If you're doing graphics, you often have to make edits on tiny things that aren't perceptually different unless you're zoomed really far in but have an impact on things as a whole. Yeah, but you don't need these displayed. Having the in-memory image have a better resolution or a better color depth is a good idea, but I would leave showing the details for when you actually zoom it in.
Accurately showing red as red and blue as blue is an entirely different story, not related to bit depth.
Regarding #4, If you're only checking out a single directory and allowed to make a commit, how did you build/test your 5GB project? Note that I specifically mentioned "for things other than program sources". Most other pieces of software does not require builds, and neither it is monolithic.
To commit a change to the Linux kernel, you do need to build the whole thing. That's a monolothic thing.
To commit a change to a webpage, a graphical project, a set of biochem data, you don't need that. Do you need to check out the countless megs of Wesnoth to update your changes to a campaign? That's a modular thing.
If that directory was an independent piece, it should be in a separate repository since it's logically independent. If that directory is part of a larger whole, you shouldn't be allowed to work with just that one piece. (IMO) If I want to modify a 5GB webpage, why would I want to checkout unrelated pieces? And having every subpage in a separate repository would be counterproductive.
While Git obviously has its strong sides, often quite overwhelming, there are cases when it sucks compared to SVN: 1. timestamps. Subversion doesn't do that by default, but it has good enough metadata support than timestamps can be hacked in easily. For Git, metastore is nearly worthless. If you store a program source, you risk just skewed builds -- for other types of data, lack of timestamps is often a deal breaker. 2. move tracking: trying to move a directory branch from one dir to another means you lose history. Rename tracking works only sometimes, often it will take a random file from somewhere else, etc. 3. large files. Take a 100MB binary file into SVN, change one byte, commit. Change one byte again. And again. Git will waste the freaking 100MB for every single commit. 4. partial checkouts. If there's a 5GB repository, you'll often want to check out just a single dir. With Git, there is no such option. 5. ease of use. I see that ordinary users, web monkeys and so on can learn SVN easily; with Git, even I had some troubles initially.
On the other hand, SVN used to have no merge tracking (I wonder what that "limited merge tracking" in 1.5 means...) which for distributed development of program sources is worse than points 1..5 together.
Yet another reason why you shouldn't be opening e-mail on a production server. Hey, I do read my mail by ssh+mutt onto the real (production) mail server. And on an university account that should be deleted ten years ago, I can still ssh in and run pine. I don't see either of these systems as insecure.
I guess the issue is more like: how in the blazes a buggy e-mail client (and bugs do happen) may take over the whole system?
As a developer, I say your post is utter bullshit. No one creates software because "Windows is such a great platform". The only reason why we can't afford to drop Windows support -- in most case, SOLE support, is that 100% of customers run Windows. It's a chicken and egg problem, with developers (the more technical people) wanting to get away from Windows the most.
And MUDs have solved the issue so many years ago...
On a vast majority, death means you lose your set unless you manage to do a corpse retrieval. On for example the Two Towers, you don't even get to keep eq over logins; they can be stored in some ways but even that gets purged every (scheduled) reboot of the game.
If you don't get that attached to your set, there is a limit how far you go to improve it. A good player will have constantly decent one, a grinder rarely will.
After the president admitting to a felony against the FISA? After the administration ordering evidence to be falsified to have a casus belli against enemies of their Saudi friends?
The last few US administrations, both Democleptopopulist and Repunepotiauthoritarian, criminal? Who wuda thunk it?
Take a look for example at the "WW2" article. It's a freaking featured article, yet it's insanely pro-soviet. Instead of listing the Soviet Union as one of the two initial aggressors or even mentioning them as combattants on the Axis side, most of the article praises the deeds of Soviet soldiers.
"Deeds of Soviet soldiers". Hell right. Same as what happened in Tallin recently when folks protested against having a statue of thugs who occupied them for >50 years worshipped in the middle of the capital.
Does the WW2 article even mention Poles murdered between Sep 17 1939 and June 22 1941? Does it say anything about history books not even mentioning that time? Not a word. And I wouldn't call murdering most of Polish intelligentsia, officers and many of skilled workers something non-notable.
And why Wikipedia is so biased? Because it can be subverted with just a bit of astroturfing, something that Putin learned pretty well. The Chinese are starting to learn such tricks as well.
Possibly you're right. But I wouldn't be surprised if something much worse than [...] You have a strange way of saying "I could bet my life that".
In my dad's school, one of the kids started laughing when the grave news of Stalin's death were announced. The next day, his whole family went missing. The China is still in the phase of jailing folks over what their kid said...
I understand we don't even have https everywhere right now.. Mostly because to use https for anything but internal communication between tech-inclined people, you need to pay a tribute to VeriSign or another member of the SSL cert scam group.
And recent changes to Firefox3 make the issue much worse.
ie. those that don't want the advertising, but also don't want to make a donation to Wikipedia Ok, I'll bite. What would you say about those who specifically don't donate to Wikipedia because of their policy?
So here's the deal: stop the book-burning deletionist jihad, and those who follow Howard Tayler's campaign will suddenly resume donations. And no, you can't squeeze any advertising money from the likes of me thanks to Adblock.
Unlike commercial encyclopaedias, most of us do pay in some kind: we donate our time, our work, our expertise. Without community editors, Wikipedia would be nothing. Stop throwing away the contributions and a lot more people will be inclined to toss in also some cash.
I bet during training they are told to look for things that may be designed to "look like" common things, and a laptop without ports would probably gain the notice of less tech savvy screeners. To the contrary, it seems like they get confused by things unknown to them. A long, long time ago I went to the USA and had a similar gathering of security staff because of a box of 3.5" floppies... It was before looking for terrorists was in fashion; they could possibly taken the floppies for some spy devices or whatever (being found on someone from ex-eastern bloc) -- but I can't think of any plausible explanation.
Don't worry, in Poland one of our major parties is "Law and Justice", a Christian-fundamentalist party that makes Dubya look like a good boy scout. One of main parts of their platform is "eradicating corruption", and I think you can guess how well they fare. The name obliges, after all.
I have seen one (1) customer where the resident admin asked for an account to install the server-side piece of our software provided something else than "root", even when explicitely told not to. I don't think I need to describe the rest of the security at their places. I've learned that trying to tell them anything about the basic common sense rules is counterproductive, too. If I try, I and our company get labelled as "troublemakers" behind our backs. Even (or especially) if there's some push from higher up.
Slashdot Mirror
Accurately showing red as red and blue as blue is an entirely different story, not related to bit depth.
To commit a change to the Linux kernel, you do need to build the whole thing. That's a monolothic thing.
To commit a change to a webpage, a graphical project, a set of biochem data, you don't need that. Do you need to check out the countless megs of Wesnoth to update your changes to a campaign? That's a modular thing. If that directory was an independent piece, it should be in a separate repository since it's logically independent. If that directory is part of a larger whole, you shouldn't be allowed to work with just that one piece. (IMO) If I want to modify a 5GB webpage, why would I want to checkout unrelated pieces? And having every subpage in a separate repository would be counterproductive.
While Git obviously has its strong sides, often quite overwhelming, there are cases when it sucks compared to SVN:
1. timestamps. Subversion doesn't do that by default, but it has good enough metadata support than timestamps can be hacked in easily. For Git, metastore is nearly worthless. If you store a program source, you risk just skewed builds -- for other types of data, lack of timestamps is often a deal breaker.
2. move tracking: trying to move a directory branch from one dir to another means you lose history. Rename tracking works only sometimes, often it will take a random file from somewhere else, etc.
3. large files. Take a 100MB binary file into SVN, change one byte, commit. Change one byte again. And again. Git will waste the freaking 100MB for every single commit.
4. partial checkouts. If there's a 5GB repository, you'll often want to check out just a single dir. With Git, there is no such option.
5. ease of use. I see that ordinary users, web monkeys and so on can learn SVN easily; with Git, even I had some troubles initially.
On the other hand, SVN used to have no merge tracking (I wonder what that "limited merge tracking" in 1.5 means...) which for distributed development of program sources is worse than points 1..5 together.
You assume too much good faith by those jerks... I tagged it more appropriately: "corruption".
Your pun (on the verb "dwarf"-"s") would be a lot funnier if it was actually correct.
The noun "dwarf" is pluralized to "dwarves" just like "shelf" and the like.
Yet another reason why you shouldn't be opening e-mail on a production server. Hey, I do read my mail by ssh+mutt onto the real (production) mail server. And on an university account that should be deleted ten years ago, I can still ssh in and run pine. I don't see either of these systems as insecure.
I guess the issue is more like: how in the blazes a buggy e-mail client (and bugs do happen) may take over the whole system?
Sorry for nasty language, of course.
As a developer, I say your post is utter bullshit.
No one creates software because "Windows is such a great platform". The only reason why we can't afford to drop Windows support -- in most case, SOLE support, is that 100% of customers run Windows. It's a chicken and egg problem, with developers (the more technical people) wanting to get away from Windows the most.
And MUDs have solved the issue so many years ago...
On a vast majority, death means you lose your set unless you manage to do a corpse retrieval. On for example the Two Towers, you don't even get to keep eq over logins; they can be stored in some ways but even that gets purged every (scheduled) reboot of the game.
If you don't get that attached to your set, there is a limit how far you go to improve it. A good player will have constantly decent one, a grinder rarely will.
After the president admitting to a felony against the FISA? After the administration ordering evidence to be falsified to have a casus belli against enemies of their Saudi friends?
The last few US administrations, both Democleptopopulist and Repunepotiauthoritarian, criminal? Who wuda thunk it?
Except when there is explicit law to the contrary.
Take a look for example at the "WW2" article. It's a freaking featured article, yet it's insanely pro-soviet. Instead of listing the Soviet Union as one of the two initial aggressors or even mentioning them as combattants on the Axis side, most of the article praises the deeds of Soviet soldiers.
"Deeds of Soviet soldiers". Hell right. Same as what happened in Tallin recently when folks protested against having a statue of thugs who occupied them for >50 years worshipped in the middle of the capital.
Does the WW2 article even mention Poles murdered between Sep 17 1939 and June 22 1941? Does it say anything about history books not even mentioning that time? Not a word. And I wouldn't call murdering most of Polish intelligentsia, officers and many of skilled workers something non-notable.
And why Wikipedia is so biased? Because it can be subverted with just a bit of astroturfing, something that Putin learned pretty well. The Chinese are starting to learn such tricks as well.
In my dad's school, one of the kids started laughing when the grave news of Stalin's death were announced. The next day, his whole family went missing.
The China is still in the phase of jailing folks over what their kid said...
And since guys doing such things for fun are nearly entirely pro-Tibet, who is left as the only interested party?
And recent changes to Firefox3 make the issue much worse.
(I don't shave, so I'm less-than-well informed) Well, but don't these new-fangled shaving tools have three blades on them?
So if we got simplicity and not assuming malice, what's the third one?
So here's the deal: stop the book-burning deletionist jihad, and those who follow Howard Tayler's campaign will suddenly resume donations. And no, you can't squeeze any advertising money from the likes of me thanks to Adblock.
Unlike commercial encyclopaedias, most of us do pay in some kind: we donate our time, our work, our expertise. Without community editors, Wikipedia would be nothing. Stop throwing away the contributions and a lot more people will be inclined to toss in also some cash.
At least that's not a vacuum cleaner...
... or then are slightly more free than the US.
Don't worry, in Poland one of our major parties is "Law and Justice", a Christian-fundamentalist party that makes Dubya look like a good boy scout. One of main parts of their platform is "eradicating corruption", and I think you can guess how well they fare. The name obliges, after all.
You see, there's a crime going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's a good idea to send a SWAT team right away...
Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.
Not just DBAs, it's nearly all administrators.
I have seen one (1) customer where the resident admin asked for an account to install the server-side piece of our software provided something else than "root", even when explicitely told not to. I don't think I need to describe the rest of the security at their places. I've learned that trying to tell them anything about the basic common sense rules is counterproductive, too. If I try, I and our company get labelled as "troublemakers" behind our backs. Even (or especially) if there's some push from higher up.