That's "expanded universe" bullshit, which is less valid canonically than the fucking Star Wars ride at Disneyland. Canon hierarchy goes:
Original Trilogy Original Trilogy toy line Original Trilogy Pez dispensers Holiday Special Second Trilogy Second Trilogy toy line Disneyland ride Third Trilogy Third Trilogy toy line ------------------- CANON ABOVE FANFICTION BELOW ------------------- "Expanded universe" "novels" Comic books Video games Shitty cartoon series Pogs
- Unintentionally comical Sudden Black Man - Comical Soccer Ball Bot - Unintentionally comical Desert Box Cycle - Hilarious "trying to hard to be edgy" Cross Saber - Shitty voice over
+ X-Wings + Millenium Falcon
On a scale of Midi-chlorians to Yoda, this trailer is a Jar Jar Binks.
They need to delete those emails because they don't want people to see them. Each employee won't generate 100 KB of emails per day. Deduplication and compression on the back end will shrink that massively. The more employees and emails you throw at it the more effective it becomes because we all tend to say the same shit over and over.
Fuck that shit. RAID 0 with daily backups for home use, RAID 10 with daily backups for any servers. If you're paranoid add a hot spare. Oh, and SSDs only, even for servers. If you need more space, put on your big boy pants and fork over the cash.
Use this greasemonkey script to hide Bennett's shit from the main (and "older") pages. http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ (I disable it once in a while to check for his shit so I can tell people about the script.)
Fuck naming shit to appeal to the plebes and media. It's not a popularity contest. It's a fucking security vulnerability that needs to be patched. You don't get points for media mentions.
If you want to think up shitty names for shit you have two options: 1: Go work for some Congressman's lawyer's office and think up names for bills that mean the complete opposite or what the bill actually does. 2: Go work for the restaurant industry and come up fresh and creative hits that can stand alongside "Awesome Blossom", "Crispy Honey-Chipotle Chicken Crispers", "Razz-Ma-Tazz Raspberry Iced Tea", and "Yummy Nummy Chicken Drummies".
You're a dumbass, as usual. It's over. They can discuss whatever they want. The matter is no longer "occurring". There will be no trial. No one's right to a fair trial is in jeopardy.
Further, "contempt of count" is one of the weakest charges there is. It's almost always unconstitutional, and anyone who isn't a moron will get that shit thrown out the instant they find a competent judge. It is your fucking right to hold the court in contempt, talk about cases you were on, call the judge an asshole, whatever. What you can't do is interfere with court proceedings. This shit is OVER, no one could be in contempt if they talked about it.
This story is literally about changing a string from "Free" to "Get". Further, the headline has it backwards. Swapping X for Y means you swap out X and swap in Y.
Seriously. I have a 450 mile drive ahead of me. I will be driving on Thanksgiving, not the day before. Not because Google told me to, but because I'm not a fucking idiot.
Driving ON the holiday is much, much easier than driving the day before.
Another tip: The day before a 3-day weekend, the local news will run a story about how cops are cracking down on speeding over the holiday weekend. This is bullshit intended to scare you into compliance - police presence on the roads will be greatly reduced.
I'm a cyclist. So I can safely say, that serious cyclist spending $5k+ on a bike are doing so for weight. Those are the same people who spend $100 for a carbon bottle cage that weighs only a few grams less than a $5 plastic or metal cage.
I go to my credit card's website. I log in. I click on the support link. I click on the claim link. I file a claim stating that a charge was unauthorized. I get a letter in the mail. I sign it. I send it back. I get my money back in a few days. The merchant eats it. The merchant has the option of taking me to court. The merchant won't take me to court. If the merchant takes me to court, I'll win.
About 40% of my servers would have serious issues with that. From SAP systems to certain SQL jobs. That would be a resume writing event.
SAP? SQL? Party like it's 1999! For me, having it matter whether any given server suddenly fails would be a career limiting move. We push-restart patches to services every week or two, and if that affects a customer in any way TSHTF.
You're a dumbass if you think SAP and SQL are relics.
Further, you're a dumbass if you think redundancy, load balancing, etc. solve the problem. They add reliability to the replicated services by moving the single point of failure out to a different box (the load balancer, the VM server, the border switch, the ISP, or even all the way out to DNS) while adding complexity and cost and increasing the impact should the new single point of failure fail.
Further, they intrinsically impact customers by providing different data to different customers until shit syncs up and cascades throughout all the hosts. This isn't done with magic or tachyons - it takes time. This is why we have transactions and brokers in SQL. This is why distributed and replicated systems spend so much effort trying to make sure their clocks are synced up. Redundancy is nice when you need to manage those services, but it doesn't solve the inherent problem. Nothing can. When a user wants X, they can't get X if is X down. They can get Y, which may or not be the same as X at the given time.
Anything handling critical transactions is redundant in exactly the opposite way from what you describe. Redundant, hot-swappable power, network, CPUs, RAM, storage, etc. for a single instance that is the arbiter of transactions from many sources. Mainframes are still around because we solved this fucking problem decades ago. Your approach is the cloud approach - make services redundant and push the single point of failure out. When in normal operation, different users get different shit at the same time - you simply can't use this model for critical transactions. When (not if) shit fails, shit fails hard. Hell, Azure just went out.
This. The halting problem is about determining whether a general program will terminate or not. When you already have a defined program (and machine in this case) in front of you for review, then you can determine whether or not it will halt, whether or not it works, and whether or not it is evil. You have to actually test and inspect it, though. You can't run it through a pre-built automated test and be sure. That is the only consequence of the halting problem.
The authors make the following leaps:
We can't know if a program will ever terminate. (False - you can, you just can't do so with a general algorithm written before the program.)
Therefore we can't know all of the things a program can do. (False - you know all inputs and outputs and their ranges. You can't know all possible sequences if the program runs forever, but you can know each individual state.)
Therefore we can't trust that a program isn't malicious. (False - you can trust it to a degree of confidence based on the completeness of your testing.)
Therefore programs shouldn't be given the capability to do harmful things. (Stupid - this isn't a logical conclusion. What if we want to build malicious programs? We can and do already. Further, if our goal is to not create malicious programs, then simply having a confidence level greater than when giving humans the same capabilities, it's already an improvement.)
Slashdot Mirror
not really there are lightsaber resistant metals
That's "expanded universe" bullshit, which is less valid canonically than the fucking Star Wars ride at Disneyland.
Canon hierarchy goes:
Original Trilogy
Original Trilogy toy line
Original Trilogy Pez dispensers
Holiday Special
Second Trilogy
Second Trilogy toy line
Disneyland ride
Third Trilogy
Third Trilogy toy line
-------------------
CANON ABOVE
FANFICTION BELOW
-------------------
"Expanded universe" "novels"
Comic books
Video games
Shitty cartoon series
Pogs
- Unintentionally comical Sudden Black Man
- Comical Soccer Ball Bot
- Unintentionally comical Desert Box Cycle
- Hilarious "trying to hard to be edgy" Cross Saber
- Shitty voice over
+ X-Wings
+ Millenium Falcon
On a scale of Midi-chlorians to Yoda, this trailer is a Jar Jar Binks.
Noticed that too. Hilarious.
They need to delete those emails because they don't want people to see them.
Each employee won't generate 100 KB of emails per day. Deduplication and compression on the back end will shrink that massively. The more employees and emails you throw at it the more effective it becomes because we all tend to say the same shit over and over.
Fuck that shit. RAID 0 with daily backups for home use, RAID 10 with daily backups for any servers. If you're paranoid add a hot spare.
Oh, and SSDs only, even for servers. If you need more space, put on your big boy pants and fork over the cash.
Use this greasemonkey script to hide Bennett's shit from the main (and "older") pages. http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ
(I disable it once in a while to check for his shit so I can tell people about the script.)
If Bennett is so completely unwanted on this blog, why don't we do something about it?
Load this user script into greasemonkey - http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ .
Never see Bennett's shit on the main page (or "older") pages again.
(I disable it once in a while to look for his shit so I can tell people about this simple script.)
Fuck naming shit to appeal to the plebes and media. It's not a popularity contest. It's a fucking security vulnerability that needs to be patched. You don't get points for media mentions.
If you want to think up shitty names for shit you have two options:
1: Go work for some Congressman's lawyer's office and think up names for bills that mean the complete opposite or what the bill actually does.
2: Go work for the restaurant industry and come up fresh and creative hits that can stand alongside "Awesome Blossom", "Crispy Honey-Chipotle Chicken Crispers", "Razz-Ma-Tazz Raspberry Iced Tea", and "Yummy Nummy Chicken Drummies".
The moron above me said "RAID doesn't protect against loss of data" when it absolutely does, in the exact ways I described.
All RAID levels protect against loss of data due to failure of individual drive(s), port(s), or data cable(s).
RAID 0 is not RAID.
RAID is not backup.
You're a dumbass, as usual. It's over. They can discuss whatever they want. The matter is no longer "occurring". There will be no trial. No one's right to a fair trial is in jeopardy.
Further, "contempt of count" is one of the weakest charges there is. It's almost always unconstitutional, and anyone who isn't a moron will get that shit thrown out the instant they find a competent judge. It is your fucking right to hold the court in contempt, talk about cases you were on, call the judge an asshole, whatever. What you can't do is interfere with court proceedings. This shit is OVER, no one could be in contempt if they talked about it.
Because being rocked by another car's passing has much more to do with proximity creating a low pressure zone between the cars than relative speed.
Nice UID. How much did you pay for it, retard?
I am sure that we should not be giving your posts or opinions any weight. He's right.
This story is literally about changing a string from "Free" to "Get".
Further, the headline has it backwards. Swapping X for Y means you swap out X and swap in Y.
We were going 40MPH. The other driver had to be going twice as fast, if not faster, to rock our car in passing.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... ...no.
It's completely obvious.
Saturday is the day you go places and do shit.
Sunday is the day you relax at home.
Saturday you can stay out late.
Sunday you have to get home early because there's work / school for the kids the following day.
Seriously. I have a 450 mile drive ahead of me. I will be driving on Thanksgiving, not the day before.
Not because Google told me to, but because I'm not a fucking idiot.
Driving ON the holiday is much, much easier than driving the day before.
Another tip: The day before a 3-day weekend, the local news will run a story about how cops are cracking down on speeding over the holiday weekend. This is bullshit intended to scare you into compliance - police presence on the roads will be greatly reduced.
And if you're riding around in that you'll sweat out far more than you'll gain in extra collection.
I'm a cyclist. So I can safely say, that serious cyclist spending $5k+ on a bike are doing so for weight. Those are the same people who spend $100 for a carbon bottle cage that weighs only a few grams less than a $5 plastic or metal cage.
Rubber bands are even lighter.
No thanks. Opt out. Do not track. That's my purse!, I don't know you!!, etc.
You're a retard. Here's how it works:
I go to my credit card's website.
I log in.
I click on the support link.
I click on the claim link.
I file a claim stating that a charge was unauthorized.
I get a letter in the mail.
I sign it.
I send it back.
I get my money back in a few days.
The merchant eats it.
The merchant has the option of taking me to court.
The merchant won't take me to court.
If the merchant takes me to court, I'll win.
About 40% of my servers would have serious issues with that. From SAP systems to certain SQL jobs. That would be a resume writing event.
SAP? SQL? Party like it's 1999! For me, having it matter whether any given server suddenly fails would be a career limiting move. We push-restart patches to services every week or two, and if that affects a customer in any way TSHTF.
You're a dumbass if you think SAP and SQL are relics.
Further, you're a dumbass if you think redundancy, load balancing, etc. solve the problem. They add reliability to the replicated services by moving the single point of failure out to a different box (the load balancer, the VM server, the border switch, the ISP, or even all the way out to DNS) while adding complexity and cost and increasing the impact should the new single point of failure fail.
Further, they intrinsically impact customers by providing different data to different customers until shit syncs up and cascades throughout all the hosts. This isn't done with magic or tachyons - it takes time. This is why we have transactions and brokers in SQL. This is why distributed and replicated systems spend so much effort trying to make sure their clocks are synced up.
Redundancy is nice when you need to manage those services, but it doesn't solve the inherent problem. Nothing can. When a user wants X, they can't get X if is X down. They can get Y, which may or not be the same as X at the given time.
Anything handling critical transactions is redundant in exactly the opposite way from what you describe. Redundant, hot-swappable power, network, CPUs, RAM, storage, etc. for a single instance that is the arbiter of transactions from many sources. Mainframes are still around because we solved this fucking problem decades ago. Your approach is the cloud approach - make services redundant and push the single point of failure out. When in normal operation, different users get different shit at the same time - you simply can't use this model for critical transactions. When (not if) shit fails, shit fails hard. Hell, Azure just went out.
This.
The halting problem is about determining whether a general program will terminate or not.
When you already have a defined program (and machine in this case) in front of you for review, then you can determine whether or not it will halt, whether or not it works, and whether or not it is evil. You have to actually test and inspect it, though. You can't run it through a pre-built automated test and be sure. That is the only consequence of the halting problem.
The authors make the following leaps:
We can't know if a program will ever terminate.
(False - you can, you just can't do so with a general algorithm written before the program.)
Therefore we can't know all of the things a program can do.
(False - you know all inputs and outputs and their ranges. You can't know all possible sequences if the program runs forever, but you can know each individual state.)
Therefore we can't trust that a program isn't malicious.
(False - you can trust it to a degree of confidence based on the completeness of your testing.)
Therefore programs shouldn't be given the capability to do harmful things.
(Stupid - this isn't a logical conclusion. What if we want to build malicious programs? We can and do already. Further, if our goal is to not create malicious programs, then simply having a confidence level greater than when giving humans the same capabilities, it's already an improvement.)
Nope, why would I be mad that you quoted your own dumbass post?