My TV has the ability to plug a video into one SCART and then choose which of the other SCART's is routed to that for recording. In doing so it seems to remove Macrovision - DVD -> VHS direct doesn't work. DVD -> TV -> VHS works fine.
You don't have to change host names. You do have to enter a slightly different one into the browser so that it knows whether you want to access the live to dev system. You *do* want to be able to access them both don't you?
Windows applications usually have two choices when using shared libraries - use a system library and hope that in the event of it being upgraded the new version doesn't break apps that were coded to an older one, or install a private copy just for it's own use (thereby removing the point of a shared library). Add to this the fact that older version of windows cannot load two DLL's or EXE's with the same registered name, and you have the potential for many copies of potentially clashing DLL's and apps that can't be run at the same time because they need different versions of the same DLL.
So, setup www.name.com so that it points to live and www2.name.com so it points to dev. Setup both names as aliases on both sites. Now you can test both. When the site goes live, point www2 at the live IP.
Yawn. If you want to impress about trains, underground trains and computer controlled trains, go look at the UK rail network, The Tube and the DLR - the first two pre-date anything else. Don't think the DLR was the first driverless network, but it dates back about 20 years now, so it's a bit in advance of this month.
Have you considered that this would have made the contract more expensive, and they (BBC Wales) might not have been able to afford to make this series if they had done so?
It basically defines a function that calls itself and pipes that to itself running in the background, and then calls that function. The end result is a program that continually (and exponentially) forks new copies of itself.
Actually the kernel is forked all the time - most of the non x86 architectures start life as forks and eventually make their way back into the kernel.org kernel. Each new version is also a fork, which is why you can still get 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 as well as 2.6 - forks are part of the development model for the kernel, and are also part of many closed-source development models. Unless, of course, you completely stop all work on an existing product to produce a new version.
I have expressed concern to my MP, and he replied, he's quite good about that sort of thing. Like many in the UK I haven't a clue who my MEP is though...
No, code bloat is generally not caused by a lack of instruction optimisation, but by a lack of algorithm optimisation, which is something the programmer should definately doing before he starts to write anything.
How did people learn Word in the first place? In the corporate world everyone had to switch from whatever they were using (WordPerfect 5.2, DisplayWrite 4, WordStar 3.3) to Word. Guess what, it didn't stop the company doing business.
For the majority of word processor users, if it takes them an hour to learn how to do what they were doing before (typing, saving documents, printing, spell checking) then you need to address their general computing knowledge. For your power users (secretaries doing mail merge, macro users etc.), if they can't pick up a new product reasonably quickly they're screwed with OS upgrades, software upgrades etc. anyway.
Windows isn't ready for my mum and dad either though - sure they can use it, but when something unexpected happens (quite often with dial up 'net access etc) then it requires a call to me. I think moving them to Linux would introduce a different set of problems, but "not ready for the desktop" applies to Microsoft's flagship products too...
Do you truly, honestly think that Windows detects all hardware on all machines? Believe me, when it comes to servers I often have to identify SCSI chipsets, network chipsets, RAID controller chipsets in order to download and create a driver install disk so I can get Windows 2000 or 2003 server to install. Sometimes I have to do the same with Linux, but it is less common than with Windows at the moment.
Actually, I believe "the exception (that) proves the rule" uses the word "prove" in one of its other meanings - to test something. Thus if you have a rule, and then have an exceptional case, you test this against your rule to see if your rule still holds - if it does then you have "the exception that proves the rule".
There's a difference between "people living next to the airport" and "people living in the middle of nowhere that suddenly have to deal with sonic booms every hour".
Concorde was restricted to supersonic flight over unpopulated areas - it flew from the UK coast to the US coast supersonic, so no sonic booms every hour over anyone in the middle of anywhere. It was America "not invented here" syndrome at its worst. I have lived under two Concorde flightpaths in the UK (no-one ever believes you when you say you used to see Concorde go over you house several times a day), guess what it was quieter than any of the Boeing 7x7's that went overhead. Not that they make much noise most of the time compared to the roads.
No, it was two things - firstly it was a genuine problem with many back-end financial (and other) systems that had a huge amount of effort and expense spent on them and were fixed, invisibly (to the general public) thanks to a great effort by many in the IT industry. Secondly it was an over-hyped problem that was never really going to affect desktop PC's and the like, which was over-sold to the public and never materialised.
So, for most people's point of view it was a lot of fuss about nothing, because they never saw the real problem, which could have caused serious problems, and only saw the hyped, non problem.
Disclaimer: I did technical support for a Y2K team for a large bank. I know what I'm talking about. I saw the systems that would fail, and what it would do. I saw them fixed.
Is it though? doesn't that mean it has 3 samples per waveform at 14.7Khz? How then can it reproduce a sine wave, square wave or sawtooth wave accurately at that frequency? How can it differentiate between them?
Resetting the whole box should be faster than ssh'ing in and typing a "/etc/init.d/shorewall restart" and "/etc/init.d/openvpn restart".
Why? Resetting the box requires the whole OS and all support routines to be started. Restarting a couple of services doesn't - why on earth should rebooting the whole lot be faster? That being said, are you using a cut-down desktop distro? That is probably why it takes so long - take a look at the embedded market for hints on how to have a faster booting system.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called either replication or mirroring depending on how you do it.
My TV has the ability to plug a video into one SCART and then choose which of the other SCART's is routed to that for recording. In doing so it seems to remove Macrovision - DVD -> VHS direct doesn't work. DVD -> TV -> VHS works fine.
You don't have to change host names. You do have to enter a slightly different one into the browser so that it knows whether you want to access the live to dev system. You *do* want to be able to access them both don't you?
Windows applications usually have two choices when using shared libraries - use a system library and hope that in the event of it being upgraded the new version doesn't break apps that were coded to an older one, or install a private copy just for it's own use (thereby removing the point of a shared library). Add to this the fact that older version of windows cannot load two DLL's or EXE's with the same registered name, and you have the potential for many copies of potentially clashing DLL's and apps that can't be run at the same time because they need different versions of the same DLL.
So, setup www.name.com so that it points to live and www2.name.com so it points to dev. Setup both names as aliases on both sites. Now you can test both. When the site goes live, point www2 at the live IP.
Yawn. If you want to impress about trains, underground trains and computer controlled trains, go look at the UK rail network, The Tube and the DLR - the first two pre-date anything else. Don't think the DLR was the first driverless network, but it dates back about 20 years now, so it's a bit in advance of this month.
Have you considered that this would have made the contract more expensive, and they (BBC Wales) might not have been able to afford to make this series if they had done so?
It basically defines a function that calls itself and pipes that to itself running in the background, and then calls that function. The end result is a program that continually (and exponentially) forks new copies of itself.
Actually the kernel is forked all the time - most of the non x86 architectures start life as forks and eventually make their way back into the kernel.org kernel. Each new version is also a fork, which is why you can still get 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 as well as 2.6 - forks are part of the development model for the kernel, and are also part of many closed-source development models. Unless, of course, you completely stop all work on an existing product to produce a new version.
I have expressed concern to my MP, and he replied, he's quite good about that sort of thing. Like many in the UK I haven't a clue who my MEP is though...
But the bank makes money from you having a bank account. Versign doesn't make money from you having a certificate, so it charges you to issue it.
The certificate is there to prove the content is from who it claims to be, not that the content or provider is trustworthy.
No, code bloat is generally not caused by a lack of instruction optimisation, but by a lack of algorithm optimisation, which is something the programmer should definately doing before he starts to write anything.
How did people learn Word in the first place? In the corporate world everyone had to switch from whatever they were using (WordPerfect 5.2, DisplayWrite 4, WordStar 3.3) to Word. Guess what, it didn't stop the company doing business.
For the majority of word processor users, if it takes them an hour to learn how to do what they were doing before (typing, saving documents, printing, spell checking) then you need to address their general computing knowledge. For your power users (secretaries doing mail merge, macro users etc.), if they can't pick up a new product reasonably quickly they're screwed with OS upgrades, software upgrades etc. anyway.
Windows isn't ready for my mum and dad either though - sure they can use it, but when something unexpected happens (quite often with dial up 'net access etc) then it requires a call to me. I think moving them to Linux would introduce a different set of problems, but "not ready for the desktop" applies to Microsoft's flagship products too...
Do you truly, honestly think that Windows detects all hardware on all machines? Believe me, when it comes to servers I often have to identify SCSI chipsets, network chipsets, RAID controller chipsets in order to download and create a driver install disk so I can get Windows 2000 or 2003 server to install. Sometimes I have to do the same with Linux, but it is less common than with Windows at the moment.
Actually, I believe "the exception (that) proves the rule" uses the word "prove" in one of its other meanings - to test something. Thus if you have a rule, and then have an exceptional case, you test this against your rule to see if your rule still holds - if it does then you have "the exception that proves the rule".
There's a difference between "people living next to the airport" and "people living in the middle of nowhere that suddenly have to deal with sonic booms every hour".
Concorde was restricted to supersonic flight over unpopulated areas - it flew from the UK coast to the US coast supersonic, so no sonic booms every hour over anyone in the middle of anywhere. It was America "not invented here" syndrome at its worst. I have lived under two Concorde flightpaths in the UK (no-one ever believes you when you say you used to see Concorde go over you house several times a day), guess what it was quieter than any of the Boeing 7x7's that went overhead. Not that they make much noise most of the time compared to the roads.
No, it was two things - firstly it was a genuine problem with many back-end financial (and other) systems that had a huge amount of effort and expense spent on them and were fixed, invisibly (to the general public) thanks to a great effort by many in the IT industry. Secondly it was an over-hyped problem that was never really going to affect desktop PC's and the like, which was over-sold to the public and never materialised.
So, for most people's point of view it was a lot of fuss about nothing, because they never saw the real problem, which could have caused serious problems, and only saw the hyped, non problem.
Disclaimer: I did technical support for a Y2K team for a large bank. I know what I'm talking about. I saw the systems that would fail, and what it would do. I saw them fixed.
I have about 80 of them in a room over there -->
I also have two machines of my own, both with onboard SCSI and an additional SCSI card.
Never mind.
Wrong. It is a PC, it is not an IBM compatible PC. (Note: PC stands for "Personal Computer". IBM did not invent the phrase).
Yeah, cos PC's only got SCSI last year.
A quick look at my systems suggest 41M in approx 1500 modules.
Is it though? doesn't that mean it has 3 samples per waveform at 14.7Khz? How then can it reproduce a sine wave, square wave or sawtooth wave accurately at that frequency? How can it differentiate between them?
Not a flame - just interested.
Resetting the whole box should be faster than ssh'ing in and typing a "/etc/init.d/shorewall restart" and "/etc/init.d/openvpn restart".
Why? Resetting the box requires the whole OS and all support routines to be started. Restarting a couple of services doesn't - why on earth should rebooting the whole lot be faster? That being said, are you using a cut-down desktop distro? That is probably why it takes so long - take a look at the embedded market for hints on how to have a faster booting system.