How Did I Get All This Stuff?

By -
I'm running verify disk on my Mac right now, and I see my hard drive has 183,231 folders, and over 700,000 files. Now I used to now my way around a UNIX volume to the extent I could say what almost every directory (folder) was for, but no one but no one can keep track of 183,231 folders.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy2:49 PM

    Not entirely relevant, but I've been meaning to ask you computer gurus: How can I be that when I'm, say, copying a folder from my hard drive to a zip drive, that the files remaining etc. can keep changing? I.e. I can understand if the Time Remaining is off, because the computer improperly estimates how long it will take to move x files over. But how can the computer be mistaken about how many files it still needs to copy over?!

    If it matters, I am running Windows XP. And please don't just tell me, "Get a Mac." Fine, if that's part of your answer, but please explain specifically how my Windows XP can be so dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy2:50 PM

    Just to clarify, the progress bar will be moving along, filling in the empty bar, but then it will zoom back the other way. And the files remaining will be winding down to zero, but then will jump back up to 200.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon4:35 PM

    I dunno, Bob. Aside from the trivial answer--"Dumb programmers"--all I can think of is:

    a) It sometimes revises the total upon looking at a file, e.g., an archive.

    b) It bases the "files remaining" on some summary information gathered from directories which turns out to be out of date.

    c) Others have access to your files and are modifying your inventory during the copying.

    d) God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Murray Tyson5:50 PM

    Just so I can keep comfortable track in my head, I try to limit files on my computer to 103,074.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah2:03 PM

    I suspect Wabulon's a) and b).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more