It would have been nice if they at least said WHICH kernel versions, or which web server, or which version of web server.
I admit, I have some fairly obsolete (and difficult to upgrade) linux boxes running in my lab, this is the kind of detail I would kinda like to know....
More likely they have some type of bayesian filter style process that categorizes sites based off reasons it does not have the capability of explaining. It could be something as simple as some headline or piece a site linked to had just the wrong words in it.
Though it almost sounds like in this case they thought the coins had been transferred out into a new wallet and never were, thus they old copy of what should be a useless key to an empty wallet turned out to be valuable.
Try reading DoJ statistics. Countries (and states within a country like the US) generally show a solid relationship between expenditures on rehabilitation and reduced recidivism. Yes, some people are just wired wrong, but the majority are not, and even those who are often can be treated.
Which always makes me rather nervous since it speaks to a significant part of the population that really wants a socially acceptable way to hurt people, and they are one rationalization away from being a threat to everyone around them.
Sad thing is, it is not even theoretical. Quite a bit of assault and murder are justified by the killer using some twisted 'but they were immoral!' justification, with sex workers and the homeless being easy prey.
Yeah, this pretty much gives up completely on the concept of rehabilitation and is steeped in the idea that if you make someone suffer enough they will not commit any more crimes for fear of more.
No 'basically' about it, the author simply suggesting a specific instance of trading sentence length for torture, similar to reintroducing whipping or judicial caning.
Both my private and work machines both have MSOffice on them and I still use Google Docs for the bulk of my writing. It is light weight, easy to use, accessible from anywhere, and easy to share with collaborators. Office 365 is a bit better in some of those regards, but still makes collaborating with external entities more difficult.
Context switching is not exactly a new thing. 'hyperthreading' as a specific implementation does it a little better, but it is the same basic technique processors have been using since the 60s. It is in the same category as branch prediction, we keep getting new methods and buzzwords associated with them, but the basic process is hardly new.
Dependency Injection is a very old idea with a new name, and like many old ideas in programming that have been rebranded it is being severely overused by a new crop of programmers. In another 5-10 years from now it will go out of style when people start getting annoyed with the problems overuse causes (just like last time), and then get rediscovered in maybe 15 with some new buzzword and rinse lather repeat.
I am quite familiar with its usage and am very aware that there are times and places where it is a really wonderful thing to have, but today I see it used in situations where, as far as I can tell, people are using it simply because 'it is the proper way to do things' without any real though.
No, the language fetishist community approves of Python 3.x. In general people who want a tool for doing something are using Python 2.x. This might change over time, but for the moment Python 2.x offers more then Python 3.x does from a developer perspective when one's goals are result oriented rather then language oriented.
If throwing more hardware at the problem makes the project work, then it does indeed 'fix' the problem.
New computers are not 'multithreaded', they just have more cores, which Python is more then capable of taking advantage of. The GIL causes problems for one specific threading technique, and that technique is essentially the GOTO of threading. It can speed up development, but it was probably never a good idea outside some very specific use cases.
Re:There is something called multi-process you kno
on
Python 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I take it you are also against private variables and interfaces too? For that matter, why not just expose the entire system memory to every process, let programs screw with each other or alter kernel data directly!
well, there is a good solution.. don't run multiple threads in a single memory space. The problem with people complaining about the GIL is they are coming at it from the wrong direction. The problem is people want multiple threads all able to mess with each other's data and not bother with all that pesky IPC or locking, which yes it is quicker and easier, but causes a lot of frustrating problems that people have forgotten they do not actually need to have.
Thing is, we have plenty of other languages that are not 'ultra-dynamic' already. Python is great because it is extremely dynamic and thus it is one of the few languages that can really be thrown at tasks where that is a benefit.... so much better then expletive like Spring.
It could be argued that this is a good thing. Multiple threads within a single process, while increasingly considered standard, has always had a bit of controversy behind it. It has been argued that a single thread per process and use well defined shared memory pages or IPC is a safer and more easily debugged model for multi-processing. Having multiple threads all share read/write access to a global memory space was a bit of a hack then we have been living with since... but it introduced a whole host of nightmares.
When stability and consistency are more important then having new toys to play with, the lack of new features is a big selling point.
Adding new features to a language has always been a rather controversial idea, with many feeling that languages themselves should remain limited and stable with libraries being the place new features should be added.
Exclusive no, but it has a pretty impressive community for scientific work, and community means priority and visibility, so python development tends to be more sensitive to the needs of scientific computing then other communities.
this kinda highlights why a lot of people are still on Python 2.x. Python 3.x kinda comes across as a language fetish rather then something pragmatic, incompatible changes for the sake of sexyness. Elegance and consistency are great when you are waxing poetic, but are off less importance when you are interested in a language as just a tool. A lot of the library authors fall into that later category, it is a tool to get a job done and Python3 does not really prioritize pragmatism.
I think this touches on the real utility of frameworks, other programmers.
In many ways, learning or utilizing a framework is not about what it gets you technologically, it is what it gets you socially. It gets you on the same page as other developers, using the same tools, talking the same language, etc. Even if the tech itself does not make the project go any easier, the commonality does.
Plus, once you know the framework well enough, it gives you enough background TO agree or disagree with others on a project rather then not be able to participate in design discussions. For instance if I had not taken the time to learn and work with Spring on a major project I could not really threaten to break the fingers of the next developer to utilize dependency injection, at least not with any credibility.
I think the less paranoid worry would be that, if I recall correctly, the original creator invested a large number of bitcoins in the SilkRoad, which given the activities of that site whoever it was could stand charges.
So why is being 'the establishment' such a horrible thing? As individual consumers, or even groups of consumers, we are pretty powerless. Our best stragety is generally supporting the established power who's goals align the best with our own. Yeah, Google is doing what is in Google's best interests, the MPAA/RIAA are doing what is in their best interests, and the combined media/ISP companies are doing what are in their best interests. As consumers we are not going to fight any of them directly, but we can get behind the one who we are served best by.
Slashdot Mirror
It would have been nice if they at least said WHICH kernel versions, or which web server, or which version of web server.
I admit, I have some fairly obsolete (and difficult to upgrade) linux boxes running in my lab, this is the kind of detail I would kinda like to know....
More likely they have some type of bayesian filter style process that categorizes sites based off reasons it does not have the capability of explaining. It could be something as simple as some headline or piece a site linked to had just the wrong words in it.
Though it almost sounds like in this case they thought the coins had been transferred out into a new wallet and never were, thus they old copy of what should be a useless key to an empty wallet turned out to be valuable.
Try reading DoJ statistics. Countries (and states within a country like the US) generally show a solid relationship between expenditures on rehabilitation and reduced recidivism. Yes, some people are just wired wrong, but the majority are not, and even those who are often can be treated.
Which always makes me rather nervous since it speaks to a significant part of the population that really wants a socially acceptable way to hurt people, and they are one rationalization away from being a threat to everyone around them.
Sad thing is, it is not even theoretical. Quite a bit of assault and murder are justified by the killer using some twisted 'but they were immoral!' justification, with sex workers and the homeless being easy prey.
*nods* which is why I would not dream of suggesting it is a universal solution. Only that there are advantages other the simple price.
Yeah, this pretty much gives up completely on the concept of rehabilitation and is steeped in the idea that if you make someone suffer enough they will not commit any more crimes for fear of more.
No 'basically' about it, the author simply suggesting a specific instance of trading sentence length for torture, similar to reintroducing whipping or judicial caning.
Both my private and work machines both have MSOffice on them and I still use Google Docs for the bulk of my writing. It is light weight, easy to use, accessible from anywhere, and easy to share with collaborators. Office 365 is a bit better in some of those regards, but still makes collaborating with external entities more difficult.
Context switching is not exactly a new thing. 'hyperthreading' as a specific implementation does it a little better, but it is the same basic technique processors have been using since the 60s. It is in the same category as branch prediction, we keep getting new methods and buzzwords associated with them, but the basic process is hardly new.
Dependency Injection is a very old idea with a new name, and like many old ideas in programming that have been rebranded it is being severely overused by a new crop of programmers. In another 5-10 years from now it will go out of style when people start getting annoyed with the problems overuse causes (just like last time), and then get rediscovered in maybe 15 with some new buzzword and rinse lather repeat.
I am quite familiar with its usage and am very aware that there are times and places where it is a really wonderful thing to have, but today I see it used in situations where, as far as I can tell, people are using it simply because 'it is the proper way to do things' without any real though.
No, the language fetishist community approves of Python 3.x. In general people who want a tool for doing something are using Python 2.x. This might change over time, but for the moment Python 2.x offers more then Python 3.x does from a developer perspective when one's goals are result oriented rather then language oriented.
Shared memory. Behaves just like having multiple threads in a single process except you *gasp* control how much damage threads can do to each other.
If throwing more hardware at the problem makes the project work, then it does indeed 'fix' the problem.
New computers are not 'multithreaded', they just have more cores, which Python is more then capable of taking advantage of. The GIL causes problems for one specific threading technique, and that technique is essentially the GOTO of threading. It can speed up development, but it was probably never a good idea outside some very specific use cases.
I take it you are also against private variables and interfaces too? For that matter, why not just expose the entire system memory to every process, let programs screw with each other or alter kernel data directly!
well, there is a good solution.. don't run multiple threads in a single memory space. The problem with people complaining about the GIL is they are coming at it from the wrong direction. The problem is people want multiple threads all able to mess with each other's data and not bother with all that pesky IPC or locking, which yes it is quicker and easier, but causes a lot of frustrating problems that people have forgotten they do not actually need to have.
Thing is, we have plenty of other languages that are not 'ultra-dynamic' already. Python is great because it is extremely dynamic and thus it is one of the few languages that can really be thrown at tasks where that is a benefit.... so much better then expletive like Spring.
It could be argued that this is a good thing. Multiple threads within a single process, while increasingly considered standard, has always had a bit of controversy behind it. It has been argued that a single thread per process and use well defined shared memory pages or IPC is a safer and more easily debugged model for multi-processing. Having multiple threads all share read/write access to a global memory space was a bit of a hack then we have been living with since... but it introduced a whole host of nightmares.
When stability and consistency are more important then having new toys to play with, the lack of new features is a big selling point.
Adding new features to a language has always been a rather controversial idea, with many feeling that languages themselves should remain limited and stable with libraries being the place new features should be added.
Exclusive no, but it has a pretty impressive community for scientific work, and community means priority and visibility, so python development tends to be more sensitive to the needs of scientific computing then other communities.
this kinda highlights why a lot of people are still on Python 2.x. Python 3.x kinda comes across as a language fetish rather then something pragmatic, incompatible changes for the sake of sexyness. Elegance and consistency are great when you are waxing poetic, but are off less importance when you are interested in a language as just a tool. A lot of the library authors fall into that later category, it is a tool to get a job done and Python3 does not really prioritize pragmatism.
I think this touches on the real utility of frameworks, other programmers.
In many ways, learning or utilizing a framework is not about what it gets you technologically, it is what it gets you socially. It gets you on the same page as other developers, using the same tools, talking the same language, etc. Even if the tech itself does not make the project go any easier, the commonality does.
Plus, once you know the framework well enough, it gives you enough background TO agree or disagree with others on a project rather then not be able to participate in design discussions. For instance if I had not taken the time to learn and work with Spring on a major project I could not really threaten to break the fingers of the next developer to utilize dependency injection, at least not with any credibility.
I think the less paranoid worry would be that, if I recall correctly, the original creator invested a large number of bitcoins in the SilkRoad, which given the activities of that site whoever it was could stand charges.
Because there is no profit in it? Public museums and history are for takers....
So why is being 'the establishment' such a horrible thing? As individual consumers, or even groups of consumers, we are pretty powerless. Our best stragety is generally supporting the established power who's goals align the best with our own. Yeah, Google is doing what is in Google's best interests, the MPAA/RIAA are doing what is in their best interests, and the combined media/ISP companies are doing what are in their best interests. As consumers we are not going to fight any of them directly, but we can get behind the one who we are served best by.