On June 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law—using a digital signature—the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, or E-Sign. This act, which went into effect on October 1 of that year, officially conferred the same legal status on digital signatures as handwritten signatures. The United States government, meanwhile, mandated that all federal agencies accept digital signatures by October 2003.
Many people prefer to cook several things at once. This requires multiple recipes, flipping between them, looking up how to make the ingredients for the recipes, etc.
When cooking, your hands will be covered in whatever ingredients you're using. It's just how it works.
Sometimes a document need a signature. And a digital signature is not legally recognized as sufficient -- it must be done in your hand.
Bill Clinton says you are wrong.
On June 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law—using a digital signature—the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, or E-Sign. This act, which went into effect on October 1 of that year, officially conferred the same legal status on digital signatures as handwritten signatures. The United States government, meanwhile, mandated that all federal agencies accept digital signatures by October 2003.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. There is no possible way to do any sort of control on clouds. They are all different. Trust me - I'm slogging my way through meteorology classes at the moment. I took a class that touched on cloud physics last fall.
Clouds are substantially different, and waaaaay more complicated than human physiology. We're not at the stage that we can measure the amount of water and particle sizes in clouds yet. The best we can do is fly a 3cm diameter probe through a cloud, and sample something like a millionth of it.
You simply need to randomly assign members of the sample size to the test and control group and then compare the results. Repeat until you have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions or design better experiments.
And humans are a tad bit more complex than clouds, I think.
You are an idiot. It comes as no surprise that someone with so little knowledge of the scientific method and/or statistics is well on his way to becoming a "climate scientist".
A language is a syntax, grammar, and lexicon used to communicate. Ambiguity or confusion resulting from said syntax, grammar, and lexicon is inherently bad.
This special rule that alters the way possessives are formed for pronouns versus regular or proper nouns adds confusion and removes zero ambiguity. Thus it is a bad idea. It also has no grammatical basis whatsoever.
The same goes for the idea that you cannot start a sentence with the word "and", "but", or "because".
I claimed that you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s. I make this claim because in the 1980s grammar education, along with spelling, was actively attacked. Teacher's weren't qualified. Children were incapable. People cried that teaching English was unfair to minorities. English was dumbed down in order to make it accessible to teachers, under-performing students, and parents of said students.
As a result, people were not simply uneducated, they were intentionally educated incorrectly. There is an entire generation that thinks someone who's singing is lovely is someone who sings "lovely" instead of someone who sings lovelily. There is an entire generation that thinks a situation as serious as death is "deadly" serious instead of deathly serious or deadlily serious.
Before the 1980s, we had morons trying to "improve" the language by adding in "flammable" and "inflammable" when we already had "inflammable" and "non-inflammable".
I do not make these claims lightly, nor do I make them without ample reasoning and evidence. Trust me - I am correct. If you believe I am incorrect, please provide reasoning (and not claims of "...because this source says so..."). I am more than happy to discuss and be swayed by actual arguments with an actual basis in grammar.
What actually happened, as anyone with an IQ over 80 knows, is that the South supported segregation, regardless of party, and North supported civil rights, regardless of party.
The South supported the expansion of slavery because it would expand their moneys and powers.
The North was against the expansion of slavery because it would shrink their moneys and powers in proportion to the moneys and powers of the South.
The Civil War was not about human rights. It was not about states' rights. It was about the money. And the power. Deal with it.
"Its" is used as a possessive as a means to avoid confusion with the contraction "it is". Similarly for "that's", "this's", etc. However, there is no inherent ambiguity except for in cases similar in structure to the example I gave. The ambiguity is present in either case when spoken, and the ambiguity is removed if you separate the contraction.
Beyond that, I can only tell you that you're wrong and you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s.
This post was brought to you by the Arrogant Pedants' Society.
I see you left off the final ess on "Arrogant Pedants's Society". The idea that the final ess in a possessive plural noun (where the non-possessive plural also ends with an ess) is optional is horse shit. Though there is no ambiguity when omitting the final ess in text, doing so has only resulted in people omitting the final syllable when speaking, which does in fact add ambiguity. Ambiguity in a language must always be minimized in order to maximize it's ability to function as a language - be it written, spoken, etc. Therefore the final ess in a plural possessive noun is by no means optional.
You may have noticed I used "it's" as a possessive pronoun. This is not incorrect. There exist very few cases where ambiguity would result from attaching an apostrophe and an ess to a pronoun to form the possessive (versus forming a contraction). All of these cases involve the use of slang (such as alternately using "shit" as a verb, noun, or adjective) or the omission of phrases for brevity (or both). All of these cases's ambiguity can be resolved by expanding the contraction.
Consider "This shit ship's spilling unit is in constant disrepair. It's spilling shits on me.".
In the above sentence, your shit ship could be spilling shits (individual pieces of various types of feces) on you. "It's" is a contraction, and "spilling" is a verb. Another interpretation is that the shit ship's spilling unit could be shitting on your life because you have to repair it daily. "It's" is a possessive pronoun meaning "the ship's" and "spilling" is a noun referring to the ship's spilling unit (the word "unit" is omitted for brevity).
When spoken, there is zero difference, and you can always separate the contraction to "it is" (both when spoken and when written) to avoid any potential ambiguity.
Thus, using "it's" as a possessive pronoun is perfectly acceptable. As is using "that's", "this's", etc.
You may have noticed I used punctuation both inside and outside a quotation. This is not incorrect. A quotation marks an exact statement. If the quotation contains punctuation, it must be included. If the quotation includes quotation marks, they must be included. There is possible ambiguity, but it is already minimized. Alternating between double and single quote characters only escapes one layer of nesting and adds more ambiguity when quoting those characters. This practice does nothing to solve the issue and is impossible to replicate when a language is spoken (typically, quotations are spoken in a slightly-altered tone of voice). Until there is an accepted escape sequence for quotation marks, the ambiguity of nested quotations is unavoidable.
You are hereby banned from the Arrogant Pedants's Society.
Reverse engineering things like Star Trek to come up with plausible explanations is lots of fun.
My take on near misses with photon torpedoes making "bang" sounds and throwing people around the bridge (besides the needs of dramatic presentation)..........
Reverse engineering things like Star Trek to come up with plausible explanations is fucking stupid. They weren't engineered to begin with, and, let's face it, Star Trek is terrible science fiction. Trying to reconcile StarTrek's bullshit with physics is pointless masturbation. Just accept the fact that it's wrong, that the people who wrote it / approved it don't know/care what they're writing/approving, and that you need explosions and shitty plot twists to keep people's attention.
And if he's against it and has a reason rooted in physics, it'll be the
There's a one-in-a-billion chance it could make things SLIGHTLY WORSE by making the oil come up at SEVERAL spots in the area instead of the one shitstream we hope to maybe have under better control in a few months.
excuse.
I'm sorry, but I'm not a pussy. Boom goes the dynamite.
The well will be destroyed and the surrounding rock will collapse in on it.
It is the well that prevents the Earth from naturally sealing up. Destroy the well, the Earth will seal up.
The RUSSIANS did that sort of thing. The RUSSIANS. RUSSIANS.
There's a one-in-a-billion chance it could make things SLIGHTLY WORSE by making the oil come up at SEVERAL spots in the area instead of the one shitstream we hope to maybe have under better control in a few months.
Compression can be used with tape, and not just the hardware, on-the-fly compression. Data is data, compressed or not. Are you telling me tapes can't hold 7zip archives? Are you telling me backup software doesn't compress the backup file?
Deduplication is a backup mechanism.
Deduplication had NOTHING to do with backups. It is (get this!) the practice of removing duplicate data to reduce overall size. It is often used in backup schemes to save space, but deduplication actually HURTS the resilience your backup - if one copy of a file gets hosed on your backup ALL COPIES of that file are hosed. Storage is cheap, a bunch of tapes working together are fast, automated deduplication is a bad idea.
Compression on a data set with duplicated data will result in a smaller file size than deduplication alone. Using both will result in a file size only slightly smaller than compression alone. In practice, deduplication reduces the amount of data you have to process and makes the backup process faster, not more efficient. It reduces LIVE storage costs, not backup storage costs. Deduplication itself is NOT a backup method.
And besides, deduplication and compression can both be used in conjunction with tape, idiot.
Restoring from tape is a not the easy process as you make it out to be. You need the full backup tape, then the tapes for each incremental backup.
This is how ALL backup methods work! If it's done in the background from a live site then guess what - it's a live copy, NOT a backup.
You can replicate data that is on hard drives, a WAN is a wonderful thing, and those fantasy items like deduplication, compression and remote seeding really come in handy during it. Replicate it your backups to another site, remote. If your data centers aren't in locations that attempt to protect against the basic Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and Heart (thieves) etc problems then you have other issues.
You're an idiot. You suggest replicating the data AND using deduplication? You're talking about copies, not backups. I said the poster was living in a fantasy world because those things exist and don't solve any inherent problems of backups, and they already can be used in conjunction with tape.
Why must the backup be unpowered? Tapes can fail when being read after a long period of time of being offline just like any other storage device. Store a tape for 7 years and see if it works. If my device is powered all the time, it can take me less time to implement a DR and I can detect failures and fix them proactively, not reactively. I don't know about you, but transportation times to get tapes back from one site to another doesn't sound too practical to me.
The backup must be unpowered because an unpowered device will last orders of magnitude longer than a powered one. You avoid all possible electrical issues this way. Tapes are the most reliable storage medium we have. They will last longer than hard drives or optical or even flash. THIS IS WHY WE USE THEM FOR BACKUPS.
NO DATA CENTER IN THE WORLD IS FOOLPROOF. Backups MUST be remote, unpowered, and secured in order to be relied upon.
If you're detecting failures and fixing them, you're not doing it proactively, you're doing it reactively. You ONLY ever know about a failure once it's occurred. You can get an alert from your monitoring tools that tell you "Hey, this shit got corrupted but I was able to recover it." or "Hey, my temp went up a bit." or whatever, but those are all indicators of FAILURE IN PROGRESS. You cannot prevent failure. Your shit WILL fail, it's only a matter of time. RAID? RAIN? Gee, maybe this is why we have MULTIPLE COPIES OF BACKUPS. Maybe this is why we have the concept of ON-SITE and OFF-SITE backups. Tapes can ALSO use parity information to increase error tolerance, without the need for added hardware, just more tapes. Just about every decent archive format allows
Beavers impact the environment in exactly the same way.
That's not a fundamental change. You're thinking on such a small scale. The environment covers the entire globe. Moving stuff around isn't a fundamental change.
Seems to me that the US and Russia (and the Germans working on both sides) did all of the leg work in the field.
Seems to me a satellite, however fancy, is orders of magnitude simpler than manned space travel.
Seems to me Japan doesn't exactly a military to waste money on, on account of that whole World War II thing. Or two current wars. Or failed banking and auto industries. Or morans who bought houses they couldn't afford. Or...
Seems to me the US is shying away from public space exploration, while the private industry prepares to take over.
You show a complete lack of understanding of the situation. You might as well post about how Japan has better residential internet speeds than the US.
Slashdot Mirror
My tax return demands a signature on paper.
No, it doesn't.
On June 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law—using a digital signature—the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, or E-Sign. This act, which went into effect on October 1 of that year, officially conferred the same legal status on digital signatures as handwritten signatures. The United States government, meanwhile, mandated that all federal agencies accept digital signatures by October 2003.
Read more: Digital Signature http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/325/Digital-Signature.html#ixzz0r7rZ8hUU [hostip.info]
Many people prefer to cook several things at once. This requires multiple recipes, flipping between them, looking up how to make the ingredients for the recipes, etc.
When cooking, your hands will be covered in whatever ingredients you're using. It's just how it works.
Sometimes a document need a signature. And a digital signature is not legally recognized as sufficient -- it must be done in your hand.
Bill Clinton says you are wrong.
On June 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law—using a digital signature—the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, or E-Sign. This act, which went into effect on October 1 of that year, officially conferred the same legal status on digital signatures as handwritten signatures. The United States government, meanwhile, mandated that all federal agencies accept digital signatures by October 2003.
Read more: Digital Signature http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/325/Digital-Signature.html#ixzz0r7rZ8hUU
You are wrong.
Joke post?
Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that this will never work.
We've already seen that they graphics they shitstream to you are not high end as they claimed they would be, they're low-middle end.
The framerate is 30 fps if you're lucky.
The latency (and this is input latency as well!) is a joke.
You don't own the games.
Etc.
It's a turd.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. There is no possible way to do any sort of control on clouds. They are all different. Trust me - I'm slogging my way through meteorology classes at the moment. I took a class that touched on cloud physics last fall.
Clouds are substantially different, and waaaaay more complicated than human physiology. We're not at the stage that we can measure the amount of water and particle sizes in clouds yet. The best we can do is fly a 3cm diameter probe through a cloud, and sample something like a millionth of it.
You simply need to randomly assign members of the sample size to the test and control group and then compare the results. Repeat until you have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions or design better experiments.
And humans are a tad bit more complex than clouds, I think.
You are an idiot. It comes as no surprise that someone with so little knowledge of the scientific method and/or statistics is well on his way to becoming a "climate scientist".
I would think anyone who understands how to design experiments would see the need for a proper control group.
We've already seen that no one who understands how to design experiments has anything to do with the study of weather or climate.
I indeed read segregation as secession.
A language is a syntax, grammar, and lexicon used to communicate.
Ambiguity or confusion resulting from said syntax, grammar, and lexicon is inherently bad.
This special rule that alters the way possessives are formed for pronouns versus regular or proper nouns adds confusion and removes zero ambiguity.
Thus it is a bad idea. It also has no grammatical basis whatsoever.
The same goes for the idea that you cannot start a sentence with the word "and", "but", or "because".
I claimed that you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s. I make this claim because in the 1980s grammar education, along with spelling, was actively attacked. Teacher's weren't qualified. Children were incapable. People cried that teaching English was unfair to minorities. English was dumbed down in order to make it accessible to teachers, under-performing students, and parents of said students.
As a result, people were not simply uneducated, they were intentionally educated incorrectly.
There is an entire generation that thinks someone who's singing is lovely is someone who sings "lovely" instead of someone who sings lovelily. There is an entire generation that thinks a situation as serious as death is "deadly" serious instead of deathly serious or deadlily serious.
Before the 1980s, we had morons trying to "improve" the language by adding in "flammable" and "inflammable" when we already had "inflammable" and "non-inflammable".
I do not make these claims lightly, nor do I make them without ample reasoning and evidence. Trust me - I am correct. If you believe I am incorrect, please provide reasoning (and not claims of "...because this source says so..."). I am more than happy to discuss and be swayed by actual arguments with an actual basis in grammar.
What actually happened, as anyone with an IQ over 80 knows, is that the South supported segregation, regardless of party, and North supported civil rights, regardless of party.
The South supported the expansion of slavery because it would expand their moneys and powers.
The North was against the expansion of slavery because it would shrink their moneys and powers in proportion to the moneys and powers of the South.
The Civil War was not about human rights.
It was not about states' rights.
It was about the money.
And the power.
Deal with it.
In all fairness, the Enterprise is a space ship, not an air ship.
(Right? I don't pay attention to shitty sci-fi.)
"Its" is used as a possessive as a means to avoid confusion with the contraction "it is". Similarly for "that's", "this's", etc.
However, there is no inherent ambiguity except for in cases similar in structure to the example I gave. The ambiguity is present in either case when spoken, and the ambiguity is removed if you separate the contraction.
Beyond that, I can only tell you that you're wrong and you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s.
This post was brought to you by the Arrogant Pedants' Society.
I see you left off the final ess on "Arrogant Pedants's Society". The idea that the final ess in a possessive plural noun (where the non-possessive plural also ends with an ess) is optional is horse shit. Though there is no ambiguity when omitting the final ess in text, doing so has only resulted in people omitting the final syllable when speaking, which does in fact add ambiguity. Ambiguity in a language must always be minimized in order to maximize it's ability to function as a language - be it written, spoken, etc. Therefore the final ess in a plural possessive noun is by no means optional.
You may have noticed I used "it's" as a possessive pronoun. This is not incorrect. There exist very few cases where ambiguity would result from attaching an apostrophe and an ess to a pronoun to form the possessive (versus forming a contraction). All of these cases involve the use of slang (such as alternately using "shit" as a verb, noun, or adjective) or the omission of phrases for brevity (or both). All of these cases's ambiguity can be resolved by expanding the contraction.
Consider "This shit ship's spilling unit is in constant disrepair. It's spilling shits on me.".
In the above sentence, your shit ship could be spilling shits (individual pieces of various types of feces) on you. "It's" is a contraction, and "spilling" is a verb.
Another interpretation is that the shit ship's spilling unit could be shitting on your life because you have to repair it daily. "It's" is a possessive pronoun meaning "the ship's" and "spilling" is a noun referring to the ship's spilling unit (the word "unit" is omitted for brevity).
When spoken, there is zero difference, and you can always separate the contraction to "it is" (both when spoken and when written) to avoid any potential ambiguity.
Thus, using "it's" as a possessive pronoun is perfectly acceptable. As is using "that's", "this's", etc.
You may have noticed I used punctuation both inside and outside a quotation. This is not incorrect. A quotation marks an exact statement. If the quotation contains punctuation, it must be included. If the quotation includes quotation marks, they must be included. There is possible ambiguity, but it is already minimized. Alternating between double and single quote characters only escapes one layer of nesting and adds more ambiguity when quoting those characters. This practice does nothing to solve the issue and is impossible to replicate when a language is spoken (typically, quotations are spoken in a slightly-altered tone of voice). Until there is an accepted escape sequence for quotation marks, the ambiguity of nested quotations is unavoidable.
You are hereby banned from the Arrogant Pedants's Society.
Reverse engineering things like Star Trek to come up with plausible explanations is lots of fun.
My take on near misses with photon torpedoes making "bang" sounds and throwing people around the bridge (besides the needs of dramatic presentation). ... ... ...
Reverse engineering things like Star Trek to come up with plausible explanations is fucking stupid.
They weren't engineered to begin with, and, let's face it, Star Trek is terrible science fiction.
Trying to reconcile StarTrek's bullshit with physics is pointless masturbation. Just accept the fact that it's wrong, that the people who wrote it / approved it don't know/care what they're writing/approving, and that you need explosions and shitty plot twists to keep people's attention.
And if he's against it and has a reason rooted in physics, it'll be the
There's a one-in-a-billion chance it could make things SLIGHTLY WORSE by making the oil come up at SEVERAL spots in the area instead of the one shitstream we hope to maybe have under better control in a few months.
excuse.
I'm sorry, but I'm not a pussy.
Boom goes the dynamite.
The well will be destroyed and the surrounding rock will collapse in on it.
It is the well that prevents the Earth from naturally sealing up. Destroy the well, the Earth will seal up.
I'm awaiting official documentation that I am in fact in charge.
Yes, I'll guarantee it.
Put me in charge of an operation to stop the shitstream and I'll have it done within a week.
If I fail, I'll gladly kill myself.
Pick one:
The RUSSIANS did that sort of thing. The RUSSIANS. RUSSIANS.
There's a one-in-a-billion chance it could make things SLIGHTLY WORSE by making the oil come up at SEVERAL spots in the area instead of the one shitstream we hope to maybe have under better control in a few months.
If we blew it up, we couldn't reuse that well.
It's the equivalent of popping a zit on the Earth's ass.
Wrong.
It was change that got us here.
It will be change that gets us further.
Whether or not you choose to refer to the results of that change as "human" is irrelevant.
I for one would welcome a mutation that allows me to breathe under water.
When we sneak past their early warning system in their own ship, Autobot City will be ours for the taking!
Temperatures have been pretty stable for, oh, I don't know, all of human history.
If you're one of the dipshits crying "Oh no it's a few degrees colder / warmer!", then you simply don't understand anything about the Earth's history.
Rain destroying a city? Who gives a shit? This does not proves by any measure that man has the ability to fundamentally alter the environment.
Hell - the biggest thing we've done is that oil leak that's going on right now. It's the equivalent of popping a zit on the Earth's ass.
Compression can be used with tape, and not just the hardware, on-the-fly compression. Data is data, compressed or not. Are you telling me tapes can't hold 7zip archives? Are you telling me backup software doesn't compress the backup file?
Deduplication is a backup mechanism.
Deduplication had NOTHING to do with backups. It is (get this!) the practice of removing duplicate data to reduce overall size. It is often used in backup schemes to save space, but deduplication actually HURTS the resilience your backup - if one copy of a file gets hosed on your backup ALL COPIES of that file are hosed. Storage is cheap, a bunch of tapes working together are fast, automated deduplication is a bad idea.
Compression on a data set with duplicated data will result in a smaller file size than deduplication alone.
Using both will result in a file size only slightly smaller than compression alone.
In practice, deduplication reduces the amount of data you have to process and makes the backup process faster, not more efficient. It reduces LIVE storage costs, not backup storage costs. Deduplication itself is NOT a backup method.
And besides, deduplication and compression can both be used in conjunction with tape, idiot.
Restoring from tape is a not the easy process as you make it out to be. You need the full backup tape, then the tapes for each incremental backup.
This is how ALL backup methods work!
If it's done in the background from a live site then guess what - it's a live copy, NOT a backup.
You can replicate data that is on hard drives, a WAN is a wonderful thing, and those fantasy items like deduplication, compression and remote seeding really come in handy during it. Replicate it your backups to another site, remote. If your data centers aren't in locations that attempt to protect against the basic Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and Heart (thieves) etc problems then you have other issues.
You're an idiot. You suggest replicating the data AND using deduplication? You're talking about copies, not backups. I said the poster was living in a fantasy world because those things exist and don't solve any inherent problems of backups, and they already can be used in conjunction with tape.
Why must the backup be unpowered? Tapes can fail when being read after a long period of time of being offline just like any other storage device. Store a tape for 7 years and see if it works. If my device is powered all the time, it can take me less time to implement a DR and I can detect failures and fix them proactively, not reactively. I don't know about you, but transportation times to get tapes back from one site to another doesn't sound too practical to me.
The backup must be unpowered because an unpowered device will last orders of magnitude longer than a powered one. You avoid all possible electrical issues this way. Tapes are the most reliable storage medium we have. They will last longer than hard drives or optical or even flash. THIS IS WHY WE USE THEM FOR BACKUPS.
NO DATA CENTER IN THE WORLD IS FOOLPROOF. Backups MUST be remote, unpowered, and secured in order to be relied upon.
If you're detecting failures and fixing them, you're not doing it proactively, you're doing it reactively. You ONLY ever know about a failure once it's occurred. You can get an alert from your monitoring tools that tell you "Hey, this shit got corrupted but I was able to recover it." or "Hey, my temp went up a bit." or whatever, but those are all indicators of FAILURE IN PROGRESS. You cannot prevent failure. Your shit WILL fail, it's only a matter of time. RAID? RAIN? Gee, maybe this is why we have MULTIPLE COPIES OF BACKUPS. Maybe this is why we have the concept of ON-SITE and OFF-SITE backups. Tapes can ALSO use parity information to increase error tolerance, without the need for added hardware, just more tapes. Just about every decent archive format allows
Beavers impact the environment in exactly the same way.
That's not a fundamental change. You're thinking on such a small scale. The environment covers the entire globe. Moving stuff around isn't a fundamental change.
Seems to me that Japan knows how to manage an auto industry.
Seems to me that the Japanese auto industry doesn't have to pay out ridiculous pensions or health benefits.
Seems to me that the US and Russia (and the Germans working on both sides) did all of the leg work in the field.
Seems to me a satellite, however fancy, is orders of magnitude simpler than manned space travel.
Seems to me Japan doesn't exactly a military to waste money on, on account of that whole World War II thing. Or two current wars. Or failed banking and auto industries. Or morans who bought houses they couldn't afford. Or...
Seems to me the US is shying away from public space exploration, while the private industry prepares to take over.
You show a complete lack of understanding of the situation. You might as well post about how Japan has better residential internet speeds than the US.