"They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes)."
You sure? I think one problem on most Windows O/Ses is you can't remove/overwrite a file whilst it is in use. Whereas with Unix stuff - you can. So on windows the update software has to either rename any file/executable that is currently in use, copy in the new file and then remember to delete the renamed stuff AFTER everything restarts and the old stuff is nolonger in use... OR postpone the overwriting till some other time.
AFAIK I don't think the typical windows update method does the first method - often (not always) it appears to put the updates somewhere else, and the files are copied in during the boot up (overwriting the old stuff) - so you need to reboot in order to update.
I suppose if it is really supported by the update - you probably have to stop the relevant service THEN update the necessary files (windows update, hotfix etc), THEN restart the service.
This involves a lot more downtime AND tends to be more error-prone given the style of the way things are done in Windows - the joy of "seamless integration" = you might miss out one service that you are to stop and start.
So unless I see real evidence, I'd just reboot if the update requires it - hopefully stuff is in running a cluster or something.
Re:The supposed answer still doesn't make sense.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
If that's the case why should Pirate 5 keep his end of the deal? Practically the same thing.
If the pirates can't make binding agreements then the 50% vote thingy is bullshit too.
The question only works if pirates can make binding agreements.
Even if you bring the "real world" in, if pirate 4 goes back on his deal, the rest will just kill him - since it is assumed that if less than "50%" agree, they can kill pirate 5, so I don't see why pirates 1,2,3 can't kill pirate 4.
So given the question as it is, IMO the stated solution on that website is still wrong.
You need many other unstated _abnormal_ factors in order to make the solution on that website correct. e.g. "assume the pirates can only communicate with the most senior pirate alive" despite that "they can somehow still validate the vote results", or something stupid like that.
Maybe one should state that 1,2,3 need pirate 5 around to kill pirate 4? Would that help give the official solution?
Maybe it would be simpler to just say "we want the solution to be 98,0,1,0,1";).
Why would Paris Hilton dying be such a good thing?
Has she really been that evil or mean to lots of people?
The supposed answer still doesn't make sense.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
It still doesn't make sense as a logic puzzle - the solution on the website has pirate 4 getting NOTHING. I thought Pirate 4 was supposed to be greedy and intelligent.
I'm sure Pirate 4 would make pirates 1-3 a better offer than one, zero and one gold coins respectively AND not die the process, in order to get more than ZERO gold coins.
And given that the other pirates (1-3, 5) are so intelligent they'd know that too. So pirate 5 would have to come up with a better solution than that crappy 98 coin one (as per the answer on that website).
The 98 coin result looks like what often comes out from iterative algorithms on the _first_ iteration. As you go through more cycles you'd approach the "real" result.
If you bring in real world, this is an opportunity for Pirate 4 to get rid of Pirate 5 - how much is getting rid of Pirate 5 worth to Pirate 4 in gold coins? If we assume that greed for immediate gold coins (and not power - and future gold coins) is infinite, then we assume 0 gold coins, otherwise this is an important factor.
Anyway it's a good test in a way. I wouldn't like to work in a company where the staff (HR staff too) believe the right solution has more than 95+% of the benefits going to top management;), and they believe that's a likely result from extremely intelligent and greedy people!
ROFL. I'd have thought the pirate with the least daggers stuck in him will get the most gold coins... No wonder most academic economists don't appear to understand that much of the real world.
In the real world which idiot is going to settle for 1 gold coin, when there's 100.
As such, I don't see how the solution can be: Pirate 5 with 98 coins, pirate 1 and 3 with 1 each, and the rest with none.
If that is proposed, if I were pirate 4, I might make a deal to give 1,2,3 at _least_ one gold coin more than what pirate 5 is going to give them, so that I can have something better than zero (which is what I'd get from that "solution"). Simple as - "I'll give you all one more than pirate 5 is giving - from his share. Let's kill the greedy pig now.". In fact pirate 4 might give even more, in order to prevent 3 from doing something similar.
Scientists have done studies that indicate that _even_ _macaques_ would rather fling a cucumber away in anger and disgust and have nothing, if it knows another macaque is getting a grape for doing the same thing (grapes apparently being more valued than cucumbers).
Also, this is an opportunity for the pirates to get rid of "top management". AFTER that, they can talk business.
That's real world for you.
In fact I'd have thought game theory would come up with something closer to my "pirate 4 offers more" solution, and that the 98 coin solution is based on more "classical" theory.
If they automate the process and regularly copy the content, it would be more fun if you configured your webserver to provide "customized" content to the site that's copying the content. In which case I'd see it as an opportunity not a problem... Bwahahaha... Bwahahahahahahahahah!
You may wish to get some legal advice on the method you choose, but I'm sure there's potential for much legal fun;).
You can often find people copying content if you insert unique phrases/references into your content and then later search for those. You could refer to nonexistent people as part of a joke or quip in editorial-style stuff - e.g. "My [Aunt/fictitious relative] [unique name here] could do it with her [fictitious SF appendage] tied behind her [whatever]".
It helps if you make your content more interesting and unique compared to the usual corporate-ese which hardly anyone reads willingly.
Often there really isn't much difference when you compare one corporate site with another. In fact, I recall seeing that some sites are apparently done by the same people and they use the same corporate-BS for them all - same bullshit paragraph after paragraph. Quite ironic, given the typical claims in the BS...
No. There's a difference. If you actively make the $10 wrench look like a $2 screwdriver you are committing fraud.
Even if the shopkeeper is incompetent, it's fraud because there is _dishonest_ gain involved. It's just not honest.
If you didn't do anything AND genuinely thought the wrench was $2 AND the shopkeeper sells it to you for $2 then that's fine.
If you didn't do anything BUT knew the shopkeeper made a mistake, then while it may be legal it's ethically dubious.
Still, I might not be able to resist the temptation to buy say, 21" LCD monitors for USD1. After all, if there's no indicator there being a "special" I'd know someone/something screwed up.
That said, I have paid the difference to people when I've been undercharged (they forgot to bill an order or something).
If you're a happy customer of the place, why hurt a business that's been good to you?
If you are an unhappy customer, then why keep going there? Unless you conduct significant fraud, they'd still make money out of you. Make the extra effort to go elsewhere.
There are probably gray areas too.
I've seen identical products with different prices AND often the descriptions on the price labels are correct too. So I'd say go for the cheaper one (but there might be reasons why they're cheaper - they may not be as identical as you think:) ).
And choose your blend of justice and mercy carefully. You may feel it's "justice" when you get to buy tons of expensive stuff at ridiculously low prices from some company that you think is bad. But remember, given all our faults, we all need mercy more than we need justice.
Hey, if people are given reasonable warnings but ignore them AND die, while that's bad, maybe it's not so bad in the long run.
What do you want to do? Forcibly drag them off? Maybe they've seen everything they've already wanted to in their lives, and this was the last thing they wanted. Or they wanted to surf the biggest baddest wave in their life... Or maybe they really really stupid (e.g. the sort of people who'd do something STUPID with microwave ovens/other products despite ample WARNINGS).
As technology gives each individual more and more power, eventually very very many individuals could have the equivalent of a "Kill Everyone" option (e.g. release custom killer virus/nanotech/WMD). If the species is going to be wiped out, I'd prefer it if it weren't because somebody said "Oops! I didn't know that button would do that". In fact it would be nice if everyone wouldn't ever "push that button".
Should help the survivors of course - since they survived they must be fit or lucky/blessed, the species as a whole needs those attributes...;)
p.s. The waves slow down as they get closer to shore. They get a lot taller though.
Hey as long as people were warned reasonably, if they insist on putting their lives at risk, maybe it'll just help breed a smarter (or luckier - if that's possible;) ) population. Or one that's really tough (or fit)...
Anyway, I won't be surprised if there were hard core surfers waiting to ride The Wave of a lifetime...
Not all the preparation required is that specialized. You could have a team in charge of handling/anticipating natural disasters. And then establish formal channels and methods of broadcasting warnings to the population. The bulk of these systems and procedures can be useful for other scenarios.
Just monitoring seismic info on the Internet, and then notifying the population would have saved lots of lives. Given the latency (1 hour) - some countries still would have had 1 hour plus warning, which would still have been very useful.
These sort of things are what Governments can be useful for.
If the last time this sort of thing happened in Sri Lanka was in 200 BC, then I suppose one can't be so harsh on the Sri Lankan Gov for not being that prepared for such an event (even though IMO after a 8.9 Richter (or anything over 7) event anyone in coastal areas around the epicenter should obviously prepare for tsunamis).
He said hybrid. So you still can use hydrocarbons, and as you pointed out, hydrocarbons are where the fun is.
The problem I see is it'll be hard to get a bank of fuel cells that can convert hydrocarbons to 300-500kW of electricity AND be light AND compact AND take the stresses of a race.
But that could be a worthwhile and interesting engineering challenge...
Right now, the F1 organizers are already intentionally slowing down the F1 cars with new rules every now and then.
Actually it's not the backing up taking 3 days that IT people should worry about.
It's how long it takes to restore the data....
I'm willing to bet it seems longer when the Boss and the Customer is standing behind you making "encouraging noises".
So far the data transfer rate problem is a reality with most tape drives. So much so that it seems like buying 200GB SATA HDDs for backups is a pretty attractive option. Especially IF you can safely hotswap the SATA HDDs.
Most modern ATA HDDs can transfer at 40-60MBytes/sec, sustained. Most tape drives are 1/10th the speed (or worse!), and the price (including media) vs performance+capacity isn't very attractive.
Tape drives could be fine for archival stuff. But they don't seem that useful to me for backups. It's probably OK to take 3 days to fulfill a court order to restore data archived 3 years ago. Heck the boss might be happy if it _has_ to take longer;).
Motors in wheel hubs usually mean higher unsprung weight and worse ride and handling. It'll be a while before you'd have suitable motors.
Plus all that increased shock and vibration can't be that good for the motors. I doubt mainstream car manufacturers would find it worth it for production cars.
Retrofitting old cars with such stuff, would be more a hobby/niche (like those car/computer mod thingies).
My sister does drive the way you do tho - she hardly ever drives the manual (don't recall her doing so in recent memory). I've tried it before but I'm used to the conventional way:).
I still do it sometimes if I have to drive through a low flood - might not be a good idea to lift off in the midst of the water just to slow down otherwise water may enter the exhaust pipe, block it and stall the engine. Shouldn't go too fast in the water either, so that's another reason for braking.... So far I've been lucky and have managed to get through a number of these without getting stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
That farmer would probably be prosecuted under the varous anti terrorist laws etc etc.
Plenty of stupid stuff in SQL.
Why a different format for update and insert?
update table set field1=value1,field2=value2 where rowid=x
vs
insert into table (field1,field2) values (value1,value2).
--
I don't know about "worst" but could the SQL standard be partly to blame for why porting data from one DB to another is hard in most cases...
e.g. not covering stuff that most people find useful or even vital? And thus letting Oracle etc each define their own ways of doing things.
You forgot one more vital thing...
:).
;)
Background music so you know when to do the quick save
Imagine a "superhero" with such a super power- no other powers except having predictive background music...
Shatter attacks.
"They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes)."
You sure? I think one problem on most Windows O/Ses is you can't remove/overwrite a file whilst it is in use. Whereas with Unix stuff - you can. So on windows the update software has to either rename any file/executable that is currently in use, copy in the new file and then remember to delete the renamed stuff AFTER everything restarts and the old stuff is nolonger in use... OR postpone the overwriting till some other time.
AFAIK I don't think the typical windows update method does the first method - often (not always) it appears to put the updates somewhere else, and the files are copied in during the boot up (overwriting the old stuff) - so you need to reboot in order to update.
I suppose if it is really supported by the update - you probably have to stop the relevant service THEN update the necessary files (windows update, hotfix etc), THEN restart the service.
This involves a lot more downtime AND tends to be more error-prone given the style of the way things are done in Windows - the joy of "seamless integration" = you might miss out one service that you are to stop and start.
So unless I see real evidence, I'd just reboot if the update requires it - hopefully stuff is in running a cluster or something.
If that's the case why should Pirate 5 keep his end of the deal? Practically the same thing.
So the answer/question still sounds stupid.
If the pirates can't make binding agreements then the 50% vote thingy is bullshit too.
;).
The question only works if pirates can make binding agreements.
Even if you bring the "real world" in, if pirate 4 goes back on his deal, the rest will just kill him - since it is assumed that if less than "50%" agree, they can kill pirate 5, so I don't see why pirates 1,2,3 can't kill pirate 4.
So given the question as it is, IMO the stated solution on that website is still wrong.
You need many other unstated _abnormal_ factors in order to make the solution on that website correct. e.g. "assume the pirates can only communicate with the most senior pirate alive" despite that "they can somehow still validate the vote results", or something stupid like that.
Maybe one should state that 1,2,3 need pirate 5 around to kill pirate 4? Would that help give the official solution?
Maybe it would be simpler to just say "we want the solution to be 98,0,1,0,1"
Why would Paris Hilton dying be such a good thing?
Has she really been that evil or mean to lots of people?
It still doesn't make sense as a logic puzzle - the solution on the website has pirate 4 getting NOTHING. I thought Pirate 4 was supposed to be greedy and intelligent.
;), and they believe that's a likely result from extremely intelligent and greedy people!
I'm sure Pirate 4 would make pirates 1-3 a better offer than one, zero and one gold coins respectively AND not die the process, in order to get more than ZERO gold coins.
And given that the other pirates (1-3, 5) are so intelligent they'd know that too. So pirate 5 would have to come up with a better solution than that crappy 98 coin one (as per the answer on that website).
The 98 coin result looks like what often comes out from iterative algorithms on the _first_ iteration. As you go through more cycles you'd approach the "real" result.
If you bring in real world, this is an opportunity for Pirate 4 to get rid of Pirate 5 - how much is getting rid of Pirate 5 worth to Pirate 4 in gold coins? If we assume that greed for immediate gold coins (and not power - and future gold coins) is infinite, then we assume 0 gold coins, otherwise this is an important factor.
Anyway it's a good test in a way. I wouldn't like to work in a company where the staff (HR staff too) believe the right solution has more than 95+% of the benefits going to top management
Doh.
ROFL. I'd have thought the pirate with the least daggers stuck in him will get the most gold coins... No wonder most academic economists don't appear to understand that much of the real world.
In the real world which idiot is going to settle for 1 gold coin, when there's 100.
As such, I don't see how the solution can be: Pirate 5 with 98 coins, pirate 1 and 3 with 1 each, and the rest with none.
If that is proposed, if I were pirate 4, I might make a deal to give 1,2,3 at _least_ one gold coin more than what pirate 5 is going to give them, so that I can have something better than zero (which is what I'd get from that "solution"). Simple as - "I'll give you all one more than pirate 5 is giving - from his share. Let's kill the greedy pig now.". In fact pirate 4 might give even more, in order to prevent 3 from doing something similar.
Scientists have done studies that indicate that _even_ _macaques_ would rather fling a cucumber away in anger and disgust and have nothing, if it knows another macaque is getting a grape for doing the same thing (grapes apparently being more valued than cucumbers).
Also, this is an opportunity for the pirates to get rid of "top management". AFTER that, they can talk business.
That's real world for you.
In fact I'd have thought game theory would come up with something closer to my "pirate 4 offers more" solution, and that the 98 coin solution is based on more "classical" theory.
How do you find out there's a _good_ copy and what its name is?
If they automate the process and regularly copy the content, it would be more fun if you configured your webserver to provide "customized" content to the site that's copying the content. In which case I'd see it as an opportunity not a problem... Bwahahaha... Bwahahahahahahahahah!
;).
You may wish to get some legal advice on the method you choose, but I'm sure there's potential for much legal fun
You can often find people copying content if you insert unique phrases/references into your content and then later search for those. You could refer to nonexistent people as part of a joke or quip in editorial-style stuff - e.g. "My [Aunt/fictitious relative] [unique name here] could do it with her [fictitious SF appendage] tied behind her [whatever]".
It helps if you make your content more interesting and unique compared to the usual corporate-ese which hardly anyone reads willingly.
Often there really isn't much difference when you compare one corporate site with another. In fact, I recall seeing that some sites are apparently done by the same people and they use the same corporate-BS for them all - same bullshit paragraph after paragraph. Quite ironic, given the typical claims in the BS...
Why should/would the canadian gov pay tho?
No. There's a difference. If you actively make the $10 wrench look like a $2 screwdriver you are committing fraud.
:) ).
Even if the shopkeeper is incompetent, it's fraud because there is _dishonest_ gain involved. It's just not honest.
If you didn't do anything AND genuinely thought the wrench was $2 AND the shopkeeper sells it to you for $2 then that's fine.
If you didn't do anything BUT knew the shopkeeper made a mistake, then while it may be legal it's ethically dubious.
Still, I might not be able to resist the temptation to buy say, 21" LCD monitors for USD1. After all, if there's no indicator there being a "special" I'd know someone/something screwed up.
That said, I have paid the difference to people when I've been undercharged (they forgot to bill an order or something).
If you're a happy customer of the place, why hurt a business that's been good to you?
If you are an unhappy customer, then why keep going there? Unless you conduct significant fraud, they'd still make money out of you. Make the extra effort to go elsewhere.
There are probably gray areas too.
I've seen identical products with different prices AND often the descriptions on the price labels are correct too. So I'd say go for the cheaper one (but there might be reasons why they're cheaper - they may not be as identical as you think
And choose your blend of justice and mercy carefully. You may feel it's "justice" when you get to buy tons of expensive stuff at ridiculously low prices from some company that you think is bad. But remember, given all our faults, we all need mercy more than we need justice.
Hey, if people are given reasonable warnings but ignore them AND die, while that's bad, maybe it's not so bad in the long run.
;)
What do you want to do? Forcibly drag them off? Maybe they've seen everything they've already wanted to in their lives, and this was the last thing they wanted. Or they wanted to surf the biggest baddest wave in their life... Or maybe they really really stupid (e.g. the sort of people who'd do something STUPID with microwave ovens/other products despite ample WARNINGS).
As technology gives each individual more and more power, eventually very very many individuals could have the equivalent of a "Kill Everyone" option (e.g. release custom killer virus/nanotech/WMD). If the species is going to be wiped out, I'd prefer it if it weren't because somebody said "Oops! I didn't know that button would do that". In fact it would be nice if everyone wouldn't ever "push that button".
Should help the survivors of course - since they survived they must be fit or lucky/blessed, the species as a whole needs those attributes...
p.s. The waves slow down as they get closer to shore. They get a lot taller though.
Hey as long as people were warned reasonably, if they insist on putting their lives at risk, maybe it'll just help breed a smarter (or luckier - if that's possible ;) ) population. Or one that's really tough (or fit)...
Anyway, I won't be surprised if there were hard core surfers waiting to ride The Wave of a lifetime...
Use profiles, store the bookmarks elsewhere on a file server. You can then set the rights to stuff accordingly, and backup stuff regularly.
Better if you run the IE as a different user. e.g. normal user account = John_Doe. normal user's IE account = John_Doe-IE.
Then allow John_Doe to have access to John_Doe-IE's files, but not vice-versa.
Not all the preparation required is that specialized. You could have a team in charge of handling/anticipating natural disasters. And then establish formal channels and methods of broadcasting warnings to the population. The bulk of these systems and procedures can be useful for other scenarios.
Just monitoring seismic info on the Internet, and then notifying the population would have saved lots of lives. Given the latency (1 hour) - some countries still would have had 1 hour plus warning, which would still have been very useful.
These sort of things are what Governments can be useful for.
If the last time this sort of thing happened in Sri Lanka was in 200 BC, then I suppose one can't be so harsh on the Sri Lankan Gov for not being that prepared for such an event (even though IMO after a 8.9 Richter (or anything over 7) event anyone in coastal areas around the epicenter should obviously prepare for tsunamis).
Oh well. Hindsight 20-20...
He said hybrid. So you still can use hydrocarbons, and as you pointed out, hydrocarbons are where the fun is.
The problem I see is it'll be hard to get a bank of fuel cells that can convert hydrocarbons to 300-500kW of electricity AND be light AND compact AND take the stresses of a race.
But that could be a worthwhile and interesting engineering challenge...
Right now, the F1 organizers are already intentionally slowing down the F1 cars with new rules every now and then.
Actually it's not the backing up taking 3 days that IT people should worry about.
;).
It's how long it takes to restore the data....
I'm willing to bet it seems longer when the Boss and the Customer is standing behind you making "encouraging noises".
So far the data transfer rate problem is a reality with most tape drives. So much so that it seems like buying 200GB SATA HDDs for backups is a pretty attractive option. Especially IF you can safely hotswap the SATA HDDs.
Most modern ATA HDDs can transfer at 40-60MBytes/sec, sustained. Most tape drives are 1/10th the speed (or worse!), and the price (including media) vs performance+capacity isn't very attractive.
Tape drives could be fine for archival stuff. But they don't seem that useful to me for backups. It's probably OK to take 3 days to fulfill a court order to restore data archived 3 years ago. Heck the boss might be happy if it _has_ to take longer
List of some survivors.
Quite a number survived with rather minor injuries.
Motors in wheel hubs usually mean higher unsprung weight and worse ride and handling. It'll be a while before you'd have suitable motors.
Plus all that increased shock and vibration can't be that good for the motors. I doubt mainstream car manufacturers would find it worth it for production cars.
Retrofitting old cars with such stuff, would be more a hobby/niche (like those car/computer mod thingies).
Thanks! Got it :).
Well one of the cars I do use is a manual.
:).
My sister does drive the way you do tho - she hardly ever drives the manual (don't recall her doing so in recent memory). I've tried it before but I'm used to the conventional way
I still do it sometimes if I have to drive through a low flood - might not be a good idea to lift off in the midst of the water just to slow down otherwise water may enter the exhaust pipe, block it and stall the engine. Shouldn't go too fast in the water either, so that's another reason for braking.... So far I've been lucky and have managed to get through a number of these without getting stuck.