Quoting my sister (a civil engineer, so there's obvious bias...):
"a civil engineer is someone who has to take plans produced by an architect's drug-addled mind and correct it until the building will be able to stand without collapsing". Or "an architect lures customers with pretty-looking pictures, then a civil engineer has to make it actually work".
The article strongly suggests that she may be right...
To the contrary -- IMAP connections persist but take nothing but an entry in a kernel + daemon table. POP has to make the full TCP handshake, SSL handshake, POP login, check the mail and disconnect every freaking 10 minutes. Even if there's some sort of keepalives to involved, they're a single packet in both ways instead of a full connection with authentication and what not.
Four words: No Child Left Behind. And similar changes in other countries, legislated or not.
I took a look at the curricula of: school I remember (I was born in '78), school just several years before my time, school today and US school. The trend is absolutely horrifying. Another thing to note is, US school is 20-30 years before that in Poland. No wonder that when I visited an US university, the labs had nothing but Polacks, Indians, Chinese, and generally second/third-world crowd.
But don't worry, we Polacks are going there too...
Except, you see, if you produce a spaceship made with the exact technology of that day, you can fly it just the same.
Of course, it would be so much better to upgrade most of the design, but at least no one can convincingly claim it takes so many years to go back to the moon.
Does it really take 13 freaking years to dig up the notes from Apollo program, dust off/refresh the equipment and relaunch? Did we take such a big step back?
In some cases, DX9 versions are better, in some, DX10 versions are. Overall, the difference is minimal, except for "Call of Juarez" which uses a completely different set of textures and settings, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Image quality: about the same, slightly different in both cases. Performance: usually twice as good for DX9, in some cases over 5x better.
I would call neither of versions "more appealing" in general, albeit I admit that in a couple of cases DX10 had less artifacts. Yet, that's nowhere near being worth the performance hit.
Oh, and there's a huge error in the test methodology. Both DirectX-es were tested on Vista. Try repeating the test with DX9 on XP and measure the performance...
You see, this is just as if a car manufacturer declared their cars can go only on a special type of road surface without publishing this first, and then told people that they need to have their cities upgrade the roads first...
Back in the days, the product would be simply sent back as defective and the manufacturers sued for false advertising...
Except, after some point, even those "audiophiles" cannot tell the difference. Human hearing has its limits, but gullibility has not.
Did you ever wonder why virtually no one makes double-blind tests of this kind of gear? Because if enough unbiased reviews are posted, no one will buy the most expensive stuff. It's the same reason why winemakers attack double-blind tests so fiercely.
UDP's connectionless nature means that clients can just spew packets as fast as their link allows. Or, in other words, they spew packets with total disregard to other users, jamming up the network.
Beh. Ten years ago, when me and a bunch of friends used to write simple games as high school kids, we never got worse than some kind of a minimal spanning tree, doubly-connected w/o bridges if the game in question allowed dropping nodes. This is basic graph theory, something any CS student has to know.
And highly paid professionals should be a lot better educated than a group of kids, right? Oh well, whom am I kidding. But if you're writing a gaming library for millions of dollars, the library ought to handle at least the most common case when most players are close to each other well.
Sixteen players in a big outdoors map, where they can see a lot of stuff? That's not an insignificant number of KBs per second. And if your college is like mine was--where some nights, literally 75% of the player population was Haloing--that can easily hit a few MB per second. Well, trees, doors, walls, signs, etc tend to not move a lot. So usually all you need to send are the players themselves, bullets, and that's about it.
Okay, on second thought, that's not all that huge a number. But doesn't UDP have more overhead than TCP? Eh, I guess I don't know that much about this after all. Actually, UDP has slightly less overhead: 20 bytes+layer 3 header for TCP (=32 bytes + Ethernet frame over IPv4), and 8 bytes+layer3 = 20 bytes+Ethernet over IPv4 for UDP. Yet, with TCP, the OS forces as least some congestion control, something that game programmers typically completely disregard.
Halo 3's network protocol is so abysmal that it needs a big chunk of bandwidth. I'm not talking that everything must be done The Right Way (ie, sending just what other players pressed and a checksum of the game's state like Doom1/2 did), but even sending the coords for objects you can see won't take more than a few KBs per second.
the routers were buggy and crapped out after seeing more than X streams, counting every UDP packet as a separate stream (a moderately popular bug). As shaping fixed the issue, I doubt this could be the culprit.
the whole univ having nothing but a slow DSL uplink or so. I don't know where the article's poster is from, but if that's a 3rd world country it's possible.
Somehow, not knowing anything about Halo, I suspect a combination of the first and third reason.
NTP doesn't do time zones. At all. It operates solely in GMT, and it's up to the operating system (libc+tzdata in this case) to apply the offset when a program asks for the local time.
dropped debian for my home machines and work systems a long time ago. Ubuntu rocks me. It's everything good about debian (apt-get) without everything bad (debian policy, debian usability). Stability-wise: debian/stable > debian/testing > debian>unstable > ubuntu/released > debian/experimental > ubuntu/unreleased
Thus, for a home desktop which can break most of the time and where you want the bling, you can afford to run Ubuntu.
I do run Beryl at home, even though it breaks a lot. Beryl, not the new versions of Compiz which after all those months after merge are still a regression, both stability and usability wise. Yet, I wouldn't let it anywhere near a system which shouldn't break. Well, many people actually run Windows in places where stability matters, but I digress. And Ubuntu made Compiz the default...
.. and most of the above badly break anything chroot is actually useful for. Rescuing a system from a LiveCD? Doing a build? Using a different set of libraries (like, i386 on an amd64 box)?
For security, use vserver/jails/etc, as they were actually designed for security. With chroot, these "100 other ways" mean it's just a feel-good measure.
The user agents are really useful to determine which mobile device is performing the request. Except they work only if you recognize those particular User-Agent strings. And mobile browsers tend to be relatively unknown, so it's likely there won't be anything similar on your static list and thus your similarity algorithms will be of no use. Once someone comes up with a browser you haven't seen yet, your website will fail badly.
And what if a blind person who uses a screen reader comes by? What if that person uses a Braille reader instead? What if it's someone able to see but a person who needs a big magnification? What if I come by using eLinks? And "making full use of a larger screen" needs to know the User-Agent how? The CEO of my company insists on setting his resolution to 800x600 even though it's on a LCD, I use 1600x1200, some folks with better hardware go higher -- and all have the very same User-Agent string.
Having a proper split between semantic markup and styling has none of these problems.
Please, stop giving a damn about User-Agent. Its effects are:
you waste ~100 bytes every single time you request something over http, times ~50 objects on a typical page
it is a privacy risk; IP+User-Agent is sometimes said to be about as effective means of identifying you as cookies, and it works even if cookies are disabled
it is a security risk, as it gives out your exact browser version
is useless for telling the server what to serve, as unless you use one of 2-3 mainstream browsers (IE masquerading as Mozilla, Opera masquerading as IE masquerading as Mozilla...) the server won't glean any useful data anyway. Sure, on desktops, browsers other than the usual three are rare, even stuff like Konqueror or Safari counts as "exotic", but the article talks about cell phones...
So just do what many of us do and set your User-Agent to a profane string. Without "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible, MSIE" at the beginning.
improvements [...] note-taking application Tomboy. I hope these improvements mean Tomboy has been taken out. Right, please?
Including a minor tool for a trivial task which takes as much memory as the rest of core Gnome together is something I can't really understand. It's the only part of Gnome proper which uses mono -- so why do they bother shipping it?
Of course, asking whether major annoyances like new windows opening on whatever workspace you're currently on instead of the one they were started have been fixed is kind of pointless...
It's worse than you think. I conslut sometimes for a couple of small ISPs, and when I take a look at their squid logs, I see that 1/3 of all freaking http requests are for ads. And don't forget that bandwidth is precious, same for screen real estate and human attention.
You may reply "but the ISP is paid for that anyway". Yes, but they have to deliver less real content for the same money while incurring more costs. So who loses? Customers and ISPs. Who wins? Advertisers. Guess where my sympathy is.
"False ad clicks" may cost Google 1 billion dollars a year, but ads in general cost the society at large many trillions dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
It is stealthy against antenna-detection tools which operate on EM spectra quite different from visible light.
It's kind of how a stealth bomber is quite easy to notice if you just look upward -- it is made to fool radar, not human sight.
Quoting my sister (a civil engineer, so there's obvious bias...):
"a civil engineer is someone who has to take plans produced by an architect's drug-addled mind and correct it until the building will be able to stand without collapsing". Or "an architect lures customers with pretty-looking pictures, then a civil engineer has to make it actually work".
The article strongly suggests that she may be right...
NO ROM BASIC - SYSTEM HALTED
If you want it to work, use apt-get.
To the contrary -- IMAP connections persist but take nothing but an entry in a kernel + daemon table. POP has to make the full TCP handshake, SSL handshake, POP login, check the mail and disconnect every freaking 10 minutes. Even if there's some sort of keepalives to involved, they're a single packet in both ways instead of a full connection with authentication and what not.
You meant "one kopeyka", right?
Four words: No Child Left Behind. And similar changes in other countries, legislated or not.
I took a look at the curricula of: school I remember (I was born in '78), school just several years before my time, school today and US school. The trend is absolutely horrifying. Another thing to note is, US school is 20-30 years before that in Poland. No wonder that when I visited an US university, the labs had nothing but Polacks, Indians, Chinese, and generally second/third-world crowd.
But don't worry, we Polacks are going there too...
Except, you see, if you produce a spaceship made with the exact technology of that day, you can fly it just the same.
Of course, it would be so much better to upgrade most of the design, but at least no one can convincingly claim it takes so many years to go back to the moon.
Does it really take 13 freaking years to dig up the notes from Apollo program, dust off/refresh the equipment and relaunch? Did we take such a big step back?
In some cases, DX9 versions are better, in some, DX10 versions are. Overall, the difference is minimal, except for "Call of Juarez" which uses a completely different set of textures and settings, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Image quality: about the same, slightly different in both cases.
Performance: usually twice as good for DX9, in some cases over 5x better.
I would call neither of versions "more appealing" in general, albeit I admit that in a couple of cases DX10 had less artifacts. Yet, that's nowhere near being worth the performance hit.
Oh, and there's a huge error in the test methodology. Both DirectX-es were tested on Vista. Try repeating the test with DX9 on XP and measure the performance...
You see, this is just as if a car manufacturer declared their cars can go only on a special type of road surface without publishing this first, and then told people that they need to have their cities upgrade the roads first...
Back in the days, the product would be simply sent back as defective and the manufacturers sued for false advertising...
Except, after some point, even those "audiophiles" cannot tell the difference. Human hearing has its limits, but gullibility has not.
Did you ever wonder why virtually no one makes double-blind tests of this kind of gear? Because if enough unbiased reviews are posted, no one will buy the most expensive stuff. It's the same reason why winemakers attack double-blind tests so fiercely.
Beh. Ten years ago, when me and a bunch of friends used to write simple games as high school kids, we never got worse than some kind of a minimal spanning tree, doubly-connected w/o bridges if the game in question allowed dropping nodes. This is basic graph theory, something any CS student has to know.
And highly paid professionals should be a lot better educated than a group of kids, right? Oh well, whom am I kidding. But if you're writing a gaming library for millions of dollars, the library ought to handle at least the most common case when most players are close to each other well.
- Halo 3's network protocol is so abysmal that it needs a big chunk of bandwidth. I'm not talking that everything must be done The Right Way (ie, sending just what other players pressed and a checksum of the game's state like Doom1/2 did), but even sending the coords for objects you can see won't take more than a few KBs per second.
- the routers were buggy and crapped out after seeing more than X streams, counting every UDP packet as a separate stream (a moderately popular bug). As shaping fixed the issue, I doubt this could be the culprit.
- the whole univ having nothing but a slow DSL uplink or so. I don't know where the article's poster is from, but if that's a 3rd world country it's possible.
Somehow, not knowing anything about Halo, I suspect a combination of the first and third reason.NTP doesn't do time zones. At all. It operates solely in GMT, and it's up to the operating system (libc+tzdata in this case) to apply the offset when a program asks for the local time.
debian/stable > debian/testing > debian>unstable > ubuntu/released > debian/experimental > ubuntu/unreleased
Thus, for a home desktop which can break most of the time and where you want the bling, you can afford to run Ubuntu.
I do run Beryl at home, even though it breaks a lot. Beryl, not the new versions of Compiz which after all those months after merge are still a regression, both stability and usability wise. Yet, I wouldn't let it anywhere near a system which shouldn't break. Well, many people actually run Windows in places where stability matters, but I digress. And Ubuntu made Compiz the default...
The format war is the main reason why most people stick with MS Office. And well... let's take a look at Microsoft's balance sheets.
So, "Microsoft adopting ODF"? Or even "Microsoft not sabotaging ODF plugins"? No freaking way.
.. and most of the above badly break anything chroot is actually useful for. Rescuing a system from a LiveCD? Doing a build? Using a different set of libraries (like, i386 on an amd64 box)?
For security, use vserver/jails/etc, as they were actually designed for security. With chroot, these "100 other ways" mean it's just a feel-good measure.
And what if a blind person who uses a screen reader comes by? What if that person uses a Braille reader instead? What if it's someone able to see but a person who needs a big magnification? What if I come by using eLinks? And "making full use of a larger screen" needs to know the User-Agent how? The CEO of my company insists on setting his resolution to 800x600 even though it's on a LCD, I use 1600x1200, some folks with better hardware go higher -- and all have the very same User-Agent string.
Having a proper split between semantic markup and styling has none of these problems.
- you waste ~100 bytes every single time you request something over http, times ~50 objects on a typical page
- it is a privacy risk; IP+User-Agent is sometimes said to be about as effective means of identifying you as cookies, and it works even if cookies are disabled
- it is a security risk, as it gives out your exact browser version
- is useless for telling the server what to serve, as unless you use one of 2-3 mainstream browsers (IE masquerading as Mozilla, Opera masquerading as IE masquerading as Mozilla...) the server won't glean any useful data anyway. Sure, on desktops, browsers other than the usual three are rare, even stuff like Konqueror or Safari counts as "exotic", but the article talks about cell phones...
So just do what many of us do and set your User-Agent to a profane string. Without "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible, MSIE" at the beginning.Except, you cannot discount all the libraries used by tomboy, because a majority of them is used by tomboy and tomboy alone.
I do agree about python, it's also quote out of control, but nowhere even in the vicinity of mono.
Including a minor tool for a trivial task which takes as much memory as the rest of core Gnome together is something I can't really understand. It's the only part of Gnome proper which uses mono -- so why do they bother shipping it?
Of course, asking whether major annoyances like new windows opening on whatever workspace you're currently on instead of the one they were started have been fixed is kind of pointless...
It's worse than you think. I conslut sometimes for a couple of small ISPs, and when I take a look at their squid logs, I see that 1/3 of all freaking http requests are for ads. And don't forget that bandwidth is precious, same for screen real estate and human attention.
You may reply "but the ISP is paid for that anyway". Yes, but they have to deliver less real content for the same money while incurring more costs. So who loses? Customers and ISPs. Who wins? Advertisers. Guess where my sympathy is.
"False ad clicks" may cost Google 1 billion dollars a year, but ads in general cost the society at large many trillions dollars.