Once everything is tested OK, you sync those packages over to YOUR "stable" branch, and then that night all of your production servers will automatically get those updates. No fuss, no muss.
You let your production servers perform automated updating? That seems pretty stupid. No matter how you tested before hand, things can still go wrong and you should still be monitoring after any update to make sure there aren't issues.
Chance of all 4 missing = [Chance of 1 asteroid missing] ^ 4 = 0.999996000005999996000001
You're playing pretty fast and loose there with probabilities.
P(A intersect B) = P(A) * P(B) IFF P(A) and P(B) are independent.
Since the fragments all came from the same original asteroid, they would obviously have similar trajectories and the probabilities of impact would clearly not be independent.
Anytime a grant is designed to 'spur innovation', that raises a red flag in my book. It isn't a grant to actually innovate, no, that would be too useful...instead it is a grant that is supposed to inspire others to innovate!
How exactly does software expose government surveillance on an intermediate network you have no control over? How does anything?
The only way you know if someone is spying on your data is if someone goes public with it, and it seems pretty stupid to assume that those exposed cases are in any way representative of the actual state of spying.
$170 for a dual-core 64-bit capable mini-itx machine with real nvidia graphics. After you add a couple 2gb ram sticks and a decent HD you will still have a few hundred bucks left over from the trade to get all your friends drunk, or whatever. And, you won't have to worry about your hardware manufacturer constantly doing everything possible to prevent you from using your own hardware.
I completely agree. The problem is twofold:
1) Laws are being written to target such a broad and deep scope of circumstances that understanding all of the ramifications, interactions with existing case law, and possible side-effects may be difficult or impossible for an individual
2) It greatly benefits politicians for the law to be difficult to be understand in such cases, usually because if people understood it they would have a problem with it
The only solution, of course, is for the law to not attempt to guarantee everything to everybody (something which goes against basic politics).
There is no such thing as a impartial summary of any law. Whoever writes such a summary will always include personal biases in it.
On the other hand, what the final code will look like given the application of a particular "diff" is pretty straightforward. I would be extremely surprised if any elected official did not have access to such information already.
That looks great, but I do think they need to add some parens!
From that example, it seems like the order of operations is determined by the subsection depth rather than by the language, but that leaves things hard to read in more complex examples.
Not exactly. The real problem is the system of having primaries to determine the candidates for the general election. The people who vote in primaries tend to be much more attached to their party, and because of this they would rather have their party win even if the candidate is of poor quality. Thus, they more often choose the incumbent, because they are the sure thing.
By the time the general election rolls around, the issues that will be at stake have already mostly been chosen for you (by the small proportion of primary voters).
The problem isn't that Windows 7 is based on Vista, of course it is. The point is that all Windows 7 seems to be is Vista 1.1.
Ah, you mean like Windows XP was to Windows 2000, or Windows 98/ME was to Windows 95? This has been MS's strategy all along: major release, minor release.
As long as an educated consumer can still tell the good products from the bad, I say we're fine. Someone who depends solely on one or two glowing reviews on Amazon is not an educated consumer, merely someone going through the motions.
A fool and his money will always be easily parted.
If it is true that fake reviews are easy to spot, then it should be possible to get a computer to spot them too, you might think.
If a computer program attempting to fake human conversation is easy to spot, then it should be possible to get a computer to spot it too!
Stupid Amazon, there is simply no excuse for their systems to have not passed a Turing Test yet.
The Computer Science department at the school I attend actively shuns Windows users. If you show up to a CS class you had better know how to use bash ahead of time, or you will be sent to the 'how to use a computer' class.
Personally, I like it: forcing people to use a commandline is a good way to weed people out of low level CS courses.
Saying "We basically experience the world as it really exists" amounts to
one pretty serious assumption, whether or not you want to call it that.
That's Ayn Rand's primary axiom...
But yes, it is obviously an assumption. The dirty little secret of philosophy of course is that every philosopher has different axioms. Science is simply another branch of philosophy with its own axiom set.
$30 doesn't pay for very much of my time spent downloading and saving records. I'll stick to having my bank send me the information in a handy-to-archive form on durable media so I don't have to think about it.
I thought this was Slashdot?! Why don't you just make a perl script or something?
Privatization works great when there is true competition. It is not really fair to talk about how horrible things are under a 'private' utility when said utility is a monopoly and has no incentive to provide quality service. A regulated monopoly is simply a government entity that is allowed to tax you solely for the benefit of the people who 'own' it.
Under true privatization anyone would be able to start their own power company, buy/produce power, and sell service.
Yes, but if all you are doing is keeping the stuff in the freezer cold it is stupid to keep the generator running at idle while the freezer is in the 'off' cycle.
...still believe that when an event that the models say is a once-in-a-hundred-years event happens three times in six months, it's not an indication of a basic flaw in the model, but rather a rare fluke that means it's now statistically certain it'll NEVER happen again.
So if I flip a coin three times and it comes up tails each time, it will almost certainly come up heads the next time!
You have to find me some of these people so we can start making bets...
Instead of inserting a leap second every 1.6 years, insert a leap minute every 100 years. That way the next time it happens will be 2108 and since none of us will be alive it will be someone else's problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, right. That makes sense.
Once everything is tested OK, you sync those packages over to YOUR "stable" branch, and then that night all of your production servers will automatically get those updates. No fuss, no muss.
You let your production servers perform automated updating? That seems pretty stupid. No matter how you tested before hand, things can still go wrong and you should still be monitoring after any update to make sure there aren't issues.
Chance of all 4 missing = [Chance of 1 asteroid missing] ^ 4 = 0.999996000005999996000001
You're playing pretty fast and loose there with probabilities.
P(A intersect B) = P(A) * P(B) IFF P(A) and P(B) are independent.
Since the fragments all came from the same original asteroid, they would obviously have similar trajectories and the probabilities of impact would clearly not be independent.
Anytime a grant is designed to 'spur innovation', that raises a red flag in my book. It isn't a grant to actually innovate, no, that would be too useful...instead it is a grant that is supposed to inspire others to innovate!
How exactly does software expose government surveillance on an intermediate network you have no control over? How does anything?
The only way you know if someone is spying on your data is if someone goes public with it, and it seems pretty stupid to assume that those exposed cases are in any way representative of the actual state of spying.
Sell it and make yourself a mini-itx box.
Pick up something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500030
$170 for a dual-core 64-bit capable mini-itx machine with real nvidia graphics. After you add a couple 2gb ram sticks and a decent HD you will still have a few hundred bucks left over from the trade to get all your friends drunk, or whatever. And, you won't have to worry about your hardware manufacturer constantly doing everything possible to prevent you from using your own hardware.
Sorry, text came out crap for some reason, trying again to make it clearer.
/usr/sbin/iptables -I INPU= T -p tcp --dport 22 -i eth1 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set
/usr/sbin/iptables -I INPU= T -p tcp --dport 22 -i eth1 -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seco= nds 1000 --hitcount 2 -j DROP
Yep, pretty much. Try rejecting with tcp reset if you want the bots to give up faster.
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --syn --dport 22 -m recent --set
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 --syn -m recent --rcheck --seconds 1000 --hitcount 3 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
I completely agree. The problem is twofold:
1) Laws are being written to target such a broad and deep scope of circumstances that understanding all of the ramifications, interactions with existing case law, and possible side-effects may be difficult or impossible for an individual
2) It greatly benefits politicians for the law to be difficult to be understand in such cases, usually because if people understood it they would have a problem with it
The only solution, of course, is for the law to not attempt to guarantee everything to everybody (something which goes against basic politics).
There is no such thing as a impartial summary of any law. Whoever writes such a summary will always include personal biases in it.
On the other hand, what the final code will look like given the application of a particular "diff" is pretty straightforward. I would be extremely surprised if any elected official did not have access to such information already.
That looks great, but I do think they need to add some parens!
From that example, it seems like the order of operations is determined by the subsection depth rather than by the language, but that leaves things hard to read in more complex examples.
Not exactly. The real problem is the system of having primaries to determine the candidates for the general election. The people who vote in primaries tend to be much more attached to their party, and because of this they would rather have their party win even if the candidate is of poor quality. Thus, they more often choose the incumbent, because they are the sure thing.
By the time the general election rolls around, the issues that will be at stake have already mostly been chosen for you (by the small proportion of primary voters).
The problem isn't that Windows 7 is based on Vista, of course it is. The point is that all Windows 7 seems to be is Vista 1.1.
Ah, you mean like Windows XP was to Windows 2000, or Windows 98/ME was to Windows 95? This has been MS's strategy all along: major release, minor release.
As long as an educated consumer can still tell the good products from the bad, I say we're fine. Someone who depends solely on one or two glowing reviews on Amazon is not an educated consumer, merely someone going through the motions.
A fool and his money will always be easily parted.
If it is true that fake reviews are easy to spot, then it should be possible to get a computer to spot them too, you might think.
If a computer program attempting to fake human conversation is easy to spot, then it should be possible to get a computer to spot it too! Stupid Amazon, there is simply no excuse for their systems to have not passed a Turing Test yet.
You have it wrong. The movie was intentionally joking about inflation being insane...
After all, it's not like there is a shortage of flying vehicles in the movie future.
The Computer Science department at the school I attend actively shuns Windows users. If you show up to a CS class you had better know how to use bash ahead of time, or you will be sent to the 'how to use a computer' class.
Personally, I like it: forcing people to use a commandline is a good way to weed people out of low level CS courses.
Saying "We basically experience the world as it really exists" amounts to one pretty serious assumption, whether or not you want to call it that.
That's Ayn Rand's primary axiom... But yes, it is obviously an assumption. The dirty little secret of philosophy of course is that every philosopher has different axioms. Science is simply another branch of philosophy with its own axiom set.
Last time I checked light doesn't travel through my wall.
Sure it does. You just have to make it really, really, really bright.
$30 doesn't pay for very much of my time spent downloading and saving records. I'll stick to having my bank send me the information in a handy-to-archive form on durable media so I don't have to think about it.
I thought this was Slashdot?! Why don't you just make a perl script or something?
Of course paperless is not going to serve some mystical goal of making the world a better place. However...
Done properly, it would save a lot of money, which is good for everyone. That's what it's really all about.
That also sounds like a good way to make sure there is no out of control replication...I like it.
I think you're confusing the issue a bit here.
Privatization works great when there is true competition. It is not really fair to talk about how horrible things are under a 'private' utility when said utility is a monopoly and has no incentive to provide quality service. A regulated monopoly is simply a government entity that is allowed to tax you solely for the benefit of the people who 'own' it.
Under true privatization anyone would be able to start their own power company, buy/produce power, and sell service.
Yes, but if all you are doing is keeping the stuff in the freezer cold it is stupid to keep the generator running at idle while the freezer is in the 'off' cycle.
...still believe that when an event that the models say is a once-in-a-hundred-years event happens three times in six months, it's not an indication of a basic flaw in the model, but rather a rare fluke that means it's now statistically certain it'll NEVER happen again.
So if I flip a coin three times and it comes up tails each time, it will almost certainly come up heads the next time!
You have to find me some of these people so we can start making bets...
Instead of inserting a leap second every 1.6 years, insert a leap minute every 100 years. That way the next time it happens will be 2108 and since none of us will be alive it will be someone else's problem.