It's good to know that the maintainers are doing this. Having the extraction directory be linux/ has cause me to blow away a kernel tree once or twice...
I have to agree with the OP. Ruin the normalization of a large database and your screwed. I don't want to pick on the developers, but I wouldn't accept
modifications to the database from them with out
good reason.
Certainly, there are times that de-normalization of the schema is necessary for good perfomance or other reasons. Just don't change the schema only to ease application development.
In my garden the Colorado Potato Beetle is my summer nemesis. Growing up, Dad would always use pesticides to control them. It didn't work very well. We still had to pick the larva off the plants by hand.
Now, for my garden, I've ditched the pesticides. After doing some research on the potato beetle, I found out that they quickly become resistant to one pesticide, unless you continuously use different type of pesticides (this explains my father failing to control them.)
My solution? I control the bug by hand. Once a week I examine the plants and squish and kill all the egg clusters, larva, and adults that I find. This keeps the population managable to the point that predators of the potato beetle keep things under control. This method works very well.
I don't expect that large farms can invest in this much labor, but for my home garden this is a good solution. Oh, large farms also use other pesticide-free methods to control the beetle, such as plastic lined trenchs that catch and trap the bug.
When trying to partition the different mount points/opt prevents using a small / partition. Usually, what I do is postpone installing some software (KDE) until I can ln -s/opt/usr/opt./opt should really be one more level up from/. At the very least, I think that/usr/opt is a better place for this type of directory. Since/usr is usually allocated a lot of space (and / is kept small) it makes more sense to have opt under/usr.
Hopefully, the folks in charge of the FHS will consider this.
Certainly LOC per time are not an absolute measure of programmer efficiency. Perhaps solutions per time would be a better measure.
Even that may not gauge productivity well. Engineering a good solution takes time. On a software project that is unique you can't fast track your way to a finished product. While on some things I will sit down and start writting code; I realize that larger projects need to be designed first. Or at least need some up-front thought. Thats it folks: design and thought can give a good solution.
Yes, Soros does seem to do good things with the wealth that he has generated. IMO the best work he has done involves helping fund some medical marijuana initiatives and opposing the War on (some) Drugs in general.
Opposing the drug war shows to me that he is at least rational and good willed.
I think about the most easy kernel hack is to create is your own system call. Last year in OS this is what we did.
The assignment was to add a system call that would return the number of processes created and killed up to that point. The only difficult thing was to grok the system call table. Please look at this option as a good introduction to the kernel.
You are certainly right about Rep. Boucher. I live in the district he serves in SW Virginia, so I also see the local side of things. Boucher seems to work tirelessly in two areas: helping our district (which hasn't been the same since the coal industry has slumped) and technology issues. I don't have warm feelings toward many politicians (I use to be down right cynical), but meeting and listening to one good politician made me reevaluate things.
How xanim or binary-only mtv can be better than free alternatives?
I use mtv and also registered it. I also use mplayer. One of the best things about mtv that it has a pretty good GUI. On a whole, I don't think that $10 is too much to play for a good mpeg player. I know that the free players are constantly improving but, mtv is a really good tool.
give each app its very own directory structure with e.g. the directories bin, man, etc for binaries, documentation and
configuration. In the root of each package specify a meta information file (preferably xml based) with
information about how to integrate the program with the system
I use a tool that does most of those things. Check
out encap
and the package manager epkg.
I install most things from source. What I do is
specify some prefix during./configure and have
the package installed to say/usr/local/encap/foo-1.2.
Then use epkg to sym link everything into the/usr/local/ directories. This makes package upgrades easy and a simple ls shows what is installed. Very handy.
I've used Audiogalaxy on both Linux and Win32. It is pretty good. I like the web interface they use. I leave my box at home running the client and then remotely using any web browser have my box at home download the music. It is a very interesting design.
Cool, it seems to do much the same thing as encap.
The big difference is that encap is able to produce packages; just like deb and rpm do. I don't use the package features though.
I use slackware and compile most things from source. I have found a very helpful tool which will manage versioning of programs compiled from source: encap
To use it create a directory, say/usr/local/encap/, and when you run./configure set the prefix to/usr/local/encap/packagename-1.2.3.
After running make install go to/usr/local/encap/ and run epkg to install sym-links under/usr/local to your program.
Check it out, it is a very good system. It becomes very easy to uninstall a package and also see what packages are installed. I highly recommend it!
Legal threat from openssh.com toward openbsd info?
on
USENIX Reports
·
· Score: 1
I was just reading this and have been trying to find more info about this legal threat. The blurb in the article seems to be all that I can find.
Why I'm looking for more info as I though that the openssh project was closely tied to openbsd. If I'm mistaken it still makes no sense. The openbsd project has been around much longer than that of openssh.
Anyone have more knowledge of this or some links?
Thanks.
Cocaine IS addicting. PERIOD.
He didn't say it wasn't.
Even presenting arguments against this is like arguing against
someone saying the sun doesn't produce heat.
Argument from absurdity.
Just one of four paragraphs which show that this person has done no reading or thought regarding the War on (some) Drugs; other than what have been drilled by DARE and the media. Convictions are more dangerous than the truth. Reflect on what you believe buddy.
That makes the assumption that you are arguing that the total number of deaths will go down. If you
are arguing that the percentage of death will go down, I would probably agree.
I mean that the percentage of deaths would go down. Would the user base grow? I don't know if that would happen. WRT marijuana in the Netherlands it hasn't.
But I guess the big concern, held many others (and maybe me, I find it somewhat persuasive), is
that the loss to society as a whole could be very large.
We seem to accept the losses associated with alcohol. I believe that freedom is more important than what some stupid people may do. I'm tired of my rights being eroded and taxes increasing so that a bunch of pols. can relearn a lesson thought 80 years ago.
If alcohol and tobacco kill more people per year than all other drugs *combined*, and they are the
most widely distributed because they are *legal*, then does it not suggest (not necessarily, but
possible) that perhaps if the other drugs are legalized that they will kill many people?
Well, the thing to look at here are deaths per some number of users. This way you get an idea of how dangerous a drug is, independent of of the total number of users. I hope that this table formats OK:
Drug | Users | Deaths per Year | Deaths per 100,000
Tobacco | 60 million | 390,000 (a) | 650
Alcohol | 100 million | 150,000 (b) | 150
Heroin | 500,000 | 400 (c) | 80 (400)
Cocaine | 5 million | 200 (c) | 4 (20)
The meaning of the stuff in parenthesis is explained in this article. Even if we accept the higher numbers in parenthesis, it is clear that both heroin and cocaine are responsable for the deaths of a smaller percentage of their users than tobacco.
With legalization the deaths from currently illegal drugs would decrease. Many deaths are
because the drug being used is of uncertain purity and concentration. So, even under prohibition with uncertain purity and contents cocaine
results in a smaller percentage of user deaths than alcohol or tobacco. These deaths
could be reduced even more by the availability of drugs with better purity.
I agree with your comment about treatment. Education is also necessary, people need to know about any dangers and how to use any certain drug as safely as possible. The reason that I support across the board legalization and control of these substances is to end the harm caused by prohibition.
As long as a state of prohibition exists, there will be cartels and murderers out to make money off what is prohibited. I want to see that profit motive disappear. The geo-political, criminal, social... environmental side effects are only worsened by prohibition and the fact that there isn't any controlling authority over these substances.
Not to mention that legalization would make these drugs more safe. Through them having proven concentration and purity.
Using these advanced sensors to operate on a court-approved surveillance of illegal drug activity is one
thing, but using them to do things like trying to enforce our morals laws is quite something else.
Um, drug laws are the equivalent of moral laws. A law which tries to ban a private activity that doesn't have a direct victim is a law based on (someone else's) morals.
There were actually more than two planes carrying nuclear weapons headed for Japan that day
No, the second bomb dropped contained just about all the plutonium that the US had at the time. Sure, there were multiple aircraft but, only once atomic weapon. "Making of the Atomic Bomb" has all the info.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly, there are times that de-normalization of the schema is necessary for good perfomance or other reasons. Just don't change the schema only to ease application development.
Now, for my garden, I've ditched the pesticides. After doing some research on the potato beetle, I found out that they quickly become resistant to one pesticide, unless you continuously use different type of pesticides (this explains my father failing to control them.)
My solution? I control the bug by hand. Once a week I examine the plants and squish and kill all the egg clusters, larva, and adults that I find. This keeps the population managable to the point that predators of the potato beetle keep things under control. This method works very well.
I don't expect that large farms can invest in this much labor, but for my home garden this is a good solution. Oh, large farms also use other pesticide-free methods to control the beetle, such as plastic lined trenchs that catch and trap the bug.
When trying to partition the different mount points
Hopefully, the folks in charge of the FHS will consider this.
Even that may not gauge productivity well. Engineering a good solution takes time. On a software project that is unique you can't fast track your way to a finished product. While on some things I will sit down and start writting code; I realize that larger projects need to be designed first. Or at least need some up-front thought. Thats it folks: design and thought can give a good solution.
Opposing the drug war shows to me that he is at least rational and good willed.
The assignment was to add a system call that would return the number of processes created and killed up to that point. The only difficult thing was to grok the system call table. Please look at this option as a good introduction to the kernel.
Do move to VA, it is a very nice state :)
I use mtv and also registered it. I also use mplayer. One of the best things about mtv that it has a pretty good GUI. On a whole, I don't think that $10 is too much to play for a good mpeg player. I know that the free players are constantly improving but, mtv is a really good tool.
I use a tool that does most of those things. Check out encap and the package manager epkg.
I install most things from source. What I do is specify some prefix during ./configure and have
the package installed to say /usr/local/encap/foo-1.2.
Then use epkg to sym link everything into the /usr/local/ directories. This makes package upgrades easy and a simple ls shows what is installed. Very handy.
Thanks for letting me know. I must be using an older version.
About the only ICQ feature it doesn't have (yet) are file transfers. But, then I just want an IM client. I have ftp covered already.
and how do you spell 'drug user'? Easy, it is spelled: f u c k i n g m o r o n
Of course both statements are true.
To use it create a directory, say /usr/local/encap/, and when you run ./configure set the prefix to /usr/local/encap/packagename-1.2.3.
After running make install go to /usr/local/encap/ and run epkg to install sym-links under /usr/local to your program.
Check it out, it is a very good system. It becomes very easy to uninstall a package and also see what packages are installed. I highly recommend it!
Why I'm looking for more info as I though that the openssh project was closely tied to openbsd. If I'm mistaken it still makes no sense. The openbsd project has been around much longer than that of openssh.
Anyone have more knowledge of this or some links? Thanks.
You and the other person must be using some compiler flags that you shouldn't use in this case. A 300k binary! Sheesh.
Cocaine IS addicting. PERIOD.
He didn't say it wasn't.
Even presenting arguments against this is like arguing against someone saying the sun doesn't produce heat.
Argument from absurdity.
Just one of four paragraphs which show that this person has done no reading or thought regarding the War on (some) Drugs; other than what have been drilled by DARE and the media. Convictions are more dangerous than the truth. Reflect on what you believe buddy.
I mean that the percentage of deaths would go down. Would the user base grow? I don't know if that would happen. WRT marijuana in the Netherlands it hasn't.
But I guess the big concern, held many others (and maybe me, I find it somewhat persuasive), is that the loss to society as a whole could be very large.
We seem to accept the losses associated with alcohol. I believe that freedom is more important than what some stupid people may do. I'm tired of my rights being eroded and taxes increasing so that a bunch of pols. can relearn a lesson thought 80 years ago.
Well, the thing to look at here are deaths per some number of users. This way you get an idea of how dangerous a drug is, independent of of the total number of users. I hope that this table formats OK:
Drug | Users | Deaths per Year | Deaths per 100,000
Tobacco | 60 million | 390,000 (a) | 650
Alcohol | 100 million | 150,000 (b) | 150
Heroin | 500,000 | 400 (c) | 80 (400)
Cocaine | 5 million | 200 (c) | 4 (20)
The meaning of the stuff in parenthesis is explained in this article. Even if we accept the higher numbers in parenthesis, it is clear that both heroin and cocaine are responsable for the deaths of a smaller percentage of their users than tobacco.
With legalization the deaths from currently illegal drugs would decrease. Many deaths are because the drug being used is of uncertain purity and concentration. So, even under prohibition with uncertain purity and contents cocaine results in a smaller percentage of user deaths than alcohol or tobacco. These deaths could be reduced even more by the availability of drugs with better purity.
As long as a state of prohibition exists, there will be cartels and murderers out to make money off what is prohibited. I want to see that profit motive disappear. The geo-political, criminal, social... environmental side effects are only worsened by prohibition and the fact that there isn't any controlling authority over these substances.
Not to mention that legalization would make these drugs more safe. Through them having proven concentration and purity.
Um, drug laws are the equivalent of moral laws. A law which tries to ban a private activity that doesn't have a direct victim is a law based on (someone else's) morals.
Ahh! You have just stumbled upon my definition of stupid: Doing the same thing twice, but expecting a different result.
Congradulations!
There were actually more than two planes carrying nuclear weapons headed for Japan that day
No, the second bomb dropped contained just about all the plutonium that the US had at the time. Sure, there were multiple aircraft but, only once atomic weapon. "Making of the Atomic Bomb" has all the info.