The problem is in getting to a raw DOS session like what you can do with "Restart in MS-DOS mode" on Win95/98. Unless you're in raw DOS, you can't run loadlin (well, at least without getting a clean shutdown for Windows, if at all).
First off, your numbers are wrong. RAID 0 is striping (no parity), RAID 1 is mirroring.
RAID 5 does not require the multiple read/write combinations. The parity chunk can be (and are in all but the most horribly broken systems) calculated on the fly and then the system assumes it is done unless the parity chunk comes back wrong.
RAID 4, OTOH, is simply RAID 5 without a dispersed parity. This is, for writes, the *WORST* possible RAID level because it puts pressure on a single disk, and RAID 3 is just as bad.
The absolute fastest "standard", "safe" RAID for reads is RAID 0+1 which is striping and then mirroring the stripe. For writes, it fairs fairly well also, particularly when backed with a hardware controller to help mitigate the need for matching drives in order to get the appropriate performance on writes, which is limited by the slowest drive (its biggest flaw, IMO, other than cost).
RAID 5, OTOH, can be quite effective, even doing "read, modify, write", the trick is to be able to ensure a high probability of having the data from a block already in the cache to prevent the need to read it off the disks again. In fact, it can outperform (yes, you read that right) RAID 0+1 in a write environment when backed by a sufficiently good caching system and if you end up having all transactions be larger than a full block size.
So, to answer the question. Well, if you have a large cache AND hardware controller cards, you can go RAID 5 (1 MB cache per 2-5 GB of disk or so, IME). The only caveat is that you might be working with larger individual files which causes a need to increase the cache per GB.
If you need sheer pedal to the metal performance with fault tolerance, RAID 0+1 looks to be it.
If you were basing them on ethics rather than pushing your morals to ethics, then there you would be shutting up. See, porn doesn't adversely impact anyone who's consensual. You claim it does, using your own assumptions to do so.
Excuse me, but what in the fuck are you talking about?
How can you defend an "industry" that makes its money from the degredation of women?
How?
An "industry" that pushes the view that women are sluts there for male exploitation and use?
Again, Huh?
Pornography is the domain of men who can't get a real wife, and instead are forced to retreat into the fantasy land of "erotica", another liberal term that hides a disturbing truth.
What "disturbing truth?" That your religions are responsible for more discrimination and oppression of women than this "evil" called pornography?
No, I have a bit of an inside view of the industry (having dated a girl involved) and I can tell you it ain't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
The reason the hammer costs $500 is because you can stick it on a road, run over the hammer with the tank it's intended to fix, and then proceed to fix the tank with it.
Try running over a $10 hammer from the local hardware store in an M-1 and see how well it works after that.
And learn Hebrew. There is a word for "ball" in Hebrew. The term "chuwg" doesn't mean "sphere" but "rounded." To quote from what you obviously ignored: God "sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22]." Chuwg literally means "circle" or "encompassed." By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg]."
Let's even assume that chuwg means sphere or circle. So we have either a flat earth and a flat heaven, or a spherical earth and a flat heaven, or a flat earth and a spherical heaven, or a spherical earth and a spherical heaven. Or, we have what it really means here, a flat earth and a domed heaven. That's the only combination which geometrically makes sense and allows for a someone to sit above the earth and see all of the earth at once.
The fact that you won't post answers to questions shows that you are a wrong. Go ahead get the last word. I don't care. I've exposed you as being ignorant and a liar. I'm happy.
"The proof is much too extensive for a Slashdot comment, I'm afraid." IOW: you have none.
Your theories rest on the existence of a god. The scientific theories don't. Science doesn't have to disprove god. If you want to bring in a god to fit your theories, you must provide the proof of its existence. Stating "god exists" as a base assumption doesn't work and there's nothing you can do to make it work.
Disprove the existence of God. When it comes down to it, your 'proof' has more to do with 'I can't see him, so he must not be' than anything. Nope. I don't have proof. I have the conveniece of being on the side that doesn't need a god to explain things and therefore needn't prove the existence of said god in order to continue with the theories. It's really simple. I can't "prove" the easter bunny doesn't exist. It very well may exist. But I don't need to assume it exists, nor can I use its existence to provide support for further theories until I prove (or infer) it exists.
Using the improbability of evolution and abiogenesis is a very valid course. Have you been paying attention? Obviously not. Sure, you can use it as evidence, but then you *MUST* explain how a necessarily more complex being came into existence. If you say "it just happened," then why can't less improbable things have "just happened."
Many things are proven wrong because of sheer improbability. Not quite. They're proven wrong because of sheer improbability *AND* an different explanation that is less improbable. You have no similar explanation.
The origin of life is different because it affects the value that people place on their life. It also affects a person's outlook on the future. Irrelevent. The moral/ethical implications of the origin of life are immaterial to how life originated in the first place.
So if one chooses to disregard any proof of God, which many scientists do, then one has to accept improbabilty as truth. Hence, our current situation. What proof? I submit again, you have none.
Which, of course, begs the question: "Where did God come from?"
My point wasn't that life didn't form, but that it didn't form in the way everyone wants to believe. Actually, that's not your point. Your point was that God created life because it's improbable that life created some other way and evolved to this point. Fine. Back it up. Prove the existence of God (necessary in your theory) and then disprove evolution and abiogenesis. But using the improbability to do that is not valid because if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here.
If life didn't form, be it from spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, or quite literally "the hand of god," we wouldn't be here talking about it. Using the improbability of life forming as evidence against any one of the above is simply pointless.
Carmack was quoted as saying he wasn't pleased with the delay of the release and encouraged people to hold off purchasing the Linux version of the full release until it actually shipped rather than buying the Windows version and downloading the Linux binaries.
Please don't moderate up his post despite sounding good. It's almost entirely wrong.
Doesn't matter how many times I recompile, bud. Sorry. That's kindof a moot point. Look at all the different distributions which use different compiler sets and different optimization parameters and all of them end up getting bit by the same bug. A recompile, if you're lucky, will prevent some exploits from being effective, but that's because of bad exploit writing.
There's also nothing to prevent the MacOS from executing a buffer overflow. You have relocatable code, just like everyone else. Almost all successful exploits rely on offsets, not absolute addresses (because those can change on a reboot, not even a recompile).
Finally, internal datatypes and bare pointers are neither necessary nor sufficient for buffer overflows. For starters, there are languages and platforms without internal datatypes and with bare pointers that can't (assuming you don't trip a bug in the language itself) result in an exploitable buffer overflow because of other protection systems. Second, there is always the possibility to trip a bug in the compiler/interpreter which results in an executable buffer overflow in a language where it shouldn't be possible.
I will agree that it will, almost entirely, go away if we used pointer-free languages, but unfortunately, in many cases (i.e. an OS kernel) that isn't particularly attractive to do.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is in getting to a raw DOS session like what you can do with "Restart in MS-DOS mode" on Win95/98. Unless you're in raw DOS, you can't run loadlin (well, at least without getting a clean shutdown for Windows, if at all).
But I was referring to numbers he gave RAID levels in his descriptions
They're not "trying to overcharge" customers, they simply ARE overcharging customers. Do, or do not. There is no try.
First off, your numbers are wrong. RAID 0 is striping (no parity), RAID 1 is mirroring.
RAID 5 does not require the multiple read/write combinations. The parity chunk can be (and are in all but the most horribly broken systems) calculated on the fly and then the system assumes it is done unless the parity chunk comes back wrong.
RAID 4, OTOH, is simply RAID 5 without a dispersed parity. This is, for writes, the *WORST* possible RAID level because it puts pressure on a single disk, and RAID 3 is just as bad.
The absolute fastest "standard", "safe" RAID for reads is RAID 0+1 which is striping and then mirroring the stripe. For writes, it fairs fairly well also, particularly when backed with a hardware controller to help mitigate the need for matching drives in order to get the appropriate performance on writes, which is limited by the slowest drive (its biggest flaw, IMO, other than cost).
RAID 5, OTOH, can be quite effective, even doing "read, modify, write", the trick is to be able to ensure a high probability of having the data from a block already in the cache to prevent the need to read it off the disks again. In fact, it can outperform (yes, you read that right) RAID 0+1 in a write environment when backed by a sufficiently good caching system and if you end up having all transactions be larger than a full block size.
So, to answer the question. Well, if you have a large cache AND hardware controller cards, you can go RAID 5 (1 MB cache per 2-5 GB of disk or so, IME). The only caveat is that you might be working with larger individual files which causes a need to increase the cache per GB.
If you need sheer pedal to the metal performance with fault tolerance, RAID 0+1 looks to be it.
If you were basing them on ethics rather than pushing your morals to ethics, then there you would be shutting up. See, porn doesn't adversely impact anyone who's consensual. You claim it does, using your own assumptions to do so.
Ain't nothing to see there, folks. Just hogwash.
Excuse me, but what in the fuck are you talking about?
How can you defend an "industry" that makes its money from the degredation of women?
How?
An "industry" that pushes the view that women are sluts there for male exploitation and use?
Again, Huh?
Pornography is the domain of men who can't get a real wife, and instead are forced to retreat into the fantasy land of "erotica", another liberal term that hides a disturbing truth.
What "disturbing truth?" That your religions are responsible for more discrimination and oppression of women than this "evil" called pornography?
No, I have a bit of an inside view of the industry (having dated a girl involved) and I can tell you it ain't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
Ran out of room.
The reason the hammer costs $500 is because you can stick it on a road, run over the hammer with the tank it's intended to fix, and then proceed to fix the tank with it.
Try running over a $10 hammer from the local hardware store in an M-1 and see how well it works after that.
tag in there.
- if (contains(tokens,e_mail_body,e_mail_subj))
+ if (!contains(tokens,e_mail_body,e_mail_subj))
- if (contains(tokens,e_mail_body,e_mail_subj)) + if (!contains(tokens,e_mail_body,e_mail_subj))
Make it their "final project", but have it really be extra credit.
Only I was doing graphing of equations and so forth.
(For the humor impaired)
How? I'd like to know cuz I'm cool too and I'll take out /.!
And learn Hebrew. There is a word for "ball" in Hebrew. The term "chuwg" doesn't mean "sphere" but "rounded." To quote from what you obviously ignored:
God "sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22]." Chuwg literally means "circle" or "encompassed." By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg]."
Let's even assume that chuwg means sphere or circle. So we have either a flat earth and a flat heaven, or a spherical earth and a flat heaven, or a flat earth and a spherical heaven, or a spherical earth and a spherical heaven. Or, we have what it really means here, a flat earth and a domed heaven. That's the only combination which geometrically makes sense and allows for a someone to sit above the earth and see all of the earth at once.
The fact that you won't post answers to questions shows that you are a wrong. Go ahead get the last word. I don't care. I've exposed you as being ignorant and a liar. I'm happy.
"The proof is much too extensive for a Slashdot comment, I'm afraid." IOW: you have none.
Your theories rest on the existence of a god. The scientific theories don't. Science doesn't have to disprove god. If you want to bring in a god to fit your theories, you must provide the proof of its existence. Stating "god exists" as a base assumption doesn't work and there's nothing you can do to make it work.
Disprove the existence of God. When it comes down to it, your 'proof' has more to do with 'I can't see him, so he must not be' than anything.
Nope. I don't have proof. I have the conveniece of being on the side that doesn't need a god to explain things and therefore needn't prove the existence of said god in order to continue with the theories. It's really simple. I can't "prove" the easter bunny doesn't exist. It very well may exist. But I don't need to assume it exists, nor can I use its existence to provide support for further theories until I prove (or infer) it exists.
Using the improbability of evolution and abiogenesis is a very valid course.
Have you been paying attention? Obviously not. Sure, you can use it as evidence, but then you *MUST* explain how a necessarily more complex being came into existence. If you say "it just happened," then why can't less improbable things have "just happened."
Many things are proven wrong because of sheer improbability.
Not quite. They're proven wrong because of sheer improbability *AND* an different explanation that is less improbable. You have no similar explanation.
The origin of life is different because it affects the value that people place on their life. It also affects a person's outlook on the future.
Irrelevent. The moral/ethical implications of the origin of life are immaterial to how life originated in the first place.
So if one chooses to disregard any proof of God, which many scientists do, then one has to accept improbabilty as truth. Hence, our current situation.
What proof? I submit again, you have none.
Which, of course, begs the question: "Where did God come from?"
My point wasn't that life didn't form, but that it didn't form in the way everyone wants to believe.
Actually, that's not your point. Your point was that God created life because it's improbable that life created some other way and evolved to this point. Fine. Back it up. Prove the existence of God (necessary in your theory) and then disprove evolution and abiogenesis. But using the improbability to do that is not valid because if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here.
Then we'll talk.
Here's a start
unlikelihood (<snip>)
n.
1. The state of being unlikely or improbable; improbability.
2. Something unlikely.
If life didn't form, be it from spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, or quite literally "the hand of god," we wouldn't be here talking about it. Using the improbability of life forming as evidence against any one of the above is simply pointless.
So, the question is: is there an efficient way to do this in a macro?
Carmack was quoted as saying he wasn't pleased with the delay of the release and encouraged people to hold off purchasing the Linux version of the full release until it actually shipped rather than buying the Windows version and downloading the Linux binaries.
sizeof() is compiletime. Contrary to what someone else said, it's not about pointers, it's about the result of the sizeof operator being a constant.
Subjects, yes (and yes, you are), but I didn't think the two went hand in hand.
Please don't moderate up his post despite sounding good. It's almost entirely wrong.
Doesn't matter how many times I recompile, bud. Sorry. That's kindof a moot point. Look at all the different distributions which use different compiler sets and different optimization parameters and all of them end up getting bit by the same bug. A recompile, if you're lucky, will prevent some exploits from being effective, but that's because of bad exploit writing.
There's also nothing to prevent the MacOS from executing a buffer overflow. You have relocatable code, just like everyone else. Almost all successful exploits rely on offsets, not absolute addresses (because those can change on a reboot, not even a recompile).
Finally, internal datatypes and bare pointers are neither necessary nor sufficient for buffer overflows. For starters, there are languages and platforms without internal datatypes and with bare pointers that can't (assuming you don't trip a bug in the language itself) result in an exploitable buffer overflow because of other protection systems. Second, there is always the possibility to trip a bug in the compiler/interpreter which results in an executable buffer overflow in a language where it shouldn't be possible.
I will agree that it will, almost entirely, go away if we used pointer-free languages, but unfortunately, in many cases (i.e. an OS kernel) that isn't particularly attractive to do.