sixbrx

54 ms·

511.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I just wish nvidia would show how to keep the video card from running balls to the wall all the time, without installing their blob which can break for kernel updates. That way I won't have to avoid nvidia cards for laptops. Surely they co
512.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I also wonder at the utility of this for end user machines. On end user machines, the valuable and secret data is owned by the user , is volatile (not protectable at the OS level with current OS's which have no idea when/how user owned da
513.
by sixbrx 14y ago
You know, I waited too long for the right higher level layer or even outright replacement for html/javascript to come along and rise in popularity. Now I wish I'd just dived in to plain html/javascript earlier and become adept with them ju
514.
by sixbrx 14y ago
Really neat. I must be living under a rock, but I never had heard of this before. It seems to bring a lot of the advantages of component-oriented development with it - just declare and go and the implementers will have taken care of the n
515.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I don't think allowing direct access to your files, within the limits of your data plan, is trying to offer everything to everyone. That is specializing in doing one thing well, allowing access to files. Trying to second guess what the
516.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I'm starting to suspect that the "sorry" in the title is not really sincere... Also interesting that the title was originally "Sorry white guy...", as evidenced by the permalink.
517.
by sixbrx 14y ago
Looks very interesting. The "limitations" are especially interesting: "Calvin’s primary limitation compared to other systems is that transactions must be executed entirely server-side. Calvin has to know in advance what code will be execute
518.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I work in the FDA, and it almost takes an act of congress to get root on developer workstations. Also we can't install software unless it's on the the MAT (master approved technologies) list. Which is pretty ironic, because we create soft
519.
by sixbrx 14y ago
I was with you until the last sentence which seemed to be hanging beyond the edge of its support.
520.
by sixbrx 14y ago
> do we let geniuses just do whatever the hell they want Today, he wants to manage his own repository with the vcs he created, in his own way, but tomorrow! - who knows if we don't stop him, probably rape and murder! We can't just let
521.
by sixbrx 14y ago
Well I think you've just said the same thing as your parent. He says he used to think apt-get made virtualenv unnecessary, now he doesn't.
522.
by sixbrx 14y ago
The parts you quoted between === from the article aren't at all a compelling case to me, that's nothing more than a prescription. If he has some argument here, he needs to make it.
523.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I'd add that it's too easy to pollute the global scope accidentally, because a simple anonymous block structure (e.g. braces) to scope variables is not allowed. Best workaround is to wrap most all code in an anonymous function that is then
524.
by sixbrx 15y ago
Well ... yeah ... you said "desktop" (as opposed to just starting "a single client", was the context). I guess you meant "existing desktop session". I don't see "existing desktop session" as the obvious alternative of "single client".
525.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I also do this quite often. Network security admins allow only a port 22 binary connection to an inner enclave of protected machines, protected by firewall. I need to admin those machines, sometimes with gui apps. ssh -X to the rescue.
526.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I don't get what you mean, because your desktop is just an X11 app, which you can remote by just running gnome-session or whatever your favorite desktop is. I do this all the time.
527.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I do wish the desktop world would just move wholesale to 64 bit, but do note that Ubuntu still marks the 32 bit install the "recommended" one, so I would guess there must be some sort of problems that are lingering in the 64 bit versions.
528.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I don't think my comment is sigh worthy really, because the article says you "might know it by the name 'lambda' or ... 'anonymous function'. Now "know it by the name" implies equality/equivalence at least to me (two names for the same ref
529.
by sixbrx 15y ago
Yep, there are some neat ways of emulating the capture, I didn't mean to imply it was impossible - just beyond what workaday programmers like me are willing to do :)
530.
by sixbrx 15y ago
The author claims you might know it as a lambda or anonymous function in other languages, but I think function pointers come up short in comparison. Function pointers can't capture variables from surrounding scopes and so can't depend on ru
531.
by sixbrx 15y ago
> you'll probably give it a name via the variable Variables are easier to name than the more general notion of class or type (being specific to what is immediately at hand and thus not a distraction), which I think was the original poin
532.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I think there is no question that being able to define new types is important. I don't, however think it's clear that having to pack operations that operate on the types into the types themselves is a good idea in general. Your example
533.
by sixbrx 15y ago
> Dictionaries, lists, tuples and other structures also demand names. Those are just names for values though, we don't have to create a name for a new general principle just to use one. Not to mention values often do not need names at
534.
by sixbrx 15y ago
Set of tuples (of like kind) is a relation.
535.
by sixbrx 15y ago
What you're complaining about is just the data access which happens to be used in this sample (particularly some convenience methods which aren't even necessary), which you can freely change out with any technology that you please, because
536.
by sixbrx 15y ago
Holy crap, that's way beyond what I would have expected. Thanks for reporting this.
537.
by sixbrx 15y ago
I always thought Linus gave better than he got in that argument, myself. He was pretty brutal to Minix in a couple of places. BTW. love the reference to "BSD detox" somewhere in that thread, it always gives me a chuckle.
538.
by sixbrx 15y ago
You use google and you're special, we get it. http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/12/0212/022212.html
539.
by sixbrx 15y ago
The article only shows it is not an ordinal number.
540.
by sixbrx 15y ago
It's also interesting that this Rectangle/Square conundrum disappears when you remove mutatable state from the picture. I think it's usually best to model mathematical objects like these as simple value objects anyway, it's less surprising

More ›