The last I checked there was no way to block scripts prior to download - the best the extension could do was step in after they have been downloaded and parsed and then walk them back out. Not acceptable, not even close.
I know, this is how I do it too, but doesnt it strike you as a little crazy to have to install all these *extensions* - not to add optional functionality, but to disable all this insanity that should never have been enabled by default to begin with?
Web browsers should ship with support for the web (that means HTML, semantic markup, period) and extensions should be used to add to that, rather than by default supporting every piece of nonsense any adware/spyware/malware pusher might ever want to use, and then having extensions to try and turn that off after the fact.
I found it quite interesting. I get the feeling his real core dissatisfaction is something he never quite articulates - it's turd-polishing and he just doesnt like doing that. Which is fair enough to some degree, no one really does, but that's what you should expect when you quit coding for pure fun and start drawing a paycheck for your work.
And of course it's even less fun when you spend a lot of time specifically fixing little 'bugs' that are only visible because you are forcing the codebase into a spot of the sort where it was never intended to go. What a nightmare. I can feel for him, and why he, personally, would be much happier dropping X down a deep dark hole and taking a different direction entirely.
I dont have any of that personal investment, I am just trying to use my computer. X works. Wayland sounds like it might be a lot better on a phone... well I will remember that next time I am looking for a phone. But there is no desire for it on my workstation.
I am used to people stereotyping me and then responding to what they think I should say, instead of what I actually say. When I disagree with a leftist I get called a 'teabagger' and when I disagree with the right I get called a 'liberal' and then in either case a lot of positions I havent taken get attributed to me and attacked. And the conversation is effectively over at that point, no communication will be permitted to penetrate their skull from that point on.
You didnt do that. I think it speaks highly of you.
"CFLs only fail because people don't use them properly (and I don't mean turning them on and off repeatedly. That only affects shitty electronics.) They install them in enclosed areas, heat kills the electronics. They install them upside down when they're not rated for that, heat from the tungsten electrodes in the base of the bulb fries the electronics. They get cheap ones that you can hear rattling around in, and fucking use them anyways, and complain when they break."
You do realize that the vast majority of existing light bulbs are installed upside down?
No one tells you not to do that, there is no warning on the box about it, this is the first time I have ever heard it. If it's true it's more confirmation these things are not a suitable replacement. Every single light bulb in my house, and I would guess very near to every light bulb in this county, is installed upside down.
I do understand that, it's obvious, perhaps I expected too much of you to expect you to understand it as well.
I'll just give you a little math problem, you seem to be pretty good at them. I have a sample of 3. All 3 are dead, lasting little, if any, beyond 1000 hours each. EVEN accounting for the small sample size, the chances that the claimed halflife is accurate are ridiculously small. Effectively, though I will grant not *absolutely*, the chance is zero.
The idiotic comments just keep coming, this is comedy gold. You just keep illustrating my point, one after another, your experience is so narrow and your imagination so limited you simply cannot conceive of what it is like to live in the USA!
For your information, the inside wiring is essentially perfect. Well above code. The problem is in the power company infrastructure, which is not in my control, and which is not likely to be changed for another decade or two, at least.
"It is however affected by how you use it. For example turning it off and on frequently will dramatically reduce the lifetime. "
And that is likely part of the problem too. When I complained about the ridiculously short life of the ridiculously expensive bulbs that is what they told me, oh, you cant turn them off. How ridiculous is that? It will last a long time, but only if you dont turn it on and off, but that's like saying a car is going to work just fine as long as you dont drive it!
I just assumed that was mostly bullshit because if it was true I would expect EVERYONE to hate CFLs but I have observed that people from urban areas usually dont see the problems with them.
"Corporate taxes fall, in part, on the stockholders in the form of reduced capital gains."
Only in an instant analysis. If you look at it long term however that never holds up. The investors dont really care WHY their returns are lower, if they are, they will move on to a better investment. So they get taken care of first. The dominos fall or the socks get shaken out or whatever metaphor you prefer - in the end, the people with the least pull are the ones that will be stuck paying it. The poorest among us are the ones that are hurt most every time.
There are many of us in situations where CFLs are not a viable alternative. I tried to switch to them, but they are not at all satisfactory. They are not as bright as they claim to be, and last nowhere near their rated lifetime. This is the experience of many people in my area, and I suspect many people all across the country who live outside of big cities in areas where the power company infrastructure is not completely up to modern standards. And that infrastructure is very unlikely to be upgraded for the next two decades or more. So these things simply dont work for us.
If I converted to CFLs now I would be need twice as many lights just to start with. Then, calculating the cost of the bulbs, the real lifespan of the bulbs based on testing at my location rather than the made up numbers on the box, and the cost of the electricity combined, I figure I would wind up spending ~60 times what I do right now to keep it lit. So hoarding bulbs looks pretty darn rational from where I sit.
Outlawing light bulbs has nothing whatsoever to do with improving our infrastructure. Like just about everything the US government has done recently, it is 100% about guaranteeing corporate profits. Wake up!
I would object that you were too hard on me in your initial words (and I think you were) but I forgive it instantly as I read on. Excellent post.
"The average incandescent bulb lasts about 1000 hours. Currently, the average cost per kilowatt hour is 12 cents in this country. So a 100 watt bulb run for 1000 hours costs about $1.20 in electricity. The bulbs cost about $0.57 each. An equivalent LED bulb costs $36 per, and consumes only 13% of the energy used by an incandescent. They say these will last approximately 50,000 hours."
Exactly. They say that. I believed them, I bought the bulbs, and you know what?
I get about 1000 hours out of them. Tops. Let's do your math based on that real, tested, figure instead of a number that someone with a vested interest in selling this junk pulled out of thin air.
(And I havent even mentioned the fact that CFLs simply dont put out anywhere near enough light to replace the bulbs they are rated as being equal to. When I replaced a real 60w bulb with a CFL that was supposed to be equal it was a real laugh. Took two of them to illuminate a room that a single 60w incandescent lights just fine. But I digress.)
"The problem here though is nobody knows whether 50,000 hours is accurate."
Actually I know for a fact it's ridiculously, unbelievably, ludicrously inaccurate, at least under the conditions that prevail where I live.
"That would mean the bulb runs continuously for 5.7 years before failure. They haven't been on the market that long. "
And think about that for a second. If the claim were true, there would be no failed CFLs in existence yet. I have three available for inspection currently. The claim is obviously false.
I suspect that under ideal circumstances, these things would at least get a good deal closer to their claimed performance, but that is completely beside the point when I am trying to light my space here. They may work perfectly fine for people in LA and NYC but I am not there and not going to be there so that is completely irrelevant. The problem here, and I may not have expressed it in the prior post in the best way, but what is going on is that people who live in LA and NYC and the other big urban centres, have absolutely no freaking clue what life is like for Americans, out here in America. They live in a totally artificial world (perhaps a world where CFLs make perfect sense! I will give the benefit of the doubt on that) and have no empathy, sympathy, or even the most basic level of simply understanding that other human beings do not live like they do, or in the sort of place they do. And infuriatingly, when you do manage to push that point through and get them to acknowledge it, the immediate response is always to assume that we must WANT to live like they do. We dont, believe me.
When you set people like that to elect and to legislate for the country they dont even want to acknowledge exists, you have to expect problems.
Thank you, you just gave me an excellent example of my point. YOU think you know everything. YOU think you know exactly why people dont like your CFLs, and YOU put yourself in a position above each and every person in this world that disagrees with you. You determine, all on your own, that their concerns are not valid. And then you send men with guns to make sure these people do not get the chance to make the 'wrong' choices anymore. You're just an arrogant, ignorant jackass with a strong sense of entitlement and a total lack of respect for your fellow human beings.
You can keep up your silly little third grader insinuations all you want, the claimed cost savings relies on the claim of long life, and the claim of long life, in this area and many others, is quite simply not true. CFLs cost me much more than incandescents but they DO NOT last any longer in my application than the incandescents. And the very idea that you think you can sit there wherever you are and call me stupid for noticing that fact... man you are a grade A moron.
Sure buddy, you go out and try to start climbing the power poles and fixing all the f-ups and see how far you get. I dont have the expertise to do that job, and even if I did, I dont have the money to replace all their equipment, and even if I did and didnt mind to spend it on that, it would be illegal anyway.
If that is true then the units they sell in India must be manufactured differently. It would not be surprising if those intended for sale in India were manufactured to be able to deal with poor power while the ones intended for sale here are not. Kind of like how they law sets the standard for octane based on the average altitude of a state, even in cases where the vast majority of the population actually lives and drives at much lower elevations than that average would suggest.
No, you are wrong. And it seems you need to learn to read.
I have no problems with 12 volt LEDs running off the RV batteries, they work great.
But the ones that run off 120v? Around here they fry. Bad power lines, bad design or construction of the lighting unit, probably a mixture of both. But the result is the same. They do not fit the needs here.
Any time you ask people whether or not they intend to do something, you will expect more people to say yes than will actually do it, so sure, the percentage will be smaller. But "much" smaller? I doubt it.
A lot of people are in situations where the replacements just do not work. I am stocking up on lightbulbs and so are other people I know. There are people already with multiple storage units packed to the roof with lightbulbs.
A predictable if undesired consequence of banning them, just like banning anything else people want and/or need.
You obviously dont live in an area with less than perfect power delivery.
Where I am is not bad, but still just far enough from perfect that those new 'long life' bulbs do not last any longer than incandescents. They just cost 20 times as much, they arent as bright, and they are inferior in absolutely every way.
Rich idiots in privileged settings come up with this crap and force it down the throats of the rest of us, and no offense but you sure sound like part of the problem. Just because you dont need something does not give you license to outlaw it and screw with the rest of us like that. If you dont think incandescent bulbs are a good value for you then dont buy them, but preventing those of us that do need them from obtaining them is just meanness.
California means nothing, it's a word that a novelist made up and appeared as a fictional land in "Las sergas de EsplandiÃn" - a book which the conquistadores were familiar with, and from which they drew the name.
As the other poster pointed out, given that your set fits in memory, it's going to appear to be CPU bound. It still probably is not, however. Memory access is still likely to be the actual bottleneck.
I love the ignorance of the mods here, your post isnt interesting, it's boneheadedly stupid.
"The different "class" of motherboard is simply a different form factor so you can't swap for another one. i.e., vendor lock-in."
No, it is NOT. Important things like ECC support have to be built into the chipset, so you are using a different chipset. And if you are not getting ripped off many other components are going to be different as well.
"RAM is different. It's claimed they use ECC for the safety of your data. In practice it's so you can't go to the local computer store to buy more. Corps tend to buy from the manufacturer because "that's where we got the server, and it was expensive."
The ignorance here is appalling. ECC is for the safety of your data, without it you WILL have regular bit errors. They dont use it on consumer equipment because consumers are so dumb they will buy a cheaper computer without it and think they are getting a better deal, and because it's rationalized that no one (should) use consumer equipment for anything important anyway. Just based on the known incidence of cosmic radiation alone, combined with the small process size and sheer density of modern ram, guarantees you will have regular bit errors and the consequences are essentially 'random' - meaning one time the error could be something you wont even notice, but the next time it could necessitate a full reformat of the machine. Or it might just corrupt an important data file instead. There is no way to predict it.
If you are doing anything important with the computer this is not acceptable and you should just quit being an idiot and get ECC.
"But the damage is too small for an individual case to matter. "
I dont agree that is *always* true first off, and in the cases where it is, that's why we have something called a class-action suit. You can pool the damages to millions of people and sue together.
Slashdot Mirror
The last I checked there was no way to block scripts prior to download - the best the extension could do was step in after they have been downloaded and parsed and then walk them back out. Not acceptable, not even close.
I know, this is how I do it too, but doesnt it strike you as a little crazy to have to install all these *extensions* - not to add optional functionality, but to disable all this insanity that should never have been enabled by default to begin with?
Web browsers should ship with support for the web (that means HTML, semantic markup, period) and extensions should be used to add to that, rather than by default supporting every piece of nonsense any adware/spyware/malware pusher might ever want to use, and then having extensions to try and turn that off after the fact.
I found it quite interesting. I get the feeling his real core dissatisfaction is something he never quite articulates - it's turd-polishing and he just doesnt like doing that. Which is fair enough to some degree, no one really does, but that's what you should expect when you quit coding for pure fun and start drawing a paycheck for your work.
And of course it's even less fun when you spend a lot of time specifically fixing little 'bugs' that are only visible because you are forcing the codebase into a spot of the sort where it was never intended to go. What a nightmare. I can feel for him, and why he, personally, would be much happier dropping X down a deep dark hole and taking a different direction entirely.
I dont have any of that personal investment, I am just trying to use my computer. X works. Wayland sounds like it might be a lot better on a phone... well I will remember that next time I am looking for a phone. But there is no desire for it on my workstation.
Honestly, why is it so hard for you morons to understand that the conditions where you are and the conditions where I am may not be the same?
I am used to people stereotyping me and then responding to what they think I should say, instead of what I actually say. When I disagree with a leftist I get called a 'teabagger' and when I disagree with the right I get called a 'liberal' and then in either case a lot of positions I havent taken get attributed to me and attacked. And the conversation is effectively over at that point, no communication will be permitted to penetrate their skull from that point on.
You didnt do that. I think it speaks highly of you.
"CFLs only fail because people don't use them properly (and I don't mean turning them on and off repeatedly. That only affects shitty electronics.) They install them in enclosed areas, heat kills the electronics. They install them upside down when they're not rated for that, heat from the tungsten electrodes in the base of the bulb fries the electronics. They get cheap ones that you can hear rattling around in, and fucking use them anyways, and complain when they break."
You do realize that the vast majority of existing light bulbs are installed upside down?
No one tells you not to do that, there is no warning on the box about it, this is the first time I have ever heard it. If it's true it's more confirmation these things are not a suitable replacement. Every single light bulb in my house, and I would guess very near to every light bulb in this county, is installed upside down.
Ridiculous.
I do understand that, it's obvious, perhaps I expected too much of you to expect you to understand it as well.
I'll just give you a little math problem, you seem to be pretty good at them. I have a sample of 3. All 3 are dead, lasting little, if any, beyond 1000 hours each. EVEN accounting for the small sample size, the chances that the claimed halflife is accurate are ridiculously small. Effectively, though I will grant not *absolutely*, the chance is zero.
I bet you I was against George Bush before you knew who he was.
But if you liked him I bet Mr Obama is really making you happy huh?
The idiotic comments just keep coming, this is comedy gold. You just keep illustrating my point, one after another, your experience is so narrow and your imagination so limited you simply cannot conceive of what it is like to live in the USA!
For your information, the inside wiring is essentially perfect. Well above code. The problem is in the power company infrastructure, which is not in my control, and which is not likely to be changed for another decade or two, at least.
"It is however affected by how you use it. For example turning it off and on frequently will dramatically reduce the lifetime. "
And that is likely part of the problem too. When I complained about the ridiculously short life of the ridiculously expensive bulbs that is what they told me, oh, you cant turn them off. How ridiculous is that? It will last a long time, but only if you dont turn it on and off, but that's like saying a car is going to work just fine as long as you dont drive it!
I just assumed that was mostly bullshit because if it was true I would expect EVERYONE to hate CFLs but I have observed that people from urban areas usually dont see the problems with them.
"Corporate taxes fall, in part, on the stockholders in the form of reduced capital gains."
Only in an instant analysis. If you look at it long term however that never holds up. The investors dont really care WHY their returns are lower, if they are, they will move on to a better investment. So they get taken care of first. The dominos fall or the socks get shaken out or whatever metaphor you prefer - in the end, the people with the least pull are the ones that will be stuck paying it. The poorest among us are the ones that are hurt most every time.
There are many of us in situations where CFLs are not a viable alternative. I tried to switch to them, but they are not at all satisfactory. They are not as bright as they claim to be, and last nowhere near their rated lifetime. This is the experience of many people in my area, and I suspect many people all across the country who live outside of big cities in areas where the power company infrastructure is not completely up to modern standards. And that infrastructure is very unlikely to be upgraded for the next two decades or more. So these things simply dont work for us.
If I converted to CFLs now I would be need twice as many lights just to start with. Then, calculating the cost of the bulbs, the real lifespan of the bulbs based on testing at my location rather than the made up numbers on the box, and the cost of the electricity combined, I figure I would wind up spending ~60 times what I do right now to keep it lit. So hoarding bulbs looks pretty darn rational from where I sit.
Outlawing light bulbs has nothing whatsoever to do with improving our infrastructure. Like just about everything the US government has done recently, it is 100% about guaranteeing corporate profits. Wake up!
I would object that you were too hard on me in your initial words (and I think you were) but I forgive it instantly as I read on. Excellent post.
"The average incandescent bulb lasts about 1000 hours. Currently, the average cost per kilowatt hour is 12 cents in this country. So a 100 watt bulb run for 1000 hours costs about $1.20 in electricity. The bulbs cost about $0.57 each. An equivalent LED bulb costs $36 per, and consumes only 13% of the energy used by an incandescent. They say these will last approximately 50,000 hours."
Exactly. They say that. I believed them, I bought the bulbs, and you know what?
I get about 1000 hours out of them. Tops. Let's do your math based on that real, tested, figure instead of a number that someone with a vested interest in selling this junk pulled out of thin air.
CFL = $36.15 (including electricity)
Incandescent = $1.77 (including electricity)
My choice is rather clear.
(And I havent even mentioned the fact that CFLs simply dont put out anywhere near enough light to replace the bulbs they are rated as being equal to. When I replaced a real 60w bulb with a CFL that was supposed to be equal it was a real laugh. Took two of them to illuminate a room that a single 60w incandescent lights just fine. But I digress.)
"The problem here though is nobody knows whether 50,000 hours is accurate."
Actually I know for a fact it's ridiculously, unbelievably, ludicrously inaccurate, at least under the conditions that prevail where I live.
"That would mean the bulb runs continuously for 5.7 years before failure. They haven't been on the market that long. "
And think about that for a second. If the claim were true, there would be no failed CFLs in existence yet. I have three available for inspection currently. The claim is obviously false.
I suspect that under ideal circumstances, these things would at least get a good deal closer to their claimed performance, but that is completely beside the point when I am trying to light my space here. They may work perfectly fine for people in LA and NYC but I am not there and not going to be there so that is completely irrelevant. The problem here, and I may not have expressed it in the prior post in the best way, but what is going on is that people who live in LA and NYC and the other big urban centres, have absolutely no freaking clue what life is like for Americans, out here in America. They live in a totally artificial world (perhaps a world where CFLs make perfect sense! I will give the benefit of the doubt on that) and have no empathy, sympathy, or even the most basic level of simply understanding that other human beings do not live like they do, or in the sort of place they do. And infuriatingly, when you do manage to push that point through and get them to acknowledge it, the immediate response is always to assume that we must WANT to live like they do. We dont, believe me.
When you set people like that to elect and to legislate for the country they dont even want to acknowledge exists, you have to expect problems.
Thank you, you just gave me an excellent example of my point. YOU think you know everything. YOU think you know exactly why people dont like your CFLs, and YOU put yourself in a position above each and every person in this world that disagrees with you. You determine, all on your own, that their concerns are not valid. And then you send men with guns to make sure these people do not get the chance to make the 'wrong' choices anymore. You're just an arrogant, ignorant jackass with a strong sense of entitlement and a total lack of respect for your fellow human beings.
You can keep up your silly little third grader insinuations all you want, the claimed cost savings relies on the claim of long life, and the claim of long life, in this area and many others, is quite simply not true. CFLs cost me much more than incandescents but they DO NOT last any longer in my application than the incandescents. And the very idea that you think you can sit there wherever you are and call me stupid for noticing that fact... man you are a grade A moron.
Sure buddy, you go out and try to start climbing the power poles and fixing all the f-ups and see how far you get. I dont have the expertise to do that job, and even if I did, I dont have the money to replace all their equipment, and even if I did and didnt mind to spend it on that, it would be illegal anyway.
Yeah, real smart idea.
At the moment people are hoarding light bulbs and working to unelect the bastards that did this. What more would you suggest?
If that is true then the units they sell in India must be manufactured differently. It would not be surprising if those intended for sale in India were manufactured to be able to deal with poor power while the ones intended for sale here are not. Kind of like how they law sets the standard for octane based on the average altitude of a state, even in cases where the vast majority of the population actually lives and drives at much lower elevations than that average would suggest.
No, you are wrong. And it seems you need to learn to read.
I have no problems with 12 volt LEDs running off the RV batteries, they work great.
But the ones that run off 120v? Around here they fry. Bad power lines, bad design or construction of the lighting unit, probably a mixture of both. But the result is the same. They do not fit the needs here.
Any time you ask people whether or not they intend to do something, you will expect more people to say yes than will actually do it, so sure, the percentage will be smaller. But "much" smaller? I doubt it.
A lot of people are in situations where the replacements just do not work. I am stocking up on lightbulbs and so are other people I know. There are people already with multiple storage units packed to the roof with lightbulbs.
A predictable if undesired consequence of banning them, just like banning anything else people want and/or need.
You obviously dont live in an area with less than perfect power delivery.
Where I am is not bad, but still just far enough from perfect that those new 'long life' bulbs do not last any longer than incandescents. They just cost 20 times as much, they arent as bright, and they are inferior in absolutely every way.
Rich idiots in privileged settings come up with this crap and force it down the throats of the rest of us, and no offense but you sure sound like part of the problem. Just because you dont need something does not give you license to outlaw it and screw with the rest of us like that. If you dont think incandescent bulbs are a good value for you then dont buy them, but preventing those of us that do need them from obtaining them is just meanness.
Eh, not quite.
California means nothing, it's a word that a novelist made up and appeared as a fictional land in "Las sergas de EsplandiÃn" - a book which the conquistadores were familiar with, and from which they drew the name.
Your other entries appear to be correct though.
As the other poster pointed out, given that your set fits in memory, it's going to appear to be CPU bound. It still probably is not, however. Memory access is still likely to be the actual bottleneck.
I love the ignorance of the mods here, your post isnt interesting, it's boneheadedly stupid.
"The different "class" of motherboard is simply a different form factor so you can't swap for another one. i.e., vendor lock-in."
No, it is NOT. Important things like ECC support have to be built into the chipset, so you are using a different chipset. And if you are not getting ripped off many other components are going to be different as well.
"RAM is different. It's claimed they use ECC for the safety of your data. In practice it's so you can't go to the local computer store to buy more. Corps tend to buy from the manufacturer because "that's where we got the server, and it was expensive."
The ignorance here is appalling. ECC is for the safety of your data, without it you WILL have regular bit errors. They dont use it on consumer equipment because consumers are so dumb they will buy a cheaper computer without it and think they are getting a better deal, and because it's rationalized that no one (should) use consumer equipment for anything important anyway. Just based on the known incidence of cosmic radiation alone, combined with the small process size and sheer density of modern ram, guarantees you will have regular bit errors and the consequences are essentially 'random' - meaning one time the error could be something you wont even notice, but the next time it could necessitate a full reformat of the machine. Or it might just corrupt an important data file instead. There is no way to predict it.
If you are doing anything important with the computer this is not acceptable and you should just quit being an idiot and get ECC.
"But the damage is too small for an individual case to matter. "
I dont agree that is *always* true first off, and in the cases where it is, that's why we have something called a class-action suit. You can pool the damages to millions of people and sue together.