Not really. People usually don't modify gigantic footprints of data per day, so standard incremental backup strategies are still very applicable. Most of the large data tends to be read-only over time, typically media, archives, large installation files, etc.
The problem is precisely when people hone in on skills of power with zero other skills or understanding. Everything is a chess game to them, where all other consequences of their actions are just abstracted away. One could argue similarity to sociopathic training in this, losing complete empathy or even awareness of the destruction to their employees or business due to their power-driven actions, and seeking to enumerate everything to overly-simplistic metrics.
Adding skills of leadership and power to somebody who already offers some value to society gives you an incredible person. Adding those skills to people who have nothing at all to offer, and go the business leadership training route simply because there's money there, leads to a crowd of sociopaths.
While it may seem petty for people to seek power for the sake of having power...the ones who are really good at it must be delivering something of value (otherwise their reign will be short-lived, and a more competent contender will arise to take their place).
I disagree. The ones who are "good at it" are by definition good at having power. They're good at convincing people, good at making people feel good under them, but none of these traits actually delivers anything positive in and of itself. After a failure, there are a ton of positive spins to be reworded from all of this so that the person can keep their elevated position in their next venture, so even if some of their reigns are short-lived (their ability to entrench themselves would work against that), they just shift elsewhere and continue on the same.
Again, these traits of achieving power are necessary for people to accomplish great things, but on their own they're hollow and ultimately, at some level, destructive.
Through various customer surveys, Lego found that most kids are just building what's in the main instructions anyway. It's a sad state of affairs, but not necessarily stemming from Lego themselves.
It is a joke, yet the congresscritters vote for crap like that because they need to look like they're doing something about it. They know it won't do anything, and that it might have seriously detrimental effects, but they need to get their votes by flaunting "being tough on crime".
The disadvantage is that writing a value once does not change all of the atoms' polarities, only most of them. A determined attacker can use slow, expensive techniques to recover such information. Overwriting multiple times would be a lot better. However, I don't know if increased density of bits on a platter is making this vector ineffective.
Physical destruction is the fastest and probably the most difficult to recover.
They are not terrorists. They don't exist to frighten people into change or submission. They want to provoke retaliation, and sue those who do, to cut a profit for their organization.
If they fail their courses, can they continue with their program? It seems like passing classes as a requirement for the student visa would fulfill the same purpose, booting those who aren't actually showing competence.
Your state should never get corrupted, unless you're running newly written code.
But how is restarting simpler, if you lose whatever the user's been doing, or in the midst of interaction with external systems especially if they're not under your control? It's just not that simple once you get into real, large applications. When in the middle of doing something where you need to chain necessary but ephemeral state through a process, and restarting is expensive or impossible because of the scope of the tasks, error handling must be performed to protect that action.
Also, non-theoretically, Erlang has terrible error reporting when things do tank.:-P
Yeah, I know you're just posting flamebait, but Lisp is brought up in a discussion on how to avoid cruft and verbose error handling, because it avoids cruft and verbose error handling. The macro, special variable, and condition systems collapse a lot of this since application-specific design decisions can be expressed and enforced right at the source code level.
Right, and if you have a stateful server and just "let it crash" if something goes awry, then you lose that state.
I used Erlang for a couple of years. I learned a lot of good concepts from it, but I don't recommend the language itself other than a learning experience.
The author commends the use of multiple return values and a side-band error value that must be checked? Gee, multiple return values have been in Lisp forever, and maybe he's not aware of this little thing called "errno"?
Error handling is very, very tedious by nature. There are bajillions of ways that a system can go screwy, and many of these have individualized responses that we want distinguished for it to behave intelligently in response. We expect computers to become "smarter", and that means reacting intelligently to these problematic/unexpected situations. That is a lot of behavioral information to imbue into the system, all hooked into precise locations or ranges for which that response is applicable. That information is hard to compress.
I just have to ask why Nintendo does anything like this. Opt-in for mature^W adolescent content, have that as an option when you first configure the device, just do something that makes this an option if you believe it's to be segregated per audience.
There's no reason to believe that all households with a WiiU have members that should not be exposed to their catalog, and there's no reason to believe that households with such members will have them unavailable during those hours.
Slashdot Mirror
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
That only holds until Intel started strong-arming the board and boxmakers not to build K7 systems.
I see what you did there...
Trying to coax an error will never reveal one. Only when you start using it "for real" will the problem manifest.
Not really. People usually don't modify gigantic footprints of data per day, so standard incremental backup strategies are still very applicable. Most of the large data tends to be read-only over time, typically media, archives, large installation files, etc.
The problem is precisely when people hone in on skills of power with zero other skills or understanding. Everything is a chess game to them, where all other consequences of their actions are just abstracted away. One could argue similarity to sociopathic training in this, losing complete empathy or even awareness of the destruction to their employees or business due to their power-driven actions, and seeking to enumerate everything to overly-simplistic metrics.
Adding skills of leadership and power to somebody who already offers some value to society gives you an incredible person. Adding those skills to people who have nothing at all to offer, and go the business leadership training route simply because there's money there, leads to a crowd of sociopaths.
While it may seem petty for people to seek power for the sake of having power...the ones who are really good at it must be delivering something of value (otherwise their reign will be short-lived, and a more competent contender will arise to take their place).
I disagree. The ones who are "good at it" are by definition good at having power. They're good at convincing people, good at making people feel good under them, but none of these traits actually delivers anything positive in and of itself. After a failure, there are a ton of positive spins to be reworded from all of this so that the person can keep their elevated position in their next venture, so even if some of their reigns are short-lived (their ability to entrench themselves would work against that), they just shift elsewhere and continue on the same.
Again, these traits of achieving power are necessary for people to accomplish great things, but on their own they're hollow and ultimately, at some level, destructive.
Through various customer surveys, Lego found that most kids are just building what's in the main instructions anyway. It's a sad state of affairs, but not necessarily stemming from Lego themselves.
It is a joke, yet the congresscritters vote for crap like that because they need to look like they're doing something about it. They know it won't do anything, and that it might have seriously detrimental effects, but they need to get their votes by flaunting "being tough on crime".
The disadvantage is that writing a value once does not change all of the atoms' polarities, only most of them. A determined attacker can use slow, expensive techniques to recover such information. Overwriting multiple times would be a lot better. However, I don't know if increased density of bits on a platter is making this vector ineffective.
Physical destruction is the fastest and probably the most difficult to recover.
Ferrofluids and microscopes would like to have a word with your idea.
I know it's inappropriate to bring up death penalty arguments in a technical thread, but do NOT remove settings from software I use.
They are not terrorists. They don't exist to frighten people into change or submission. They want to provoke retaliation, and sue those who do, to cut a profit for their organization.
Yes, they are. Their entire purpose is to provoke people, then sue them when they retaliate, making money.
They're not loony. They make their money by suing people who attack, threaten, or interfere with them. They are deliberate for-profit trolls.
This is a cover up for some sort of religious artifact expedition!
It belongs in a museum!
It is shipping the first batch. Users have apparently shown unboxing videos and the like. The preorders are for the next batch.
If they fail their courses, can they continue with their program? It seems like passing classes as a requirement for the student visa would fulfill the same purpose, booting those who aren't actually showing competence.
There are a few others in the RPi space now. This board might be more up your alley: Cubieboard
No, but a free user has no right to complain when the free service goes away.
Your state should never get corrupted, unless you're running newly written code.
But how is restarting simpler, if you lose whatever the user's been doing, or in the midst of interaction with external systems especially if they're not under your control? It's just not that simple once you get into real, large applications. When in the middle of doing something where you need to chain necessary but ephemeral state through a process, and restarting is expensive or impossible because of the scope of the tasks, error handling must be performed to protect that action.
Also, non-theoretically, Erlang has terrible error reporting when things do tank. :-P
Yeah, I know you're just posting flamebait, but Lisp is brought up in a discussion on how to avoid cruft and verbose error handling, because it avoids cruft and verbose error handling. The macro, special variable, and condition systems collapse a lot of this since application-specific design decisions can be expressed and enforced right at the source code level.
Right, and if you have a stateful server and just "let it crash" if something goes awry, then you lose that state.
I used Erlang for a couple of years. I learned a lot of good concepts from it, but I don't recommend the language itself other than a learning experience.
That is only because most of telephony can get away with being stateless.
The author commends the use of multiple return values and a side-band error value that must be checked? Gee, multiple return values have been in Lisp forever, and maybe he's not aware of this little thing called "errno"?
Error handling is very, very tedious by nature. There are bajillions of ways that a system can go screwy, and many of these have individualized responses that we want distinguished for it to behave intelligently in response. We expect computers to become "smarter", and that means reacting intelligently to these problematic/unexpected situations. That is a lot of behavioral information to imbue into the system, all hooked into precise locations or ranges for which that response is applicable. That information is hard to compress.
And perhaps you should read the second paragraph of what you replied to, which speaks against the reasoning presented in the summary.
I just have to ask why Nintendo does anything like this. Opt-in for mature^W adolescent content, have that as an option when you first configure the device, just do something that makes this an option if you believe it's to be segregated per audience.
There's no reason to believe that all households with a WiiU have members that should not be exposed to their catalog, and there's no reason to believe that households with such members will have them unavailable during those hours.