I don't know iOS architecture, so I'll trust your description as accurate and thanks for the information.:-)
But my point in replying that to the AC wasn't to suggest iOS used swap, but that managing memory so as to keep things that need running, running, and things that didn't need running, stopped, isn't a novel concept, much less the impossible magic he seemed to imply it was. Sure, the way iOS does it isn't the same, but the basic idea of how an OS would manage such a thing is far from a mystery.
"any man has a civil right to follow any little girl alone in any public bathroom or public shower and if a father or security guard attempts to stop it they should be jailed for civil rights violations"
This is right in line with the Romans of old thinking acting though on Christians was okay because everyone knew they drunk human blood and eat human flesh in their dark rituals on crypts.
Or with Christians of old thinking acting though on Jews was okay because, on top of being god-killers, they were all well known for poisoning wells and kidnapping babies to sacrifice and eat in their Sabbaths.
Chromebooks too - if they dropped the requirement that everything has to be on 'the cloud' and provided some w/ adequate storage, they'd be pretty good as well.
They're doing that already. Newer Chromebooks run Android apps, which can all use local storage. It isn't a great solution by any means at least until apps that leverage the screen, the keyboard and the mouse start appearing, but it's being done.
But see, that's the point. I don't care much about seeing movies on a very big screen as they rarely have enough small details in them that seeing them in a huge screen would help me appreciate them more. As for sound, I'm as far from an audiophile as one can find, so for me all the 3D surround sound, while nice, is hardly something I notice (the one time I noticed it was when a movie played a sound behind me). So, what really makes it worth for me is the 3D. That I do appreciate enough to make it a bonus also seeing the movie in a big enough screen, as big screens equal more depth (3D on a small screen isn't really interesting). In fact, I like it so much the 3D in a movie I want to see is enough to convince me to get out of home, go all the way to the mall (meaning an Uber followed by a bus ride), and deal with the noise, the smells, the crowd (both within and without the screening room), the queue, the price, the waiting, the second queue, and the trailers. And then, when after a while I purchase the disk, and watch it again in shallow 2D, I remember fondly of the spatial depth I once saw it with.
Remove the 3D, and my desktop computer's 17" screen with its cheap stereo speakers (I never cared enough to go 5.1) are more than enough for me.
My experience is the opposite. Nowadays the only reason I have to go to the theater is the 3D experience. I don't see the point of going to the theater to have the same experience I can have at home.
Lots of sympathy for the poor criminals who had to find SOME way to survive. Not.
I'll assume you self-identify as a Christian. That being the case, do you know who fits everything you said? You. And yet, there is your God, telling you you'll be forgiven and shown mercy by Him IIF you forgive and show mercy towards others in the exact same way.
Guess who isn't going to Heaven?
As for stalking you, I have better things to do. Bye.
At what point do you overcome your "racism is bad" brainwashing and call things as they are?
Do you know why those areas, as well as those of attorney and money exchanger, have so many Jews?
That's because, back in the day, Jews were forbidden by law from owning land and having normal jobs. Additionally, from time to time they were sacked of all their possessions and expelled from wherever they lived, if not outright killed, for the "crime" of having "killed god".
So Jews learned from Christians that the way to survive was to be mobile. To have professions that had no physical burden locking them to a place, thus allowing them to pack up and be on the run at an instant's notice, and then start working again as fast as possible wherever they arrived at so as to, you know, be able to eat and start rebuilding their lives. Until the next wave of persecution began, over and over and over and over again.
At which point do you apologize to them for the mistakes of your forefathers, and begin setting things up so that they may start trusting you and yours? If you do it right, in just a few generations that might happen.
Now, this isn't to excuse anything bad that this or that specific person does. But those are acts of that person. Individuals have minds, take decisions, and act. Ethnicities don't. "The Jews" do nothing, because "the Jews" is an abstraction. Thinking in any other way is indeed racist, and so are you. Not your ethnicity. You, specifically.
gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.
Actually, it's been shown that social isolation is the trigger for drug addictions. That drug usage developed as a survival mechanism so that brains (not only human one) who would otherwise commit suicide remain active for as long as the condition of isolation remains, until the conditions causing their need are solved, at which point the addiction begins to recede.
The interesting part is that this applies even to heroin. Many people who get into intensive care while suffering from severe pain receive what amounts to "heroin with another name", sometimes for many months, as an analgesic. And the majority of those, when they leave the hospital and stop using the drug, suffer almost no physical withdrawal symptoms, and no psychological ones. The reason for that is that they have a full life to go back to: family, work, friends, sports, hobbies, church etc. As such, the addiction survival mechanism isn't active and no addiction happened.
Now, what happens with "gateway" drugs is that the person who doesn't have a full life to keep them addiction free remains in survival mode and needs more and more to keep active, and the brain dead solution of removing the drugs doesn't fix the causes of the issue, it only makes the person more and more and more miserable, until the person dies or suicides.
Here's the true solution to drug addiction then: care for these people. Care enough that their brains shut the addiction survival mechanism down. Once that's done addiction rates will begin doing down, until all that remains are the few people whose brains have a defective addiction survival mechanism that remains active despite the lack of the environmental triggers. Then treat those few people medically.
Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.
Here's a better analogy. What if ever single company you applied for included a job application form in which in agreed to solve any dispute about discrimination through arbitration? And then, when you got the job, the contract had a clause in which you also agreed to solve any employment dispute through arbitration? Should that be legal? After all, you're not obliged to work for a company that does that, you can chose any other one. No company left not doing it? You can start your own business! Except all the businesses you need to deal with so as to be able to have one of yours have similar clauses in their contracts. Well, you're not obliged to have a business! You can... er, become a beggar, I guess?
No system of laws should allow contractual clauses to overcome legal rules. The hierarchy of authority should *always* be that only what *isn't* determined by a law is free to be contractually determined between parties. Everything else, the law should take precedence. Don't want that law? Vote a legislative body that will clearly and unambiguously revoke it. But don't insert in the system "option" stuff. That's a recipe for all kinds of extremely damaging slippery slopes.
Nazis (and fascists in general) defined themselves as a third way opposed to both to the right and the left of their time. They adopted a few things from the then right, a few things from the the left, and added a few things of their own the other two camps didn't do.
Trying to make them fit the "right" or the "left" label is nonsense. Both alternatives are wrong.
The same can be said of lots of other political movements. Even Libertarian's cherished two-axis/four-quadrants "political compass" fails to encompass how many neither-left-nor-right stuff exists out there.
I for one would like for the US Supreme Court to say the US government can do that. All the governments in the world would (that already don't do so) would enact laws saying that if those companies do that, they'll be punished, hard. All US Internet giants (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others) will find themselves forced to leave those countries, become US-only, and at most setting up partnerships with completely independent companies at every market and collecting royalties, but without servers located there. The mega-corp devaluation and breakage that'll cause due to what will basically amount to a industry-wide antitrust crackdown will be... glorious.
Repeating experiments is absolutely fundamental. One can only appreciate how difficult and how rewarding scientific pursuit is when one's confronted with the reality of how hard it is to build a good, reproducible experiment. Without that one can hardly grasp how many things can interfere.
Want a simple one? Tell students to show how throwing balls in the air results in a parabolic curve. You'll be amazed at how many errors that alone will produce. Then teach them how to make the experiment more rigorous, more accurate, more precise, until they themselves become certain of their conclusion.
Then present them the Michelson-Morley experiment, showing how their certainty wasn't warranted.
That teaches. Showing pictures of perfect experiments, beautiful noise-free charts, exact numbers without uncertainties and without the knowledge of why those "plus-minus" signs are there and where they come from? No, even when they understand on an abstract level this they're seeing, that isn't truly acquired knowledge. Only practice gives that.
Even if it took a group of students four years to truly (re)discover one single scientific fact on their own, that'd provide them the intellectual tools required to not be fooled in conflating science with non-science. Afterwards, you could present them with a mass of raw scientific conclusions and they'd understand where that came from and how scientists arrived at those conclusions. That alone would be worth more than making them memorize thousands of scientific trivia they'll try their best to forget as soon as tests are over.
The problem is that schools don't teach science, they teach data (that happens to be models about facts). The problem is that from the point of view of most of those listening, data is data irrespective of it being fact-based or not, as anyone who has memorized all the details about who did what in Game of Thrones can attest, so for most of them there's no qualitative difference between a list of scientific conclusions and a list of religious fantasies.
Want to really change things? Don't teach data, teach science. How to do it. Then challenge students by tasking them to study facts and make their own models. And then provide the actual scientific knowledge on the matter so they can confront what they did with what the true professionals did.
That's how they'll learn actual science and become permanently immunized against nonsense.
the polytheists who included him in their worship of several deities, would hit the jackpot on that one
That's not quite how it works. In polytheisms it's usual for the worshiper to focus on a few, sometimes just one, of the deities. The acknowledge the other deities as existing, but don't pay much attention to them except maybe on a few on special occasions.
Also, belief isn't very important. Shinto, for example, is fine with atheist adherents. Literal atheists, who don't think the deities exist at all. That works because Shinto is what's called an orthopraxy-based religion, meaning what you do matters, not what you think. So, as long as someone who considers themselves a Shintoist behaves correctly during festivals, rites etc., the fact they do so only because they find it all beautiful is more than enough enough. Belief isn't important.
Western religions, in contrast, are usually orthodoxy-based, meaning what you think matters a lot. As such, people who only have had contact with Western religions tend to think all religions are like that, when most in fact aren't.
As a non-American, it strikes me as quite... interesting... how worshipful Americans are of their politicians and institutions. The US constitution, its amendments, and the declaration of independence, are quoted as if they were scripture. The Founding Fathers get this Very Important Uppercased Title of Utter Respect and are quoted all around by all sides as if they were some kind of prophets or sages possessing of final wisdom. A mountain was carved so that the faces of the tetrany (?) of the Greatest Presidents Ever is forever remembered. And so on and so forth.
The US government might be secular, but secularism alone isn't enough to nullify religious impulses. They just shift around and resettle in a different shape and form.
By definition, no more than one religion can be correct.
That's an incorrect definition. In the Far East it's common for someone to follow one, two or more religions at once, even when those have conflicting views about specific issues. It's usually understood over there that those conflicts are either because those differences are different aspects of something more fundamental, or because they apply to different people, or because they're metaphorical etc.
For example, in Japan one can be one or more of these: Shintoist, Buddhist, Confucian and/or Christian. The four cosmogonies, afterlifes etc. conflict, but no one cares much about that. In the off chance one does care, there are several alternative theories on how they harmonize, also mutually conflicting, something also not seen as very important. Then if one cares about this kind of conflict, there are academic philosophical attempts at harmonizing them. And at that level you have PhDs discussing whether Western-style ontological realism (being-based) is the best approach, or if one should go with Buddhist-style muological idealism (emptiness-based), or if maybe Kantian subjectivism tackles the issue better etc.
Deeply caring about which religion is the truest of the bunch is a very particular Western outlook on the matter. It only matter because Western religions are really big, no doubt due to that very aspect of theirs. But in terms of religiosity as a whole, it's a minority view. Only a handful, less than 10 of about 3,000 religions in existence, focus on that.
they are known for having written the core of their protection suite in hand-coded assembler for speed-up.
That was back then. I loved using NOD32 back in the version 2.x days, it was hands down the fastest anti-virus around, so light it seemed my computer wasn't running an anti-virus at all. Then in later versions they stopped doing that. Version 3.x was as bloated and slow as the other anti-virus in the market. I kept using v2 until it stopped being supported, and then I moved on.
Yeah, what is the _actual_ problem that RSS/Atom are causing now?
According John Gruber from Daring Fireball, JSON feeds seem to solve three (minor) issues: first and foremost (for him), it's very, very easy, and very fun, to implement by oneself, so any app developer can add support to it to their apps in a matter of minutes. Second, it allows you to provide two canonical URLs for an entry, one for your own website's post, one for something else, which in his case is the article he's commenting about (his blog is built around short comments to bigger articles), so that feed readers can show both in a distinctive way. Third, it's easily human readable when opened in a simple text editor.
Those are valid points. They might not be important points or anything more serious, but they're valid for those who like to do things that way.
Anything requiring extreme amounts of coordination. Deflecting a many kilometers in diameter asteroid flying towards Earth that was just discovered and will hit Earth in 20 years would be an extreme example.
There are two ways to solve that.
First, having planned ahead, and I mean decades to centuries ahead, for such a scenario, and investing in it reasonably. That's not profitable, so it would have to come from taxes and a government (or many) with a very forwards looking view towards such things.
Second, by not having done so, and then running against the clock to build all the required items by harvesting by force half the world GDP starting right now.
The thirds, of allowing the people living now to voluntarily purchase their safety, isn't going to save humanity from extinction.
There's a saying I once heard that goes more or less like this: when one learns real economics, one stops being a liberal and becomes a libertarian; then, when one learns of game theory, the coordination problem, the tragedy of the commons, cognitive biases, existential risks etc., one goes back into being a liberal. A much better informed one though, that's for sure.
Do you needing a mirror, maybe? After all, you just created categories to divide people between "categorizers" vs. "non-categorizers" (you being in the former), "marginalizers" vs. "inclusivists" (you being on the former too), "egotistical" vs. "altruists" (no clue about you, but probably on the former), "superior-feeling" vs. "equal-feeling" (you evidently feeling superior), and "noble writer" vs. "a**hole writer" (your message most definitely fitting the later).
So, Mr. Categorizer-Marginalist-Egotistical-Superior-Feeling-A**hole-Writer, go get a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know iOS architecture, so I'll trust your description as accurate and thanks for the information. :-)
But my point in replying that to the AC wasn't to suggest iOS used swap, but that managing memory so as to keep things that need running, running, and things that didn't need running, stopped, isn't a novel concept, much less the impossible magic he seemed to imply it was. Sure, the way iOS does it isn't the same, but the basic idea of how an OS would manage such a thing is far from a mystery.
Virtual Memory is a 1960's invention.
"any man has a civil right to follow any little girl alone in any public bathroom or public shower and if a father or security guard attempts to stop it they should be jailed for civil rights violations"
This is right in line with the Romans of old thinking acting though on Christians was okay because everyone knew they drunk human blood and eat human flesh in their dark rituals on crypts.
Or with Christians of old thinking acting though on Jews was okay because, on top of being god-killers, they were all well known for poisoning wells and kidnapping babies to sacrifice and eat in their Sabbaths.
Or with...
Or with...
Or with...
Humans. When will they learn?
Chromebooks too - if they dropped the requirement that everything has to be on 'the cloud' and provided some w/ adequate storage, they'd be pretty good as well.
They're doing that already. Newer Chromebooks run Android apps, which can all use local storage. It isn't a great solution by any means at least until apps that leverage the screen, the keyboard and the mouse start appearing, but it's being done.
That's what you pay your $12 for.
But see, that's the point. I don't care much about seeing movies on a very big screen as they rarely have enough small details in them that seeing them in a huge screen would help me appreciate them more. As for sound, I'm as far from an audiophile as one can find, so for me all the 3D surround sound, while nice, is hardly something I notice (the one time I noticed it was when a movie played a sound behind me). So, what really makes it worth for me is the 3D. That I do appreciate enough to make it a bonus also seeing the movie in a big enough screen, as big screens equal more depth (3D on a small screen isn't really interesting). In fact, I like it so much the 3D in a movie I want to see is enough to convince me to get out of home, go all the way to the mall (meaning an Uber followed by a bus ride), and deal with the noise, the smells, the crowd (both within and without the screening room), the queue, the price, the waiting, the second queue, and the trailers. And then, when after a while I purchase the disk, and watch it again in shallow 2D, I remember fondly of the spatial depth I once saw it with.
Remove the 3D, and my desktop computer's 17" screen with its cheap stereo speakers (I never cared enough to go 5.1) are more than enough for me.
My experience is the opposite. Nowadays the only reason I have to go to the theater is the 3D experience. I don't see the point of going to the theater to have the same experience I can have at home.
Lots of sympathy for the poor criminals who had to find SOME way to survive. Not.
I'll assume you self-identify as a Christian. That being the case, do you know who fits everything you said? You. And yet, there is your God, telling you you'll be forgiven and shown mercy by Him IIF you forgive and show mercy towards others in the exact same way.
Guess who isn't going to Heaven?
As for stalking you, I have better things to do. Bye.
At what point do you overcome your "racism is bad" brainwashing and call things as they are?
Do you know why those areas, as well as those of attorney and money exchanger, have so many Jews?
That's because, back in the day, Jews were forbidden by law from owning land and having normal jobs. Additionally, from time to time they were sacked of all their possessions and expelled from wherever they lived, if not outright killed, for the "crime" of having "killed god".
So Jews learned from Christians that the way to survive was to be mobile. To have professions that had no physical burden locking them to a place, thus allowing them to pack up and be on the run at an instant's notice, and then start working again as fast as possible wherever they arrived at so as to, you know, be able to eat and start rebuilding their lives. Until the next wave of persecution began, over and over and over and over again.
At which point do you apologize to them for the mistakes of your forefathers, and begin setting things up so that they may start trusting you and yours? If you do it right, in just a few generations that might happen.
Now, this isn't to excuse anything bad that this or that specific person does. But those are acts of that person. Individuals have minds, take decisions, and act. Ethnicities don't. "The Jews" do nothing, because "the Jews" is an abstraction. Thinking in any other way is indeed racist, and so are you. Not your ethnicity. You, specifically.
Take a clue and grow.
You should stop getting psychological advice from your local megachurch pastor.
gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.
Actually, it's been shown that social isolation is the trigger for drug addictions. That drug usage developed as a survival mechanism so that brains (not only human one) who would otherwise commit suicide remain active for as long as the condition of isolation remains, until the conditions causing their need are solved, at which point the addiction begins to recede.
The interesting part is that this applies even to heroin. Many people who get into intensive care while suffering from severe pain receive what amounts to "heroin with another name", sometimes for many months, as an analgesic. And the majority of those, when they leave the hospital and stop using the drug, suffer almost no physical withdrawal symptoms, and no psychological ones. The reason for that is that they have a full life to go back to: family, work, friends, sports, hobbies, church etc. As such, the addiction survival mechanism isn't active and no addiction happened.
Now, what happens with "gateway" drugs is that the person who doesn't have a full life to keep them addiction free remains in survival mode and needs more and more to keep active, and the brain dead solution of removing the drugs doesn't fix the causes of the issue, it only makes the person more and more and more miserable, until the person dies or suicides.
Here's the true solution to drug addiction then: care for these people. Care enough that their brains shut the addiction survival mechanism down. Once that's done addiction rates will begin doing down, until all that remains are the few people whose brains have a defective addiction survival mechanism that remains active despite the lack of the environmental triggers. Then treat those few people medically.
Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.
Here's a better analogy. What if ever single company you applied for included a job application form in which in agreed to solve any dispute about discrimination through arbitration? And then, when you got the job, the contract had a clause in which you also agreed to solve any employment dispute through arbitration? Should that be legal? After all, you're not obliged to work for a company that does that, you can chose any other one. No company left not doing it? You can start your own business! Except all the businesses you need to deal with so as to be able to have one of yours have similar clauses in their contracts. Well, you're not obliged to have a business! You can... er, become a beggar, I guess?
No system of laws should allow contractual clauses to overcome legal rules. The hierarchy of authority should *always* be that only what *isn't* determined by a law is free to be contractually determined between parties. Everything else, the law should take precedence. Don't want that law? Vote a legislative body that will clearly and unambiguously revoke it. But don't insert in the system "option" stuff. That's a recipe for all kinds of extremely damaging slippery slopes.
Nazis (and fascists in general) defined themselves as a third way opposed to both to the right and the left of their time. They adopted a few things from the then right, a few things from the the left, and added a few things of their own the other two camps didn't do.
Trying to make them fit the "right" or the "left" label is nonsense. Both alternatives are wrong.
The same can be said of lots of other political movements. Even Libertarian's cherished two-axis/four-quadrants "political compass" fails to encompass how many neither-left-nor-right stuff exists out there.
I for one would like for the US Supreme Court to say the US government can do that. All the governments in the world would (that already don't do so) would enact laws saying that if those companies do that, they'll be punished, hard. All US Internet giants (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others) will find themselves forced to leave those countries, become US-only, and at most setting up partnerships with completely independent companies at every market and collecting royalties, but without servers located there. The mega-corp devaluation and breakage that'll cause due to what will basically amount to a industry-wide antitrust crackdown will be... glorious.
Repeating experiments is absolutely fundamental. One can only appreciate how difficult and how rewarding scientific pursuit is when one's confronted with the reality of how hard it is to build a good, reproducible experiment. Without that one can hardly grasp how many things can interfere.
Want a simple one? Tell students to show how throwing balls in the air results in a parabolic curve. You'll be amazed at how many errors that alone will produce. Then teach them how to make the experiment more rigorous, more accurate, more precise, until they themselves become certain of their conclusion.
Then present them the Michelson-Morley experiment, showing how their certainty wasn't warranted.
That teaches. Showing pictures of perfect experiments, beautiful noise-free charts, exact numbers without uncertainties and without the knowledge of why those "plus-minus" signs are there and where they come from? No, even when they understand on an abstract level this they're seeing, that isn't truly acquired knowledge. Only practice gives that.
Even if it took a group of students four years to truly (re)discover one single scientific fact on their own, that'd provide them the intellectual tools required to not be fooled in conflating science with non-science. Afterwards, you could present them with a mass of raw scientific conclusions and they'd understand where that came from and how scientists arrived at those conclusions. That alone would be worth more than making them memorize thousands of scientific trivia they'll try their best to forget as soon as tests are over.
The problem is that schools don't teach science, they teach data (that happens to be models about facts). The problem is that from the point of view of most of those listening, data is data irrespective of it being fact-based or not, as anyone who has memorized all the details about who did what in Game of Thrones can attest, so for most of them there's no qualitative difference between a list of scientific conclusions and a list of religious fantasies.
Want to really change things? Don't teach data, teach science. How to do it. Then challenge students by tasking them to study facts and make their own models. And then provide the actual scientific knowledge on the matter so they can confront what they did with what the true professionals did.
That's how they'll learn actual science and become permanently immunized against nonsense.
the polytheists who included him in their worship of several deities, would hit the jackpot on that one
That's not quite how it works. In polytheisms it's usual for the worshiper to focus on a few, sometimes just one, of the deities. The acknowledge the other deities as existing, but don't pay much attention to them except maybe on a few on special occasions.
Also, belief isn't very important. Shinto, for example, is fine with atheist adherents. Literal atheists, who don't think the deities exist at all. That works because Shinto is what's called an orthopraxy-based religion, meaning what you do matters, not what you think. So, as long as someone who considers themselves a Shintoist behaves correctly during festivals, rites etc., the fact they do so only because they find it all beautiful is more than enough enough. Belief isn't important.
Western religions, in contrast, are usually orthodoxy-based, meaning what you think matters a lot. As such, people who only have had contact with Western religions tend to think all religions are like that, when most in fact aren't.
Governments are religions?
As a non-American, it strikes me as quite... interesting... how worshipful Americans are of their politicians and institutions. The US constitution, its amendments, and the declaration of independence, are quoted as if they were scripture. The Founding Fathers get this Very Important Uppercased Title of Utter Respect and are quoted all around by all sides as if they were some kind of prophets or sages possessing of final wisdom. A mountain was carved so that the faces of the tetrany (?) of the Greatest Presidents Ever is forever remembered. And so on and so forth.
The US government might be secular, but secularism alone isn't enough to nullify religious impulses. They just shift around and resettle in a different shape and form.
By definition, no more than one religion can be correct.
That's an incorrect definition. In the Far East it's common for someone to follow one, two or more religions at once, even when those have conflicting views about specific issues. It's usually understood over there that those conflicts are either because those differences are different aspects of something more fundamental, or because they apply to different people, or because they're metaphorical etc.
For example, in Japan one can be one or more of these: Shintoist, Buddhist, Confucian and/or Christian. The four cosmogonies, afterlifes etc. conflict, but no one cares much about that. In the off chance one does care, there are several alternative theories on how they harmonize, also mutually conflicting, something also not seen as very important. Then if one cares about this kind of conflict, there are academic philosophical attempts at harmonizing them. And at that level you have PhDs discussing whether Western-style ontological realism (being-based) is the best approach, or if one should go with Buddhist-style muological idealism (emptiness-based), or if maybe Kantian subjectivism tackles the issue better etc.
Deeply caring about which religion is the truest of the bunch is a very particular Western outlook on the matter. It only matter because Western religions are really big, no doubt due to that very aspect of theirs. But in terms of religiosity as a whole, it's a minority view. Only a handful, less than 10 of about 3,000 religions in existence, focus on that.
they are known for having written the core of their protection suite in hand-coded assembler for speed-up.
That was back then. I loved using NOD32 back in the version 2.x days, it was hands down the fastest anti-virus around, so light it seemed my computer wasn't running an anti-virus at all. Then in later versions they stopped doing that. Version 3.x was as bloated and slow as the other anti-virus in the market. I kept using v2 until it stopped being supported, and then I moved on.
Yeah, what is the _actual_ problem that RSS/Atom are causing now?
According John Gruber from Daring Fireball, JSON feeds seem to solve three (minor) issues: first and foremost (for him), it's very, very easy, and very fun, to implement by oneself, so any app developer can add support to it to their apps in a matter of minutes. Second, it allows you to provide two canonical URLs for an entry, one for your own website's post, one for something else, which in his case is the article he's commenting about (his blog is built around short comments to bigger articles), so that feed readers can show both in a distinctive way. Third, it's easily human readable when opened in a simple text editor.
Those are valid points. They might not be important points or anything more serious, but they're valid for those who like to do things that way.
Name one. All things are potentially profitable.
Anything requiring extreme amounts of coordination. Deflecting a many kilometers in diameter asteroid flying towards Earth that was just discovered and will hit Earth in 20 years would be an extreme example.
There are two ways to solve that.
First, having planned ahead, and I mean decades to centuries ahead, for such a scenario, and investing in it reasonably. That's not profitable, so it would have to come from taxes and a government (or many) with a very forwards looking view towards such things.
Second, by not having done so, and then running against the clock to build all the required items by harvesting by force half the world GDP starting right now.
The thirds, of allowing the people living now to voluntarily purchase their safety, isn't going to save humanity from extinction.
There's a saying I once heard that goes more or less like this: when one learns real economics, one stops being a liberal and becomes a libertarian; then, when one learns of game theory, the coordination problem, the tragedy of the commons, cognitive biases, existential risks etc., one goes back into being a liberal. A much better informed one though, that's for sure.
I use Feedly.
Why is this guy and others like him
Do you needing a mirror, maybe? After all, you just created categories to divide people between "categorizers" vs. "non-categorizers" (you being in the former), "marginalizers" vs. "inclusivists" (you being on the former too), "egotistical" vs. "altruists" (no clue about you, but probably on the former), "superior-feeling" vs. "equal-feeling" (you evidently feeling superior), and "noble writer" vs. "a**hole writer" (your message most definitely fitting the later).
So, Mr. Categorizer-Marginalist-Egotistical-Superior-Feeling-A**hole-Writer, go get a clue.
This happened years ago.