Ignore that last sentence. What some OS do with drivers isn't really comparable to SuperFetch, although they both serve to make applications/drivers load faster. But I still haven't heard about any OS doing this with applications (although some particularly obnoxious programs do this for themselves).
...2 of those are critters we work with in biology lab classes (in university) regularly. Although admittedly one isn't the antibiotic-resistant strain they mention in the article.
You're either a bit confused about the meaning of 'virtual memory', or your choice of wording is a bit misleading. I'm going to assume you mean that it would be handled through memory-mapped files (the latter), as has been around for a while. This is not what SuperFetch gives you. Memory mapped files require that the file actually be opened and mapped before it starts loading stuff into memory (or, I suppose, on Unix you could open the file and issue an advisory that says you're about to use the data in the file, but that still requires you to open the file first). Predictively loading stuff from a program that hasn't even been run yet is very definitely not the same as typical memory mapped files.
I've not heard of this being done for applications before, although I know several OS do this for drivers and things, to speed up booting.
You must be new, here. Any study that shows Windows in a not unfavorable light in comparison with Linux and/or Unix, intentionally or unintentionally, is funded by MS.
Well, maybe. It's certainly true that Palestinians were pissed at Fatah, not the least of the reasons being rampant corruption. But we know a fair number of Fatah supporters voted for Hamas, with the intent of sending Fatah the message to shape up or ship out (and never expecting Hamas to actually win). Whether this is the only reason Hamas won is a current topic of debate.
Yes and no. A large part of the problem is that the media is mostly independent of the government. While the alternative would very likely be worse, this has its own significant problems. Without the government regulating the media (like it does most other businesses), the media resort to purely capitalistic mechanisms - do what most benefits you. In the case of media, ratings are what matters, and horror stories tend to get the ratings, especially when the positive occurrences are very gradual (can you imagine turning on your TV every night and seeing "Tonight the US forces restored power to another 100 homes in Iraq"?). Shoot, do you think a story about a US soldier risking their life to save one Iraqi (this has happened quite a few times in the past, but you'd be lucky to ever see it in the media) could compare to a story about one person being tortured by the US, in terms of ratings?
It's entirely possible to argue that a strong anti-war bias in the media is not due to some massive, insidious left-wing conspiracy, but to the simple principles of economics. If you think the morals of most people exceed their desire to benefit themselves, you obviously slept through just about every history class you ever had.
As far as propaganda goes... if you say you are improving things but in reality conditions keep getting worse because of your actions, then you may or may not be unethical but you are definitely not credible.
We're obviously talking about different specific instances of propaganda. I was referring to things like the stories published in Iraqi newspapers, written by US soldiers and/or intelligence, praising the US and what it's doing in Iraq. Surprise: most of the stuff they said was true. What was missing, however, was recognition of the things the US hasn't done right, giving a rather selective report. Nevertheless, they were pretty much true, in what they did say. I should also note that much of the stuff they said wasn't being reported by other sources, anyway. Kinda makes you think about where the border between ethical and unethical lies, doesn't it?:P
Well, I imagine the President could make a nice speech listing all the projects he was supporting to help make life better for Muslims. If the projects were effective and not just window dressing, word would get out by various other channels as well.
...so it's okay for the president to make speeches saying how great he is and why everyone should love him (a trait I personally consider extremely obnoxious), but if the government as a whole does that, it's dishonorable, horribly unethical propaganda?
...you do realize a moderate amount of the propaganda produced by the US government with regard to the current conflicts (i.e. those planted stories in Iraqi newspapers) is factually accurate, with regard to the good things about the US. They just tend to omit the bad things. So, where does that fit, in your definition?:P
It's not just English. If I'm not mistaken, the same metaphors are used in Japanese, as well (and I don't know about any of the other languages of the world, although I do know many non-caucasion societies - Mexico, just to name one - regard those with darker skin as inferior to those with lighter skin). The best explanation I've heard so far is that black is the color of night, which is inherently frightening and dangerous, while white is the polar opposite. Certainly makes me wonder, though, if there are any analogous metaphors in African languages:P
They're companies, not humanitarian organizations. Their first and foremost question when evaluating options is "How will this make me money?" Linux has what desktop market share, now? 5? Why should they spend a large amount of money to port their stuff, when there is only a small opportunity for gain? Not to mention that there's no guarantee people would migrate to Linux even if they did port their stuff. Macs are known for stuff like Photoshop. Can you give professionals a good reason to switch from their expensive Mac and eye candy OS X, which is already based on Unix, to Linux? If not, then all the software makers stand to gain is a couple percent new income, compared to significant development costs.
Call me overly analytical, but that doesn't sound like a good deal, to me.
I don't think you are addressing my point: The West is just as oppressive as China. China and the West are different in some ways, and so the forms of oppression are different. But in terms of restricting personal freedom, we are no better than the Chinese. People in the West are simply bigoted against the Chinese.
I find your choice of words extremely interesting. You say that the west is just as bad as China, and the west is just bigoted against China. Yet what, exactly, is restricted in western countries? Why, looking at the stuff you just listed, it's almost entirely bigoted hate speech. Convenient how the west sees fit to outlaw THAT, while allowing those critical of western governments to run free. Yet at the same time China censors anyone who says anything negative about the administration.
While I don't particularly care to argue if you want to say that censorship of hate speech is wrong, you have to admit that China and western censorship is wholly incomparable.
Congratulations. You just argued that most "English" speakers are not in fact speaking English, but something that sounds very much like English; of course, it's important not to confuse the two, because one is English, and one is not. You just argued that most "Spanish" speakers are not in fact speaking Spanish, but something that sounds very much like Spanish; of course it's important not to confuse the two, because one is Spanish, and one is not. Etc., etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Former MS employee, after this :P
Ignore that last sentence. What some OS do with drivers isn't really comparable to SuperFetch, although they both serve to make applications/drivers load faster. But I still haven't heard about any OS doing this with applications (although some particularly obnoxious programs do this for themselves).
...2 of those are critters we work with in biology lab classes (in university) regularly. Although admittedly one isn't the antibiotic-resistant strain they mention in the article.
You're either a bit confused about the meaning of 'virtual memory', or your choice of wording is a bit misleading. I'm going to assume you mean that it would be handled through memory-mapped files (the latter), as has been around for a while. This is not what SuperFetch gives you. Memory mapped files require that the file actually be opened and mapped before it starts loading stuff into memory (or, I suppose, on Unix you could open the file and issue an advisory that says you're about to use the data in the file, but that still requires you to open the file first). Predictively loading stuff from a program that hasn't even been run yet is very definitely not the same as typical memory mapped files.
I've not heard of this being done for applications before, although I know several OS do this for drivers and things, to speed up booting.
...and SuperFetch has what to do with virtual memory?
Somebody had to code this monstrosity of a compiler, and it wasn't you. Isn't that enough of a reason to believe there's a god?
Can somebody tell me how the prices of enterprise Unix servers and OS (not including Linux) compare with Windows servers?
You must be new, here. Any study that shows Windows in a not unfavorable light in comparison with Linux and/or Unix, intentionally or unintentionally, is funded by MS.
I think the name I used for a mouse-in-a-maze simulator program I wrote back in a first-year CS course was godly: iRodent. Maybe that's just me.
Well, maybe. It's certainly true that Palestinians were pissed at Fatah, not the least of the reasons being rampant corruption. But we know a fair number of Fatah supporters voted for Hamas, with the intent of sending Fatah the message to shape up or ship out (and never expecting Hamas to actually win). Whether this is the only reason Hamas won is a current topic of debate.
Yes and no. A large part of the problem is that the media is mostly independent of the government. While the alternative would very likely be worse, this has its own significant problems. Without the government regulating the media (like it does most other businesses), the media resort to purely capitalistic mechanisms - do what most benefits you. In the case of media, ratings are what matters, and horror stories tend to get the ratings, especially when the positive occurrences are very gradual (can you imagine turning on your TV every night and seeing "Tonight the US forces restored power to another 100 homes in Iraq"?). Shoot, do you think a story about a US soldier risking their life to save one Iraqi (this has happened quite a few times in the past, but you'd be lucky to ever see it in the media) could compare to a story about one person being tortured by the US, in terms of ratings?
It's entirely possible to argue that a strong anti-war bias in the media is not due to some massive, insidious left-wing conspiracy, but to the simple principles of economics. If you think the morals of most people exceed their desire to benefit themselves, you obviously slept through just about every history class you ever had.
As far as propaganda goes... if you say you are improving things but in reality conditions keep getting worse because of your actions, then you may or may not be unethical but you are definitely not credible.
:P
We're obviously talking about different specific instances of propaganda. I was referring to things like the stories published in Iraqi newspapers, written by US soldiers and/or intelligence, praising the US and what it's doing in Iraq. Surprise: most of the stuff they said was true. What was missing, however, was recognition of the things the US hasn't done right, giving a rather selective report. Nevertheless, they were pretty much true, in what they did say. I should also note that much of the stuff they said wasn't being reported by other sources, anyway. Kinda makes you think about where the border between ethical and unethical lies, doesn't it?
Well, I imagine the President could make a nice speech listing all the projects he was supporting to help make life better for Muslims. If the projects were effective and not just window dressing, word would get out by various other channels as well.
...so it's okay for the president to make speeches saying how great he is and why everyone should love him (a trait I personally consider extremely obnoxious), but if the government as a whole does that, it's dishonorable, horribly unethical propaganda?
If I had mod points, I would mod you down. Not because you're right or wrong, but because you're belligerent and obnoxious.
:P
If I didn't love my current one so much, I'd use that as my signature
...you do realize a moderate amount of the propaganda produced by the US government with regard to the current conflicts (i.e. those planted stories in Iraqi newspapers) is factually accurate, with regard to the good things about the US. They just tend to omit the bad things. So, where does that fit, in your definition? :P
It's not just English. If I'm not mistaken, the same metaphors are used in Japanese, as well (and I don't know about any of the other languages of the world, although I do know many non-caucasion societies - Mexico, just to name one - regard those with darker skin as inferior to those with lighter skin). The best explanation I've heard so far is that black is the color of night, which is inherently frightening and dangerous, while white is the polar opposite. Certainly makes me wonder, though, if there are any analogous metaphors in African languages :P
They're companies, not humanitarian organizations. Their first and foremost question when evaluating options is "How will this make me money?" Linux has what desktop market share, now? 5? Why should they spend a large amount of money to port their stuff, when there is only a small opportunity for gain? Not to mention that there's no guarantee people would migrate to Linux even if they did port their stuff. Macs are known for stuff like Photoshop. Can you give professionals a good reason to switch from their expensive Mac and eye candy OS X, which is already based on Unix, to Linux? If not, then all the software makers stand to gain is a couple percent new income, compared to significant development costs.
Call me overly analytical, but that doesn't sound like a good deal, to me.
It's no longer safe to move to Canada to avoid getting nuked by China in the upcoming WW3!
I don't think you are addressing my point: The West is just as oppressive as China. China and the West are different in some ways, and so the forms of oppression are different. But in terms of restricting personal freedom, we are no better than the Chinese. People in the West are simply bigoted against the Chinese.
I find your choice of words extremely interesting. You say that the west is just as bad as China, and the west is just bigoted against China. Yet what, exactly, is restricted in western countries? Why, looking at the stuff you just listed, it's almost entirely bigoted hate speech. Convenient how the west sees fit to outlaw THAT, while allowing those critical of western governments to run free. Yet at the same time China censors anyone who says anything negative about the administration.
While I don't particularly care to argue if you want to say that censorship of hate speech is wrong, you have to admit that China and western censorship is wholly incomparable.
Looks like everybody's afraid to touch that post with a 3,000 mile fiber-optic cable :P
Exactly where do you think you are? This is Slashdot - freedom to do whatever you want is the most important thing, here :P
That is one mighty fine thesis on what's wrong with all the anti-war hippies
*ducks*
...yeah... because ~80% market share is as good as dead...
Congratulations. You just argued that most "English" speakers are not in fact speaking English, but something that sounds very much like English; of course, it's important not to confuse the two, because one is English, and one is not. You just argued that most "Spanish" speakers are not in fact speaking Spanish, but something that sounds very much like Spanish; of course it's important not to confuse the two, because one is Spanish, and one is not. Etc., etc.
Ummm... am I the only one who has never heard that HIV infects anything apart from T-helper (CD4 T-) cells?