Ok, so if more often is better, how about leap milliseconds? Adding a leap millisecond every day would almost precisely mimic the average rate of leap seconds... to the point of being off by less than one second every century. It would be regular enough to become a standard, so all devices that need such precision would be updated to take it into account.
In any case, leap seconds are a bad implementation... they occur so often that they cause regular synchronization issues, and they don't occur often enough as to force those with a stake to come up with a standard solution.
Keeping systems in sync is the important thing. Keeping them so accurate, to second precision, with the solar day is practically useless for almost every real need. I mean, if we are going to be so arbitrary, why not choose millisecond precision, or microsecond precision?
No, what would be useful is coming up with a solid, well thought out, global plan for making this correction next century. Then implement that plan, moving around a minute or two, all at one time for all global systems in a predictable and deterministic way. None of this choosing to do it when and how you want.
(Oh, and get rid of daylight saving time and time zones while we're at it... kthx)
You seem to think that Microsoft has monopoly on deprecation, but you seem to ignore how often they are backwards compatible. As a counter-example, the C# and VB.NET teams have gone out of their way to not only keep from breaking BC, but also to help prevent the need to break it in the future. They even have open-sourced their next generation compiler platform for both C# and VB.NET.
I don't blame someone for being cautious after seeing what happened with VB 6, but ignoring a well-supported and highly stable set of platforms completely--just because the company that produces them is the same one that killed VB 6 two decades ago--is foolish.
And you utterly failed to read beyond my first paragraph, where I responded directly to his point:
Remember that VB 6 never actually died. It just stopped being improved. If you moved your app from VB 6 to VB.NET, that was your own choice for your own reasons... but let's be clear, it wasn't because suddenly your app stopped working or you couldn't maintain it.
Python also broke backwards compatibility, and it caused the exact same kind of issue for teams that were entrenched in version 2.x. So this certainly isn't a problem that exists only within the realm of proprietary software... Microsoft just gets a lot of blame because they have produced so many programming languages and frameworks that were in use for decades.
Things have to improve over time, and the old ways have to be deprecated. Sometimes that can be done within the framework of the existing approach, but sometimes it cannot.
The OP was talking about ONE file. I don't care what Penguinisto was talking about, his comment about multiple tiny files was irrelevant. My test as based on copying one file as specified by the OP.
I just performed two copy tests on my 2013 MacBook Pro, 2.7 Ghz i7, 16GB RAM. I copied the exact same file (3.78 GB) from one location to a different location on the same disk drive. The test was performed under two operating systems on that machine:
- The latest beta release of Yosemite (10.10.4): 32.69 s - The latest insider preview of Windows 10 (build 10130): 19.56 s
This isn't a full benchmark suite by any means, but if I can copy a 4GB file orders of magnitude faster than you can copy a 17 MB file on your MacBook Air or on your Windows PC, then you have some very screwed up stuff going on.
I don't want to start a holy war here
Yeah, that is precisely what you were attempting to do.
Remember VB? . . . But then MS came out with VB.net . . . it was really an entirely new language.
You mean, the better language capable of running on the.NET CLR and utilizing the same set of proven, well-tested libraries available for all.NET languages? Getting that with a very low learning curve for existing VB developers?
Remember that VB 6 never actually died. It just stopped being improved. If you moved your app from VB 6 to VB.NET, that was your own choice for your own reasons... but let's be clear, it wasn't because suddenly your app stopped working or you couldn't maintain it.
Remember Silverlight? The "Flash Killer"
Actually HTML5, with the iPhone as a catalyst, killed both Flash and Silverlight. It's interesting that you don't blame Adobe for killing Flash as you blame Microsoft for killing Silverlight.
Remember Windows Phone 7? The next big thing (tm) and they ditched it, for WP8, and all the devs were screwed.
Most WP7 apps could run just fine on WP8. And the changes from WP7 to WP8 were relatively minor; same language, updated (but not completely backwards compatible) APIs.
Why is the XBox 360 not compatible with the original XBox? Why is the XBox "One" not compatible with the XBox 360?
Because the architectures were different between original XBox and the 360, and between the 360 and Xbox One. By definition the only way to achieve binary compatibility is through virtualization, which is exactly what Microsoft has done in both cases.
Except that Apple is starting to look like they are out of (good) ideas, Microsoft has breathed fresh life into its consumer and development spaces, and Linux is more legitimate and necessary than ever.
If the GP does not want to be insured for those actions, then perhaps he should not be forced to pay insurance/taxes/whatever to cover others who partake in those actions.
Right, I'm in the preview program, but at the particular time I tried it wasn't available. Now that I see the list of games, it might not be available yet anyway for what I tried (Halo Reach).
No, the fact that our legal system is so complex that even simple matters can often require legal counsel.
The fact that lawyers tend to become judges and lawmakers, seemingly for the very purpose of ensuring that there is no streamlining the system, which of course turns into more wallet-lining for them.
If the feature were practical at the beginning, Microsoft would have stolen the show from PS4 by providing backwards compat on day one. More users would have upgraded immediately. That is too obvious to assume this is something they have been holding out.
It is not a port, it is a 360 software emulator. That emulator took a time to develop (right), and based on my linked article I get the sense that the emulator is tweaked per-title to focus on the performance characteristics that are specific to that game.
It is backwards compatibility via 360 software emulator, which has not been rolled out yet.
I tried putting a 360 game into the console a couple of hours ago just to see if it would work, and it gives a generic error stating that the disc is not an Xbox One game or DVD.
Again, it's just the initial list. They showed a graphic containing many more games on the stage during the announcement. Those games will roll out over time to preview members. That list will roll out to all members by holiday season.
According to Mary Jo Foley, this statement was provided by Microsoft officials:
What we did was essentially built a virtual Xbox 360 console entirely in software. So when you launch a game via Xbox One Backward Compatibility, you'll see that the game first starts up a virtual Xbox 360 console, then launches the title. The work is ongoing as each title requires individual packaging and validation work to enable that virtual console capability, but we're committed to continually rolling out new titles each month.
This doesn't sound like porting a game, or a game that is very similar. It's the exact same game running in software emulation.
But the emulator may be adjusted on a per-title basis to ensure optimal performance.
This is why I love competition. I have never owned a Sony gaming system and I never plan to, but if nothing else, Sony's powerful existence in the space has kicked Microsoft's ass into high gear and the result is a much better Xbox One.
No, I believe this is actual backwards compatibility. From Engadget:
All developers need to do is approve a game for backward compatibility for it to work
Microsoft may not be able to automatically put these games on Xbox One due to legal or contractual issues. It seems the only reason 100% of games will not be available is if a publisher deems backwards compatibility to be undesirable for their business.
The digital titles that you own and are part of the Back Compat game catalog will automatically show up in the “Ready to Install” section on your Xbox One. For disc-based games that are a part of the Back Compat game catalog, simply insert the disc and the console will begin downloading the game to your hard drive. After the game has finished downloading, you will still need to keep the game disc in the drive to play.
I would have guessed that "downloading" here means disc-to-hard drive. To your credit, it is unclear.
3. There was no indication that the loop itself was anything more than a single tube. Thus there is no capability to bypass any section.
I didn't RTFA but perhaps it would be possible to design some equivalent of a railway switch. The loop from NY to LA would be most efficient if it never needed to stop, but a switched network of loops could provide service between cities all over the continent with many fewer loops. This would have a side effect of increasing resiliency, since many areas of loop could be more easily bypassed on the event of failure.
Facebook has a policy against creating fake accounts or using false information.
Not saying this journalist should have regarded Facebook's policies as more important than his own security, but Facebook is not a platform for anonymity and I doubt even incidents like this will change their mind. It will probably just result in being told "then don't use Facebook for that purpose".
No, the evidence (number of live human burnings) simply has little to no correlation with gun rights, or lack thereof. It certainly does not provide evidence against gun rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew I couldn't trust North Korea.
Ok, so if more often is better, how about leap milliseconds? Adding a leap millisecond every day would almost precisely mimic the average rate of leap seconds... to the point of being off by less than one second every century. It would be regular enough to become a standard, so all devices that need such precision would be updated to take it into account.
In any case, leap seconds are a bad implementation... they occur so often that they cause regular synchronization issues, and they don't occur often enough as to force those with a stake to come up with a standard solution.
Keeping systems in sync is the important thing. Keeping them so accurate, to second precision, with the solar day is practically useless for almost every real need. I mean, if we are going to be so arbitrary, why not choose millisecond precision, or microsecond precision?
No, what would be useful is coming up with a solid, well thought out, global plan for making this correction next century. Then implement that plan, moving around a minute or two, all at one time for all global systems in a predictable and deterministic way. None of this choosing to do it when and how you want.
(Oh, and get rid of daylight saving time and time zones while we're at it... kthx)
You seem to think that Microsoft has monopoly on deprecation, but you seem to ignore how often they are backwards compatible. As a counter-example, the C# and VB.NET teams have gone out of their way to not only keep from breaking BC, but also to help prevent the need to break it in the future. They even have open-sourced their next generation compiler platform for both C# and VB.NET.
I don't blame someone for being cautious after seeing what happened with VB 6, but ignoring a well-supported and highly stable set of platforms completely--just because the company that produces them is the same one that killed VB 6 two decades ago--is foolish.
You utterly failed to respond to his point.
And you utterly failed to read beyond my first paragraph, where I responded directly to his point:
Remember that VB 6 never actually died. It just stopped being improved. If you moved your app from VB 6 to VB.NET, that was your own choice for your own reasons... but let's be clear, it wasn't because suddenly your app stopped working or you couldn't maintain it.
Python also broke backwards compatibility, and it caused the exact same kind of issue for teams that were entrenched in version 2.x. So this certainly isn't a problem that exists only within the realm of proprietary software... Microsoft just gets a lot of blame because they have produced so many programming languages and frameworks that were in use for decades.
Things have to improve over time, and the old ways have to be deprecated. Sometimes that can be done within the framework of the existing approach, but sometimes it cannot.
Wow... alright then, woosh over my head. :)
The OP was talking about ONE file. I don't care what Penguinisto was talking about, his comment about multiple tiny files was irrelevant. My test as based on copying one file as specified by the OP.
It just took me 4.2 s to copy a 30 MB file on my bogged-down work computer, with an HDD running Windows 7.
I'm not buying it.
I just performed two copy tests on my 2013 MacBook Pro, 2.7 Ghz i7, 16GB RAM. I copied the exact same file (3.78 GB) from one location to a different location on the same disk drive. The test was performed under two operating systems on that machine:
- The latest beta release of Yosemite (10.10.4): 32.69 s
- The latest insider preview of Windows 10 (build 10130): 19.56 s
This isn't a full benchmark suite by any means, but if I can copy a 4GB file orders of magnitude faster than you can copy a 17 MB file on your MacBook Air or on your Windows PC, then you have some very screwed up stuff going on.
I don't want to start a holy war here
Yeah, that is precisely what you were attempting to do.
Remember VB? . . . But then MS came out with VB.net . . . it was really an entirely new language.
You mean, the better language capable of running on the .NET CLR and utilizing the same set of proven, well-tested libraries available for all .NET languages? Getting that with a very low learning curve for existing VB developers?
Remember that VB 6 never actually died. It just stopped being improved. If you moved your app from VB 6 to VB.NET, that was your own choice for your own reasons... but let's be clear, it wasn't because suddenly your app stopped working or you couldn't maintain it.
Remember Silverlight? The "Flash Killer"
Actually HTML5, with the iPhone as a catalyst, killed both Flash and Silverlight. It's interesting that you don't blame Adobe for killing Flash as you blame Microsoft for killing Silverlight.
Remember Windows Phone 7? The next big thing (tm) and they ditched it, for WP8, and all the devs were screwed.
Most WP7 apps could run just fine on WP8. And the changes from WP7 to WP8 were relatively minor; same language, updated (but not completely backwards compatible) APIs.
Why is the XBox 360 not compatible with the original XBox? Why is the XBox "One" not compatible with the XBox 360?
Because the architectures were different between original XBox and the 360, and between the 360 and Xbox One. By definition the only way to achieve binary compatibility is through virtualization, which is exactly what Microsoft has done in both cases.
Except that Apple is starting to look like they are out of (good) ideas, Microsoft has breathed fresh life into its consumer and development spaces, and Linux is more legitimate and necessary than ever.
If the GP does not want to be insured for those actions, then perhaps he should not be forced to pay insurance/taxes/whatever to cover others who partake in those actions.
Right, I'm in the preview program, but at the particular time I tried it wasn't available. Now that I see the list of games, it might not be available yet anyway for what I tried (Halo Reach).
No, the fact that our legal system is so complex that even simple matters can often require legal counsel.
The fact that lawyers tend to become judges and lawmakers, seemingly for the very purpose of ensuring that there is no streamlining the system, which of course turns into more wallet-lining for them.
Yes, the 360 will be software emulated. It sounds like games are not ported, but the same binary will be used.
If the feature were practical at the beginning, Microsoft would have stolen the show from PS4 by providing backwards compat on day one. More users would have upgraded immediately. That is too obvious to assume this is something they have been holding out.
It is not a port, it is a 360 software emulator. That emulator took a time to develop (right), and based on my linked article I get the sense that the emulator is tweaked per-title to focus on the performance characteristics that are specific to that game.
It is backwards compatibility via 360 software emulator, which has not been rolled out yet.
I tried putting a 360 game into the console a couple of hours ago just to see if it would work, and it gives a generic error stating that the disc is not an Xbox One game or DVD.
Again, it's just the initial list. They showed a graphic containing many more games on the stage during the announcement. Those games will roll out over time to preview members. That list will roll out to all members by holiday season.
According to Mary Jo Foley, this statement was provided by Microsoft officials:
What we did was essentially built a virtual Xbox 360 console entirely in software. So when you launch a game via Xbox One Backward Compatibility, you'll see that the game first starts up a virtual Xbox 360 console, then launches the title. The work is ongoing as each title requires individual packaging and validation work to enable that virtual console capability, but we're committed to continually rolling out new titles each month.
This doesn't sound like porting a game, or a game that is very similar. It's the exact same game running in software emulation.
But the emulator may be adjusted on a per-title basis to ensure optimal performance.
This is why I love competition. I have never owned a Sony gaming system and I never plan to, but if nothing else, Sony's powerful existence in the space has kicked Microsoft's ass into high gear and the result is a much better Xbox One.
No, I believe this is actual backwards compatibility. From Engadget:
All developers need to do is approve a game for backward compatibility for it to work
Microsoft may not be able to automatically put these games on Xbox One due to legal or contractual issues. It seems the only reason 100% of games will not be available is if a publisher deems backwards compatibility to be undesirable for their business.
Also to quote Microsoft's announcement website:
The digital titles that you own and are part of the Back Compat game catalog will automatically show up in the “Ready to Install” section on your Xbox One. For disc-based games that are a part of the Back Compat game catalog, simply insert the disc and the console will begin downloading the game to your hard drive. After the game has finished downloading, you will still need to keep the game disc in the drive to play.
I would have guessed that "downloading" here means disc-to-hard drive. To your credit, it is unclear.
3. There was no indication that the loop itself was anything more than a single tube. Thus there is no capability to bypass any section.
I didn't RTFA but perhaps it would be possible to design some equivalent of a railway switch. The loop from NY to LA would be most efficient if it never needed to stop, but a switched network of loops could provide service between cities all over the continent with many fewer loops. This would have a side effect of increasing resiliency, since many areas of loop could be more easily bypassed on the event of failure.
Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one.
And then they hate the fact that they need one.
Facebook has a policy against creating fake accounts or using false information.
Not saying this journalist should have regarded Facebook's policies as more important than his own security, but Facebook is not a platform for anonymity and I doubt even incidents like this will change their mind. It will probably just result in being told "then don't use Facebook for that purpose".
No, the evidence (number of live human burnings) simply has little to no correlation with gun rights, or lack thereof. It certainly does not provide evidence against gun rights.