Short answer: no. P == NP is about efficiency, not possibility. There, however, are algorithms, or problems to be solved, that are provably impossible to solve with computer (read: Turing machines).
This sounds like it's coming from someone who's never done Windows programming. Sure, there are a bunch of VB drones out there. But there is much more to Windows programming than VB hackjobs. And unlike Linux, Windows actually has a stable and vetted set of libraries available on every system, making it possible to write software that'll work on more than your machine or your particular version of Ubuntu. Not to mention the fact that pretty much all libraries and languages available on Linux are also available on Windows, sometimes with even better implementations (sometimes with worse, but the majors aren't like that).
A one-time problem, easily fixed. If you really want to be safe, unplug your internet connection. Maybe go outside, talk to some real women, something like that.
I assume that if it bothered you that much, you'd probably search for a way to turn it off. The summary did say that you will still know when the updates are being applied with a progress bar, it just doesn't ask you or go through a whole hullaballoo to install updates.
Dude, you can turn off silent updates. I know nobody reads the article, but at least read the summary before frothing at the mouth about a non-problem.
It doesn't need to have a repo system. It just needs to have a standard protocol for installation and update. Programs, once installed, can register with the update service, point Windows to the update URL source and then when there's an update, Windows can do it all in one batch.
If things break, users probably won't be able to fix them without calling someone for help. It's easy enough to check whether there has been an update.
My mom, for example, frequently fails to tell me of important events like software updates when things stop working. Instead she just tells me that "the Internet stopped working today" and other vague things like that. I have to dig to find out that she upgraded such and such, or disabled this or that.
So I say either you are savvy enough to turn off silent updates, or at least check to see if there's been an update, or you aren't savvy enough for knowledge of updates to be useful to you directly.
Kernel modules don't matter. They are just a way of breaking up the loading process. Once a module is loaded, the code it contains is practically indistinguishable from compiled in code. That's why modules can be built-in instead of compiled as modules.
Kernel isn't defined that way. A specific type of kernel, like microkernel, might say that only the most core functions need to be in the actual kernel, but that is only one type of implementation. The Linux kernel is still a kernel, even if it includes more functionality than Minix's kernel.
The ice always melts during the summer. But it is melting faster than "normal". Thankfully, in July, the ice loss is now behind 2007 instead of being miles ahead of it like it was in June.
No, you just made that up that it means past, present and future. It *can* refer to any of those times, but it doesn't necessarily, if ever, refer to all of those times at once. Only context indicates that it should. Idiomatic expressions trump even that. "X-est ever" is an idiomatic expression and mean "X-est to date". No native English speaker, except you, apparently, would be confused by that.
So you actually implicitly accepted my point, then went on to say the same wrong thing. I like how people just make shit up about language solely to be pedantic trolls on places like Slashdot. Never has it been true that "ever" means past, present and future by default. But here you are, just making it up and then using it to tell someone their perfectly valid and well-understood (by non-dipshits) idiom is, in fact, wrong.
It doesn't really. It depends on the context and the tense of the verb it's used with. Example: "I wondered if he'd ever seen a computer before" is entirely past-tense in meaning.
Regarding the discussion at hand, "X-est ever" really is more or less equivalent to "X-est to date". If you want to include the future, then you'd say "X-est that will ever be made".
You were right up until you started talking about "wyf", which was actually "wif" and was neuter in Old English (but "wer" was in fact masculine). The French didn't have anything to do with "fuck[ing] everything up", at least with respect to "man".
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the nerds getting up in arms that the masses aren't adoring their products.
karma should not contribute to karma, eh?
Short answer: no. P == NP is about efficiency, not possibility. There, however, are algorithms, or problems to be solved, that are provably impossible to solve with computer (read: Turing machines).
I don't know that I necessarily agree about net neutrality, but I don't think this should be downmodded to flamebait.
This sounds like it's coming from someone who's never done Windows programming. Sure, there are a bunch of VB drones out there. But there is much more to Windows programming than VB hackjobs. And unlike Linux, Windows actually has a stable and vetted set of libraries available on every system, making it possible to write software that'll work on more than your machine or your particular version of Ubuntu. Not to mention the fact that pretty much all libraries and languages available on Linux are also available on Windows, sometimes with even better implementations (sometimes with worse, but the majors aren't like that).
A one-time problem, easily fixed. If you really want to be safe, unplug your internet connection. Maybe go outside, talk to some real women, something like that.
Because it still tells you that it's updating...
I assume that if it bothered you that much, you'd probably search for a way to turn it off. The summary did say that you will still know when the updates are being applied with a progress bar, it just doesn't ask you or go through a whole hullaballoo to install updates.
Dude, you can turn off silent updates. I know nobody reads the article, but at least read the summary before frothing at the mouth about a non-problem.
If you read the damn summary, you'll see that you can turn off silent updates.
It doesn't need to have a repo system. It just needs to have a standard protocol for installation and update. Programs, once installed, can register with the update service, point Windows to the update URL source and then when there's an update, Windows can do it all in one batch.
If things break, users probably won't be able to fix them without calling someone for help. It's easy enough to check whether there has been an update.
My mom, for example, frequently fails to tell me of important events like software updates when things stop working. Instead she just tells me that "the Internet stopped working today" and other vague things like that. I have to dig to find out that she upgraded such and such, or disabled this or that.
So I say either you are savvy enough to turn off silent updates, or at least check to see if there's been an update, or you aren't savvy enough for knowledge of updates to be useful to you directly.
+1 for referencing Archer. One of my favorite episodes so far.
Somehow, my messed up mind allows me to move right on past typos and obvious thinkos.
Kernel modules don't matter. They are just a way of breaking up the loading process. Once a module is loaded, the code it contains is practically indistinguishable from compiled in code. That's why modules can be built-in instead of compiled as modules.
Kernel isn't defined that way. A specific type of kernel, like microkernel, might say that only the most core functions need to be in the actual kernel, but that is only one type of implementation. The Linux kernel is still a kernel, even if it includes more functionality than Minix's kernel.
That's why most people let context correctly disambiguate instead of assuming the least likely option.
The ice always melts during the summer. But it is melting faster than "normal". Thankfully, in July, the ice loss is now behind 2007 instead of being miles ahead of it like it was in June.
No, it really isn't...
Yeah, I just thought of that while I was in the shower (where all good thoughts come from).
No, you just made that up that it means past, present and future. It *can* refer to any of those times, but it doesn't necessarily, if ever, refer to all of those times at once. Only context indicates that it should. Idiomatic expressions trump even that. "X-est ever" is an idiomatic expression and mean "X-est to date". No native English speaker, except you, apparently, would be confused by that.
So you actually implicitly accepted my point, then went on to say the same wrong thing. I like how people just make shit up about language solely to be pedantic trolls on places like Slashdot. Never has it been true that "ever" means past, present and future by default. But here you are, just making it up and then using it to tell someone their perfectly valid and well-understood (by non-dipshits) idiom is, in fact, wrong.
It doesn't really. It depends on the context and the tense of the verb it's used with. Example: "I wondered if he'd ever seen a computer before" is entirely past-tense in meaning.
Regarding the discussion at hand, "X-est ever" really is more or less equivalent to "X-est to date". If you want to include the future, then you'd say "X-est that will ever be made".
You were right up until you started talking about "wyf", which was actually "wif" and was neuter in Old English (but "wer" was in fact masculine). The French didn't have anything to do with "fuck[ing] everything up", at least with respect to "man".
You countered with an anecdote? Seriously?