to run on the main thread, which is trivially observable in debugger - and nothing has changed here in Win7 or any recent .NET version.
Yes, exactly. We have been banning obvious solutions to problems, and then complaining that nuclear is hard. It's ridiculous.
You forgot natural gas. Though that may have unfortunate geopolitical implications depending on where it is.
Why would you want to discharge tritium? It has many practical applications (and is fairly expensive because of that).
How to cheaply, efficiently and safely dispose of nuclear waste:
1. Enclose it in a huge solid block of glass (just melted sand, so it's cheap).
2. Take it to any deep ocean trench and dump it.
3. Tectonic plate subduction takes care of the rest.
Also natural gas from the Magreb (think Algeria and perhaps Libya)
Libya? So will they trade with ISIS once it's running the place? (and let's face it, the way it's going, it almost certainly will... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up running the entire North Africa)
I am not talking about carrying a weapon in a car. I am talking about mounting one on top of the vehicle to be used while driving it. This is the better analogy to the drone in the article.
What I'm saying is that "in" and "on" is not really something that is strictly defined (and, indeed, some existing laws already interpret "on" as "in"). And if you mount one on top of your vehicle, and then build an enclosure around it such that there is a hole for bullets to come out of, but the gun itself cannot be seen, which one is it?
Are you sure that's enough? They did just what you said in Australia in the 90s; now they're worried that lever-action guns are "too fast", and want to ban them, too. Pump-action is also pretty fast.
And then you have guns specifically designed to work around restrictions like these, which are still not technically semi-auto (because they require you to perform a manual action to chamber the round for every shot), but are almost as fast in practice. Presumably you'd want to prohibit them, too. How would you word such a law?
Oh, and no additional magazine restrictions? 10 rounds is good enough?
As a gun owner, I'll trust another person to pull or not pull the trigger as appropriate, but when it gets complicated enough that there are electronic components in play, I start getting twitchy. Too many variables. I mean, just try to mentally apply the four rules to this thing... you would have to actively maintain it in the right orientation to avoid pointing the barrel in the wrong direction, and the "finger" is basically always on the trigger (and that aside it could go haywire and activate by itself if it gets shortened or something). Since the gun is away it can't be safely cleared if there is say an FTF. There's no way to verify that a shot was not a squib, and firing a second one could just blow the whole thing up in pieces and rain shrapnel on anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.
It's not about criminals, it's about honest people playing with a fun new "toy" without proper understanding of how dangerous it can be, and with no proper protocols to even ensure said safety designed into it.
So they know what the law says, they just know what it means.
What would you consider to be enough?
A puny .22 LR round can still punch through a frozen turkey wrapped in two layers of denim at 300 yards.
Actually hitting things at that distance will be difficult, and then there's bullet drop. But the bullet can still be plenty deadly at even extreme distances.
It depends on the state and the gun. In WA, for example, carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car is illegal (and "in" is defined very broadly here, often to the point of even just leaning a loaded gun against a parked car). But carrying a loaded handgun concealed (in the car) is fine so long as you have a permit. The question is, what counts as "concealed" here. If you were to, say, mount it inside and rig up a pipe such that it has a line of fire, I think it would, strictly speaking, meet the definition.
What if it's a trans pre-teen girl?
(yes, they do exist these days)
Episode 1? Good writing? Seriously?
This is the single most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread so far, and you've said plenty of ridiculous things already.
While we're at it, Python Tools for Visual Studio 2.2 has also been released at the same time. In addition to VS 2015 support, this is mainly a bugfix and do-small-features-that-never-make-the-bar release. If you're a Python developer on Windows, please give it a try, especially if you've never heard about it before. Feel free to tell me that we suck so long as you also file a bug in the tracker. ~
(Full disclosure: I am a developer on the PTVS team.)
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
In terms of ethnic descent, this is definitely the case. Not just steppes, though, but also forests. Most of what is Central and Northern European part of Russia today was one giant forest ~1000 years ago, with small settlements along the rivers living off the trade with passing ships selling fur, amber and other similar goods for export. Mostly Slavonic, but also a significant Finno-Ugric component.
The Byzantium "descent" is more spiritual in nature, through the acceptance Orthodoxy. Though there's also a partial blood claim specifically for the past ruling dynasties, because several rulers have married Byzantine princesses (most notably, Vladimir the Great, who forcibly converted the entire country to Greek Christianity, stipulated his marriage to the daughter of then-current Eastern Roman Emperor as one of his conditions, acceptance of which was forced basically at swordpoint). But for most people, it's about being the largest Eastern Orthodox country in the world.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
After the collapse of the USSR, there was a fairly significant religious revival movement that was primarily anti-communist in nature. Restoring the old traditions and all that. Most people didn't really become seriously religious, though, being more of a token Christians - you know, baptizing their kids and celebrating the prominent religious holidays (save for "inconvenient" ones like Lent), and occasionally attending Church services, but not really capable of articulating the theology well, and overall treating it more as a part of national identity. Government has contributed to the revival somewhat by transferring some of the original Church property that was confiscated from it under communists back, and in some cases funding new construction efforts, but otherwise not really stepping in. Atheism also remained pretty significant, though - more so than in, say, US today.
However, in the past decade or so, there has been a steady rise in government support of Orthodoxy as preferential religion, and clear attempts to make it into some kind of national ideology. Schools now have "the fundamentals of Orthodox culture" as a class, though it's still opt-in in theory (in practice it varies on the school, and some places put a strong social pressure on students to opt in). Most government-sponsored patriotic organizations for youth etc also emphasize religion. Blasphemy laws have been effectively introduced under the guise of "protecting the religious sentiment". There are still quite a few atheists, but the trend is clearly against them. I see a lot more religious kids online, and even my own generation (I'm 30) seems to be more outwardly religious now than we used to be in our 20s.
This all has accelerated especially with the whole Crimea/Ukraine thing going on - state TV channels during Maidan went to great lengths to point out that many protesters were affiliated with Catholic (often Eastern Rite) or Protestant churches, for example. And the ideological basis for the insurgents in Donbass is heavily rooted in religion and geopolitical messianism - they really think that they're fighting Satan there.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
It's an Orthodox thing in general. Catholics are considered heretics, originally because they have changed the Nicene Creed slightly - look up "Filioque" if you are interested in theological details - causing the Great Schism between the Western church in Rome, and the Eastern churches associated wi
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium.
You met me for one :)
In truth, though, "Third Rome" is part of the history textbooks. I don't know how it is presented today, but back when I studied history in school it was fairly neutral, but certainly featured quite prominently, largely because it was an important part of the founding myth of the first czars after post-Mongol reunification.
Also, pretty much any devout Eastern Orthodox Russian will know quite a lot about Byzantium for the simple reason that it's where the Russian church tradition originates - even many words for various associated concepts are basically transliterated Greek words. And most of the recognized Fathers of the Church, martyrs and saints are also from that period, and as religious people study their lives, they also learn about the history of that period, at least to the extent relevant to their goal (which includes some customs, government system etc).
There's one other related thing that was appropriated from Byzantium wholesale, and often presented as one of the key features of the "genuine Russian" (as opposed to Western democracy) sociopolitical arrangement by those with a religious bent - symphonia. It meshes very well with the authoritarian state backed by religious ideology that Putin has been building over the past few years, so it has a resurgence of popularity lately.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
The traditional Orthodox approach to that was to claim that Soviet rule was basically a kind of divine collective punishment for abandoning "Third Rome", divinely instituted autocracy etc. From that perspective, the rejection of communist ideology after the dissolution of the USSR and the revival of the Church were repentance, and, consequently, the present arrangement derives directly from Imperial Russia (and through it from Muscovy, Byzantium and Rome), skipping the Soviet period altogether.
Of late, though, this is a much less popular view, because it also glosses over WW2, the important part of the USSR/Russia (to most today this is synonymous) national mythology. Especially so as it goes along well with the overall messianic idea of Third Rome - you know, that whole "save the world from pure evil" thing. Consequently, there have been some, shall we say, creative reinterpretations. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a few: 1 2 3. Basically, Stalin is presented as a return to the theocratic-autocratic tradition after the "satanic" rule of the Bolsheviks, with emphasis on his revival of the Church, the return of conservative social mores (e.g. making homosexuality and abortions illegal again), and victory over external foes - all divinely inspired, of course.
In fact, there's now an entire new category of WW2 myths that seek to imbue it with a religious context - for example, there's one about the Battle of Moscow, which claims that when at some point defeat was practically inevitable, Stalin ordered a specific highly venerated Orthodox icon of Mary to be loaded on a plane, and that plane circled Moscow - and after that, the German advance was stopped and ultimately repulsed.
If this all sounds like a very dangerous concoction, that's because it is. Stalinists and Orthodox fanatics were both dangerous each in their own way, but at least they used to fight each other. Now they have mostly found common ground and a common enemy - individual freedom, liberalism in general, and most everything else associated with the Western civilization today.
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
They actually don't. They are very much aware of the Byzantine connection and are proud of it. Look up "Third Rome" to see what I mean.
its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong. :)
Yeah. It basically happens every time Russia goes on another period of anti-liberalism, because it's convenient to equate liberalism and Europe (esp. Western Europe) and its offshoots, and then go ranting about the clash of civilizations etc. Third Rome actually kinda sorta plays into this also, because from that perspective Russia is basically the only remaining piece of true Christian Europe, and everyone else are degenerate, distorted remains (well maybe except Serbs). Or, alternatively, temporary occupied and has to be liberated from whatever is the problem (ZOG, American influence etc - whatever is a convenient scapegoat in the circumstances).
Well, we could always just pick some particularly retarded Reddit submission or thread, and talk about how it's dying and how Slashdot is next etc.
You still don't get it, either. The existence of those stereotypes is well known to the authors. They have a choice of coming up with truly alien aliens, or at least mixing traits up such that they don't reflect any known stereotype. When they do quite obviously pick traits such that they add to a very distinct and recognizable existing stereotype, they cannot blame the audience for reacting accordingly.
(And, of course, reusing an existing accent is something that is inherently an Earth thing. The moment you bring that into the picture, there's no dodging the bullet of dragging the associated stereotypes.)
Culturally, Russia (well, the dominant culture in it, since it's technically multicultural) is very much Eastern European. It's quite obvious even from history alone, since it was always a major player specifically in the European political games, the elites (including the ruling dynasties) have actively intermarried etc. It had some periods during which it swung somewhat away from its European roots and towards Asian external influences - notably, the late Kievan Rus / early Muscovy period, roughly Mongol invasion to Peter the Great. But overall it always remained closer to Europe in overall feel.
Geographically, vast majority of the population (again, especially that of the dominant culture) is also located in Europe, i.e. west of Urals.
There's no reason why we can't combine these for greater efficiency. Here's a proposal for the story next week: "Does systemd suck because it has too few female developers?".
Are you confusing correlation and causation? Because race certainly correlates with education, and through it transitively with competence. No-one is saying that the race is what causes that correlation, but it's trivial to observe.
I'm getting GNU Screen as the first search result, as well, despite using Chrome on Win8.1 (and generally using Windows 99% of the time). Pretty sure that is based on personal profile / search history.