I think the distinction is 300-400 is the number of acceptances that CMU sends out, while "under 150" is the number of spaces they have (and expect to recieve acceptances for).
Absolutely. However, no hosting company in their right mind is going to turn off any feature so widely used. They would Immediately lose customers and get a bad rep.
Web hosting is already a minimal-profit industry, companies compete in terms of features. Less features means less customers. Who would disable it?
You are not required to watch any particular news broadcast. If, for example, you find CBS to now be not credible, they by all means: it's youre choice not to watch. They have rights to broadcast what they will on the frequencies that the FCC has granted them privlidges to. If they want to broadcast cartoons or sitcoms, they can, if they want to (without slander, which I don't see any of in this case), they can. If the people then decide that they don't want to watch a non-credable newscast, they have every right to tune into something different, or go read a newspaper. To paraphrase a cliche: Don't believe everything you see. If it's truly important to you, take in all your sources of information and make your on conclusion. No one has ever said that you are forced to mindlessly accept everything on TV.
I can't really agree with this, both because of points brought up by Hemos and the other posters in this thread (ie: USERS submit stories), and the fact that there is already a gauge of how popular (or at the least, how controversial) a story is: the number of comments attached to it. There stories where the comments easily number above five hundered, and there are also stories where the comments don't even reach 100 before the article falls off the bottom of the main page. I'd say that's a good indicator of how many people are
a) reading b) responding to
the story. Discussion is one of the best points of/., and I can't think of a better indicator than that for which stories recieved the most reader attention.
You can see them, according to the links at the end of the article (and not surprisingly) at http://www.dotcomguy.com, but it was down when I tried it...
The ARRL posted a press release here describing the change that is in HTML format so you don't have to read that PDF file. Personally, I think this is a very Good Thing. The avaerage age of Amaterur radio is rising rapidly, and one major barrier to entry was the morse tests. With so many other things to interest young geeks now, that has seriously reduced the number of young people getting involved. I hope this helps alot!
WarGames is, in fact, an interesting case, in that the term 'War Dialer' is a shortening of the term 'WarGames Dialer'. So, in that instance, the movie had the idea first, and it was reasonable enough that people went ahead and adopted it.
It also depends on how they did their sampling... Search engines such as Yahoo are easy to traverse, but crawlers like altavista, while they indeed link to a huge number of sites, are difficult to count because you need to enter a search phrase in order to get outbound links.
I personally don't think this was a really meaningful survey, because of the large range it found. Also, does one really care how far away you are from an arbitrary page? I certainly don't. Generally I care how far my information is from a search engine, which is generally 1-2 clicks, and how easy it is to find said information based on results.
Rarely do I start from a random page, and try to get to information by clicking through links.
I'd have to read the article to be sure, but it would be surprising if they missed (1) as causing the brain to focus on different items serially.
One thing that worries me about it though is the fact that the article says the red and green blocks were very far away from eachother on the extreme edges, so it would be very tempting for someone to direct their focus at the blocks, which could take the.1 seconds that the article says is the difference in timing.
So, I might look into the study's publication to find out more exactly how the procedure was done.
I'm not sure that running an OS *entirely* out of cache is always a good idea. The point of cache is to hold the last amount of instructions/data that the processor used such that, on the odds that it will be needed again soon, it's there.
Cache needs to be dynamicly updated to deal with what the processor is doing *now*. For example, if you're browsing the web, would you rather keep your printer driver in your fast memory, or the netscape rendering code?
Also, the larger that you make a cache, the more expensive a cache miss is (as you had to look through your cache to see that it wasn't there).
I'm not saying that putting the OS into fast memory/cache is a bad idea, but I don't believe that putting the ENTIRE OS there won't create more problems that it will solve.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the distinction is 300-400 is the number of acceptances that CMU sends out, while "under 150" is the number of spaces they have (and expect to recieve acceptances for).
Absolutely. However, no hosting company in their right mind is going to turn off any feature so widely used. They would Immediately lose customers and get a bad rep.
Web hosting is already a minimal-profit industry, companies compete in terms of features. Less features means less customers. Who would disable it?
You are not required to watch any particular news broadcast. If, for example, you find CBS to now be not credible, they by all means: it's youre choice not to watch. They have rights to broadcast what they will on the frequencies that the FCC has granted them privlidges to. If they want to broadcast cartoons or sitcoms, they can, if they want to (without slander, which I don't see any of in this case), they can. If the people then decide that they don't want to watch a non-credable newscast, they have every right to tune into something different, or go read a newspaper. To paraphrase a cliche: Don't believe everything you see. If it's truly important to you, take in all your sources of information and make your on conclusion. No one has ever said that you are forced to mindlessly accept everything on TV.
I can't really agree with this, both because of points brought up by Hemos and the other posters in this thread (ie: USERS submit stories), and the fact that there is already a gauge of how popular (or at the least, how controversial) a story is: the number of comments attached to it. There stories where the comments easily number above five hundered, and there are also stories where the comments don't even reach 100 before the article falls off the bottom of the main page. I'd say that's a good indicator of how many people are
/., and I can't think of a better indicator than that for which stories recieved the most reader attention.
a) reading
b) responding to
the story. Discussion is one of the best points of
You can see them, according to the links at the end of the article (and not surprisingly) at http://www.dotcomguy.com, but it was down when I tried it...
The ARRL posted a press release here describing the change that is in HTML format so you don't have to read that PDF file. Personally, I think this is a very Good Thing. The avaerage age of Amaterur radio is rising rapidly, and one major barrier to entry was the morse tests. With so many other things to interest young geeks now, that has seriously reduced the number of young people getting involved. I hope this helps alot!
WarGames is, in fact, an interesting case, in that the term 'War Dialer' is a shortening of the term 'WarGames Dialer'. So, in that instance, the movie had the idea first, and it was reasonable enough that people went ahead and adopted it.
It also depends on how they did their sampling... Search engines such as Yahoo are easy to traverse, but crawlers like altavista, while they indeed link to a huge number of sites, are difficult to count because you need to enter a search phrase in order to get outbound links.
I personally don't think this was a really meaningful survey, because of the large range it found. Also, does one really care how far away you are from an arbitrary page? I certainly don't. Generally I care how far my information is from a search engine, which is generally 1-2 clicks, and how easy it is to find said information based on results.
Rarely do I start from a random page, and try to get to information by clicking through links.
I'd have to read the article to be sure, but it would be surprising if they missed (1) as causing the brain to focus on different items serially.
.1 seconds that the article says is the difference in timing.
One thing that worries me about it though is the fact that the article says the red and green blocks were very far away from eachother on the extreme edges, so it would be very tempting for someone to direct their focus at the blocks, which could take the
So, I might look into the study's publication to find out more exactly how the procedure was done.
I'm guessing they were slashdotted and took it down, but it's back now (many days later...)
I'm not sure that running an OS *entirely* out of cache is always a good idea. The point of cache is to hold the last amount of instructions/data that the processor used such that, on the odds that it will be needed again soon, it's there.
Cache needs to be dynamicly updated to deal with what the processor is doing *now*. For example, if you're browsing the web, would you rather keep your printer driver in your fast memory, or the netscape rendering code?
Also, the larger that you make a cache, the more expensive a cache miss is (as you had to look through your cache to see that it wasn't there).
I'm not saying that putting the OS into fast memory/cache is a bad idea, but I don't believe that putting the ENTIRE OS there won't create more problems that it will solve.
-Rob