I'm not disagreeing necessarily with the pragmatic implication, but you don't win points by committing fallacies. "We live in the real world, ergo nothing's perfect" is essentially the simpleton's strawman. The fact of the matter is that code can be crash tolerant, and yes graceful recovery is the next best thing. However the answer is not "If we put this crashy little thing over here in its own process and let it take a crap here so it doesn't wreck everything". Has this addressed the issue causing it to crash? Not at all. In fact the trade-off is clear. Much greater resource utilization.
Maybe you can't fix every bug. But you can fix most. See, built in crash tolerance: reduce the number of bugs causing crashes. Besides IE6 had a similar crash tolerance scheme. Multiple web pages? Multiple browser windows. For some reason, they decided tabbed browsing would be better for some reason. Oh well.
BS... Hubris has nothing to do with testing and bulletproofing code. Planning for epic fail with a kluge (and it IS a kluge no matter how you may attempt to spin it) instead of designing a piece of software correctly is just lazybonez.
If someone calls you, you pay. If someone texts you, you pay. If no one does anything and you don't have a rollover plan, you lose your minutes and, ergo, you pay. We are far removed from land line days where only the initiator of the action paid for the action and if you didn't make LD calls and you had unlimited local calling, your bill was about the same each month.
Actually, they're not charging what the market will bear. They're banking on the idea that the 13-year-old who texts his/her friends 100+ times a day and who's on their parents calling plan will have parents too milquetoast to cut off their text service.
Crashing is a sign that you ought fix your code, not stuff it in its own process. No web page should ever crash a browser in the same way no driver should ever crash an OS.
Clue: the problem isn't with primarily with the person who wrote the web page or the driver, although they should really go back and fix their shit too. The problem is with the browser or the OS.
If you need more than a thread to put up a web page and claim its all about the stability, accept the fact that you just plain suck and eff your crash tolerance.
Choice of broadband Internet providers is often limited by the degree to which you have choice of cable subscription. DSL struggles under the "new" content heavy net and dial-up is a joke. FiOS is another option, but infrastructure is regionally limited. Comcast usually swallows up most of the local cable services in an area, because often, the local cable services just don't have the capital to keep up with the services that Comcast already supplies.
Quite often Comcast is the only game in town when it comes to broadband service. This is WHY net neutrality is so important. Internet access is almost as important a "utility" these days as electric and gas and often can only be provided in a similar manner, direct hookup. Net neutrality provides a regulatory buffer against willful degradation of service by your provider even if that provider (in the same manner as your local phone land-line provider or electric/gas provider) has a monopoly on the infrastructure which delivers that utility.
Well, Gort...
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Seeing as you are just visiting our little world here from another, clearly more enlightened civilization where everyone is so purposefully iconoclastic as to be wearing a philosophical uniform, allow me to discuss with you to the nuances of the big blue marble on which you find yourself.
You make the presumption that privacy is wasted on the predictable. However, the reality is that a lack of privacy encourages predictability.
If your name was Coke you'd probably have many other issues to deal with much more important than the sale of your domain name. Probably not the least of which would be paying off exorbitant bills for psychotherapy required because of the merciless torment you received as a child.
In order for them to see your point, they'd have to see that even in the little niche realm they have here, all the good themes have been used up and turned into theme parks.
Sometimes it's just hard to accept that you live in a time of computing maturity when you really wish you were around during its infancy and when a person could still truly create original things without fear of being derivative.
Apps using RAM is not what is of concern, but the trend of using the copious amount of RAM in the system inefficiently is. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. Stability is not a function of how many threads you spin or how much RAM you use.
There is something still to be said for efficient, tight code that runs fast and doesn't suck up all of your system resources. Too bad the IE group can't bring themselves to say it.
A person who uses a PC at work and who's employer pays an IT staff to take care of, fix, and install software on PCs doesn't have any business touching a keyboard?
Probably not. Nevertheless, 'tis the way of the world. I suppose if the IT department locks it down enough such that they can only run Word and play Doom, I guess it's OK.
Now if you're done taking everything so literally such that any attempt at humor is a wasted effort...
It is beside the point because IT staffs usually roll out images or hand-load them, buying a PC from a supplier of specific models and installing the software as appropriate.
Perhaps you haven't realized it but OEMs install bloatware on new PCs to keep their costs down not to jack it up.
Actually, I was referring to the bloatware manufacturers offering zero-value items and zero-value services. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that installing bloatware is significantly holding down the cost of PCs, that is, unless there is a significant amount of digital "payola" being passed from hand to hand here. At least not so much so that the cost of a PC loaded with the preloaded software you may have ordered (OS, business application packages, etc.) would be of significantly greater cost than one with that plus a load of bloatware. Now it could very well be that manufacturers of bloatware are giving away this crap in the hopes that someone buys an upgrade, a service, etc., but there is no fiscal reason for an OEM to install it on a machine they are shipping unless they were receiving some sort of monetary incentive to do so (assuming that the bloatware manufacturer is not the computer manufacturer/assembler itself... which is another topic).
Dare I say most people don't know what a good computer is, yeap I said it. Those same people don't know what a good price is. And if they are going to buy a new PC in today's economy they want something cheap, so they look around at prices, and maybe a name they recognize.
I'm getting the feeling that either you don't know what my point is, or you seem quite obstinate about reframing it so that you have something to respond to.
Anyway, since you bothered...
Most people don't know what a good computer is... Hmm... On face I'd agree, because I guess two things are missing, "the criteria", and "the evidence that the criteria is backed with". A "good PC" at least by my definition is one that runs the software you choose to run on it as fast as you need it to run. So pretty much any PC will do as "good" so long as it runs the shit you want to run on it.
But as per your penchant for misinterpretation, the PC itself has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. The zero-value services and products are what I was referring to, and whether a user is capable of determining whether the PC is "good" (whatever you or I may think THAT means) being neither here nor there, if they get a piece of shit piece of software on it that is functionally near useless without an upgrade, that they don't need or want, or just plain stinks, THAT is something that I believe "most people" can detect. Now if this stuff was worthwhile... it might be a different story, but it invariably ain't worth the bytes it's taking up.
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
Why on earth would we think this? The first bit, I mean, not the special cases? I sure as hell wouldn't think this. As we're finding out lately, very few things in the universe are constant.
Slashdot Mirror
A fool and his money are soon parted... give that fool a computer and his money will part with greater efficiency and speed.
There is something to be said for continuity in one's personal habits. Precisely what, I have no idea.
It wouldn't go off unless you did something successfully, polled the error channel, or rebooted the drive.
Statistics on unemployment only factor in those on the unemployment rolls and do not take into account those whose benefits have completely lapsed.
...that you can't fix every bug.
I'm not disagreeing necessarily with the pragmatic implication, but you don't win points by committing fallacies. "We live in the real world, ergo nothing's perfect" is essentially the simpleton's strawman. The fact of the matter is that code can be crash tolerant, and yes graceful recovery is the next best thing. However the answer is not "If we put this crashy little thing over here in its own process and let it take a crap here so it doesn't wreck everything". Has this addressed the issue causing it to crash? Not at all. In fact the trade-off is clear. Much greater resource utilization.
Maybe you can't fix every bug. But you can fix most. See, built in crash tolerance: reduce the number of bugs causing crashes. Besides IE6 had a similar crash tolerance scheme. Multiple web pages? Multiple browser windows. For some reason, they decided tabbed browsing would be better for some reason. Oh well.
BS... Hubris has nothing to do with testing and bulletproofing code. Planning for epic fail with a kluge (and it IS a kluge no matter how you may attempt to spin it) instead of designing a piece of software correctly is just lazybonez.
Touche... of course.
Which way did they go? They're still around and have only increased.
If someone calls you, you pay. If someone texts you, you pay. If no one does anything and you don't have a rollover plan, you lose your minutes and, ergo, you pay. We are far removed from land line days where only the initiator of the action paid for the action and if you didn't make LD calls and you had unlimited local calling, your bill was about the same each month.
Actually, they're not charging what the market will bear. They're banking on the idea that the 13-year-old who texts his/her friends 100+ times a day and who's on their parents calling plan will have parents too milquetoast to cut off their text service.
Crashing is a sign that you ought fix your code, not stuff it in its own process. No web page should ever crash a browser in the same way no driver should ever crash an OS.
Clue: the problem isn't with primarily with the person who wrote the web page or the driver, although they should really go back and fix their shit too. The problem is with the browser or the OS.
If you need more than a thread to put up a web page and claim its all about the stability, accept the fact that you just plain suck and eff your crash tolerance.
Or is it a misapplication of DeMorgan's theorem?
I can never seem to tell these days.
Now get off my lawn!
It makes this rank garden more fertile.
If you don't like the profanity on Slashdot, go dig a big hole in your backyard and fill it with water...
Or something.
But it's just that kind of silly advertising that American consumers just eat up.
Choice of broadband Internet providers is often limited by the degree to which you have choice of cable subscription. DSL struggles under the "new" content heavy net and dial-up is a joke. FiOS is another option, but infrastructure is regionally limited. Comcast usually swallows up most of the local cable services in an area, because often, the local cable services just don't have the capital to keep up with the services that Comcast already supplies.
Quite often Comcast is the only game in town when it comes to broadband service. This is WHY net neutrality is so important. Internet access is almost as important a "utility" these days as electric and gas and often can only be provided in a similar manner, direct hookup. Net neutrality provides a regulatory buffer against willful degradation of service by your provider even if that provider (in the same manner as your local phone land-line provider or electric/gas provider) has a monopoly on the infrastructure which delivers that utility.
Will they make it look like a car this time? Or will they once again make it look like a container for the worlds largest Big Mac?
Dagnabbit.
Seeing as you are just visiting our little world here from another, clearly more enlightened civilization where everyone is so purposefully iconoclastic as to be wearing a philosophical uniform, allow me to discuss with you to the nuances of the big blue marble on which you find yourself.
You make the presumption that privacy is wasted on the predictable. However, the reality is that a lack of privacy encourages predictability.
If your name was Coke you'd probably have many other issues to deal with much more important than the sale of your domain name. Probably not the least of which would be paying off exorbitant bills for psychotherapy required because of the merciless torment you received as a child.
In order for them to see your point, they'd have to see that even in the little niche realm they have here, all the good themes have been used up and turned into theme parks.
Sometimes it's just hard to accept that you live in a time of computing maturity when you really wish you were around during its infancy and when a person could still truly create original things without fear of being derivative.
Apps using RAM is not what is of concern, but the trend of using the copious amount of RAM in the system inefficiently is. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. Stability is not a function of how many threads you spin or how much RAM you use.
There is something still to be said for efficient, tight code that runs fast and doesn't suck up all of your system resources. Too bad the IE group can't bring themselves to say it.
A person who uses a PC at work and who's employer pays an IT staff to take care of, fix, and install software on PCs doesn't have any business touching a keyboard?
Probably not. Nevertheless, 'tis the way of the world. I suppose if the IT department locks it down enough such that they can only run Word and play Doom, I guess it's OK.
Now if you're done taking everything so literally such that any attempt at humor is a wasted effort...
It is beside the point because IT staffs usually roll out images or hand-load them, buying a PC from a supplier of specific models and installing the software as appropriate.
Perhaps you haven't realized it but OEMs install bloatware on new PCs to keep their costs down not to jack it up.
Actually, I was referring to the bloatware manufacturers offering zero-value items and zero-value services. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that installing bloatware is significantly holding down the cost of PCs, that is, unless there is a significant amount of digital "payola" being passed from hand to hand here. At least not so much so that the cost of a PC loaded with the preloaded software you may have ordered (OS, business application packages, etc.) would be of significantly greater cost than one with that plus a load of bloatware. Now it could very well be that manufacturers of bloatware are giving away this crap in the hopes that someone buys an upgrade, a service, etc., but there is no fiscal reason for an OEM to install it on a machine they are shipping unless they were receiving some sort of monetary incentive to do so (assuming that the bloatware manufacturer is not the computer manufacturer/assembler itself... which is another topic).
Dare I say most people don't know what a good computer is, yeap I said it. Those same people don't know what a good price is. And if they are going to buy a new PC in today's economy they want something cheap, so they look around at prices, and maybe a name they recognize.
I'm getting the feeling that either you don't know what my point is, or you seem quite obstinate about reframing it so that you have something to respond to.
Anyway, since you bothered...
Most people don't know what a good computer is... Hmm... On face I'd agree, because I guess two things are missing, "the criteria", and "the evidence that the criteria is backed with". A "good PC" at least by my definition is one that runs the software you choose to run on it as fast as you need it to run. So pretty much any PC will do as "good" so long as it runs the shit you want to run on it.
But as per your penchant for misinterpretation, the PC itself has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. The zero-value services and products are what I was referring to, and whether a user is capable of determining whether the PC is "good" (whatever you or I may think THAT means) being neither here nor there, if they get a piece of shit piece of software on it that is functionally near useless without an upgrade, that they don't need or want, or just plain stinks, THAT is something that I believe "most people" can detect. Now if this stuff was worthwhile... it might be a different story, but it invariably ain't worth the bytes it's taking up.
FTA:
Why on earth would we think this? The first bit, I mean, not the special cases? I sure as hell wouldn't think this. As we're finding out lately, very few things in the universe are constant.
They don't make soap strong enough to wash off self-hate.