Pffft. *I* don't even own a TV.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
GitHub negates the decentralization of git in order to make it practical for real world use.
Negates? No - it just provides a single location through with to share code. You're confusing "using a central repository" with "requiring a central repository." It is just above trivial for any git project to switch to a new "central" server through with to share code.
# git remote add newupstream git://new.server/my-project
# git push master newupstream
You're not going to do that with Subversion anytime soon. Sorry - I like SVN. But to claim that having a central repository is anything like *requiring* a central repository is just missing the point.
Which makes it very strange that they would think to write a paper on it. It's not even worth a blog post.
Not to mention that in the Java implementation they're writing to a BufferedWriter. So even with the StringBuilder they're comparing "concatenating a string, writing it to a buffer and writing that to disk" to "copying strings to a buffer then writing that to disk."
If you do more work it takes longer. QED.
In the Java application they're using a BufferedWriter as well - so they're buffering before the OS buffer.
It seems pretty clear to me that "concatenating a string then writing it to a buffer and flushing that to disk" would be faster than "writing a bunch of strings to a buffer then flush that to disk." They're basically copying that data around at least twice.
Didn't read the paper eh?
They did do it with StringBuilder also - and showed a large improvement. It's like they read your mind!
I disagree with your first statement but agree with the second. Most people believe what their friends and uncritical family members tell them and do zero verification with outside resources. Trusting Wikipedia, while risky, is a big step up from that. It's way over the top to say they're complete idiots for doing so. Otherwise everybody is a complete idiot for believing in anything they haven't themselves verified - and we can hardly expect such rampant skepticism to lead to a better society.
Not even remotely proven. A small minority of studies (primarily of the "exploratory type") show an effect. But the better the studies the less the effect.
though in some cases, reporting you feel better is the same as actually BEING better. Antidepressants, for instance.
This still isn't quite correct. For example: patients may want their doctors to feel as though a treatment is working and thus report an effect that isn't real ("yeah, sure - I feel better"). But the minute they walk out the door they feel just as crappy as when they entered. Other "effects" from placebo are simply bias in the study on the part of the researchers. Or the "observer" effect where people change simply because they're being watched. Placebo is a catch-all for any reported result that isn't explained by a real treatment.
Also - something quacks^Hhomeopaths never want you to know is that any reported effect *size* is minuscule from both homeopathy and placebo. So a small percentage of people reporting a tiny improvement? Your money is best spent elsewhere.
This represents a gross misunderstanding of the placebo effect.
Placebo has no physiological effect (like homeopathy). Often people taking placebo, homeopathy, etc. will *report* feeling better - but this does not mean they are better in any meaningful sense of the word.
More info here: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/...
It is very unethical to sell somebody a treatment which does not *treat* anything.
That's a good rant - not sure what it had to do with my comment or the question I was replying to. I even quoted it.
(you are torrenting and NOT running a vpn? really? why?)
Because there's nothing wrong with seeding a Linux ISO torrent?
I *just* updated and it's pestering me to reboot again. Mostly libkrb stuff.
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's not asking you to reboot.
Ubuntu pesters me nearly daily to reboot....