True but misleading. The major cost of task switching is a hardware-derived one. It's the cost of blowing caches. The swapping of CPU state and such is fairly small by comparison, and the cost of blowing caches is only going up.
Imagine you have two computers connected by firewire (people sometimes do this!). Now a compromise of one computer (apparently) allows a compromise of the other.
It's a communications channel just like ethernet, just less widely used and less convenient. A physical action is not fundamentally required although is common.
Let's put it another way, if someone can loan you a fireware "hard drive" which takes control of the computer it's attached to, that's.. not good!
I agree, it's ridiculous to be told "delete your preference files and try again", but this has been standard issue for Firefox/bird/plane/jetcar/mozilla since it started. They don't want to fix the bugs.
Well, the judge is ruling on matters of law, while this discussion seems to be focused on matters of what is "right". The two are not always in agreement of course.
There might be some performance analysis situations you could contrive where the current algorithms for thread migration are better on 4 cores than 3, or something. I wouldn't bet on that though.
Well if it indicates quality of OO design, squeak ships an entire operating-system-like environment, complete with the dev tools and productivity whatsits. A complete functional VM, + operating system + dev tools fits in less than 12 megabytes downloaded. The vast majority of this is platform independent code. Do I need to mention it also uses less ram than haiku by a long shot?
The smalltalk folks pretty much took OO from a concept to a refined state. My personal opinion is that it hasn't much been advanced since then. Your metric supports my theory.
I like that your example of an xml comment turned into a web comment, and thus could not be read. I think it underscores the "rock solid" nature of both the software that processes this stuff in the wild, and the robustness of the web all at once.
Not that they really have the same level of functionality, but the total difference in feel isn't really night and day.
AmigaDOS booted from an 800k floppy and needed less than 512k of ram. It had all these basic gui things: file management, task management, a user friendly command line shell and so on. I do like the BeOS style interface, but its greatest accomplishment is not its size.
Yeah, it's true, ramfs and tmpfs both work this way. But they've not seen adoption because on a modern unix with a backing buffer cache where short-lived files don't necessarily ever get assigned backing store, the advantage of using a ram-based filesystem at all is pretty ephemeral.
There can be issues of allocation in a multi-user environment, where you want to have a set ceiling for the drive. In some cases this ceiling has to be low, so there's not a lot of benefit of dynamic allocation over just allocating the dang thing.
Certainly in a personal-only environment where I do not compartmentalize security, it seems obviously desirable.
On the one hand scientists blah blah , on the other hand the presupposed reason question. I'm just pointing out that the supposed equivalence drawn by my parent isn't anything of the sort.
In turn, his parents was saying the given isn't given, and so he rejects the playing field conjectured by the question.
Both of these are fairly narrow (and pretty ironclad) positions.
I think science/how questions are many and I personally think the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile for its own sake, without having any particular set of reasons why. Knowledge does not (primarily) consist of a set of unassailable facts, so fully knowable or not seems a complete aside.
I dunno what you were looking for. I think the presumption of why is foolish and I don't know why the majority of humans expect it. I create my own why for doing one thing vs another, and for living day in and out, and don't require a larger why than myself to put me here.
Maybe you thought I was cleverer than that, but it's a very simplistic worldview.
If there is an abstract, permanent higher power that we're all ultimately answering to, then it makes sense to follow certain rules, the ones we call morality and ethics. Believing in a god is not prerequisite to behaving nicely, but recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.,/quote>
I don't believe it for a second. There are all kinds of human societies in which decorum reigns and many do not have a rule-making abstract higher authority to which our ethical decisions answer.
Groups of people have a social web of ethical expectations to which we expect members to conform, and additionally we expect ourselves to conform. This is true with or without a god in the picture, and predates a concept of a higher power.
Why this is true, I have various theories, but it is sufficient to disprove the "religion provides social order" poppycock.
Some people do find their sense of social order and ethics largely from their religion. Some do not require it (or desire it) to be informed by a large organization or explicit ethical and/or spiritual group. Many people both pre-historic and modern are sufficiently informed by the normal social channels of upgringing, discourse, entertainment (yes! books even!), and other cultural interchange and do not require a specific ethics input.
Personally I would go so far as to say that those who *require* an external source of ethical information as their primary source are ethically lazy and are failing to pull their ethical weight in the society in which they exist, merely acting as pawns or robots in the ethical sphere.
Slashdot Mirror
True but misleading. The major cost of task switching is a hardware-derived one. It's the cost of blowing caches. The swapping of CPU state and such is fairly small by comparison, and the cost of blowing caches is only going up.
Um, but it's not the command prompt he or she wants. I think you knew that.
Why should the operating system prompt you to do something stupid? How about not doing the stupid thing?
Though at that point you can just use system dram as a write cache... I don't really grasp this one.
Is that really true? are companies *entitled* (in the vernacular sense) to their trade secrets?
I thought they were simply in possession of them.
Huh, New York lacked that joy.
When faced with a similar concern in the new york subway, I decided to.
1 - Pay with cash.
2 - Start over with a new card frequently.
I suspect this would not be popular because the dam is supossed to generate power. I haven't considered the relative amount produced and required.
Stupid moderators, dicussing possible choices of internal and external APIs is not offtopic.
Have a nice day.
It might not be physical security.
Imagine you have two computers connected by firewire (people sometimes do this!). Now a compromise of one computer (apparently) allows a compromise of the other.
It's a communications channel just like ethernet, just less widely used and less convenient. A physical action is not fundamentally required although is common.
Let's put it another way, if someone can loan you a fireware "hard drive" which takes control of the computer it's attached to, that's.. not good!
I agree, it's ridiculous to be told "delete your preference files and try again", but this has been standard issue for Firefox/bird/plane/jetcar/mozilla since it started. They don't want to fix the bugs.
They have a fourth option - don't make large apps that use internal APIs themselves. Hey, free cleaner seperation of code batman!
Well, the judge is ruling on matters of law, while this discussion seems to be focused on matters of what is "right". The two are not always in agreement of course.
It doesn't care.
There might be some performance analysis situations you could contrive where the current algorithms for thread migration are better on 4 cores than 3, or something. I wouldn't bet on that though.
Well if it indicates quality of OO design, squeak ships an entire operating-system-like environment, complete with the dev tools and productivity whatsits. A complete functional VM, + operating system + dev tools fits in less than 12 megabytes downloaded. The vast majority of this is platform independent code. Do I need to mention it also uses less ram than haiku by a long shot?
The smalltalk folks pretty much took OO from a concept to a refined state. My personal opinion is that it hasn't much been advanced since then. Your metric supports my theory.
I like that your example of an xml comment turned into a web comment, and thus could not be read. I think it underscores the "rock solid" nature of both the software that processes this stuff in the wild, and the robustness of the web all at once.
Of course the reality is more "term which continues to use the term gay as a derogatory while cowardly pretending not to."
Insensitive: that's so gay.
Insensitive, cowardly, and disengenuous: that's so ghey.
It's going to be a programmable microprocessor in the x86-64 architecture. How could it *not* run linux?
If for some craaazy reason linux doesn't already work with it, this will be resolvable with a very small amount of work.
If you're going to go completely off the deep end and call the GPL commie, at least get your commies straight. Stalin isn't marxist.
Not that they really have the same level of functionality, but the total difference in feel isn't really night and day.
AmigaDOS booted from an 800k floppy and needed less than 512k of ram. It had all these basic gui things: file management, task management, a user friendly command line shell and so on. I do like the BeOS style interface, but its greatest accomplishment is not its size.
Yeah, it's true, ramfs and tmpfs both work this way. But they've not seen adoption because on a modern unix with a backing buffer cache where short-lived files don't necessarily ever get assigned backing store, the advantage of using a ram-based filesystem at all is pretty ephemeral.
There can be issues of allocation in a multi-user environment, where you want to have a set ceiling for the drive. In some cases this ceiling has to be low, so there's not a lot of benefit of dynamic allocation over just allocating the dang thing.
Certainly in a personal-only environment where I do not compartmentalize security, it seems obviously desirable.
Just saying, it isn't always what you want.
On the one hand scientists blah blah , on the other hand the presupposed reason question. I'm just pointing out that the supposed equivalence drawn by my parent isn't anything of the sort.
In turn, his parents was saying the given isn't given, and so he rejects the playing field conjectured by the question.
Both of these are fairly narrow (and pretty ironclad) positions.
I think science/how questions are many and I personally think the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile for its own sake, without having any particular set of reasons why. Knowledge does not (primarily) consist of a set of unassailable facts, so fully knowable or not seems a complete aside.
I dunno what you were looking for. I think the presumption of why is foolish and I don't know why the majority of humans expect it. I create my own why for doing one thing vs another, and for living day in and out, and don't require a larger why than myself to put me here.
Maybe you thought I was cleverer than that, but it's a very simplistic worldview.
In the unix world, there is no "roaming" vs "not roaming". They are the same.
Do you start to understand?
I don't believe it for a second. There are all kinds of human societies in which decorum reigns and many do not have a rule-making abstract higher authority to which our ethical decisions answer.
Groups of people have a social web of ethical expectations to which we expect members to conform, and additionally we expect ourselves to conform. This is true with or without a god in the picture, and predates a concept of a higher power.
Why this is true, I have various theories, but it is sufficient to disprove the "religion provides social order" poppycock.
Some people do find their sense of social order and ethics largely from their religion. Some do not require it (or desire it) to be informed by a large organization or explicit ethical and/or spiritual group. Many people both pre-historic and modern are sufficiently informed by the normal social channels of upgringing, discourse, entertainment (yes! books even!), and other cultural interchange and do not require a specific ethics input.
Personally I would go so far as to say that those who *require* an external source of ethical information as their primary source are ethically lazy and are failing to pull their ethical weight in the society in which they exist, merely acting as pawns or robots in the ethical sphere.