I've used REISUB several times in Ubuntu, and it's very useful.
I have to ask though, why is it that Ubuntu can lock up so effective sometimes? I've tracked the problem down to my Intel graphics drivers, and it doesn't happen as much before as it used to. But I've very rarely had full-system lockups in Windows, so why does Linux even have this occurrence where you can't even get to the console?
There have been some reports of data corruption with fresh (not upgraded) ext4 file systems using the Ubuntu 9.10 kernel when writing to large files (over 512MB). The issue is under investigation, and if confirmed will be resolved in a post-release update. Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)
The damn bug is STILL not fixed apparently. Some people get the corruption, and some don't. Scares me enough to not even try using ext4 just yet, and I'm still surprised Canonical was stupid enough to have ext4 as the default filesystem in Karmic.
Then again, perhaps Google knows what they're doing.
Just wanted to make a comment regarding anti-virus/malware vendors and how they co-operate with each other. Recently I took on some Sophos training for work - Sophos makes security software which includes (among other things) anti-virus.
From what I was told, they DO work with other AV vendors in one particular situation: samples. If a new virus/trojan/nasty is detected by any vendor in a partnership of vendors, they will provide a sample to others, but won't tell them their detection algorithms. That way the separate vendors are free to determine what to do with it, while at the same time ensuring one vendor doesn't hog all the info.
Apparently it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for everyone, possibly because there's no point hogging the samples because actual infected binaries will appear anyway. At least that's how I remember it. If anyone can add or correct this, feel free.
If I read a resume from someone with the email jsmith@aol.com, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
If I read a resume from someone with the email buttsex69@hotmail.com, I would be concerned as to why they didn't bother to submit their resume with a different email address. It's not hard to make a free one with at least part of your real name, and it shows professionalism and frankly, social understanding.
I say the last bit before some geek complains that I'm focusing more on "image" instead the applicants credentials and hence ability to do the job. Unfortunately image is an important part of being human, and I didn't make the rules of human nature.
Duke Nukem 3D did have a rather interesting engine. As someone else has posted, it did various things other engines at the time couldn't do (eg. mirrors) and was well optimized.
Won't this bloody game ever die?!? I feel sorry for the Duke actually, being dragged through this ordeal when he should have been put to rest a long time ago.
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead. [a man puts the body of Duke Nukem on the cart] Large Man with Dead Body: Here's one. The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence. Duke Nukem: I'm not dead. The Dead Collector: What? Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There's your ninepence. Duke Nukem: I'm not dead. The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead. Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is. Duke Nukem: I'm not. The Dead Collector: He isn't. Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill. Duke Nukem: I'm getting better. Large Man with Dead Body: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment. The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations. Duke Nukem: I don't want to go on the cart. Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don't be such a baby. The Dead Collector: I can't take him. Duke Nukem: I feel fine. Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor. The Dead Collector: I can't. Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long. The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today. Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when's your next round? The Dead Collector: Thursday. Duke Nukem: I think I'll go for a walk. Large Man with Dead Body: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do? Duke Nukem: I feel happy. I feel happy. [the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Duke with his a whack of his club] Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much. The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday. Large Man with Dead Body: Right.
Firstly why is MS singled out in the slashdot version of the story? 100% of mail products failed this so called test.
You know the reason - Slashdot is EXTREMELY biased against Microsoft to the point of irrationality at times. Gets rather tiring at times, but hey, every source of media has some bias (except perhaps Reuters).
Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing.
I wouldn't say that it did "nothing". It caused a lot of pain for IT folks trying to clean that shit out of their networks, that's for sure. On the other hand, it was not as dramatically serious as the media would have you believe (but then the media always blows things out of proportion - that's their job apparently).
Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?
If my child was terrified of the dark, I'd try to help them conquer their fear and show them the dark is nothing to be afraid of.
An ignorant novelist (and indeed anyone with a misguided opinion) can also be treated in the same manner. Otherwise, they'll continue to harbor the same hatred and pass on the hatred to others. It's in our best interests to nip it in the bud, particularly if they're influential.
Thankfully, history is full of naive people who refused to accept "how things are" and did something to change reality instead. The complacent are nothing but an anchor holding back human progress...
You only hear about the successful ones. The ones that tried and failed aren't heard of, and I bet they'd make the vast bulk of folks trying to change the world. We *generally* aren't influential enough on our own, and I don't believe most people are capable of projecting the influence necessary to get things changed.
Idealism is also a great way to get oneself killed. It's not always a fight worth fighting with the limited time we'll be alive on this planet.
Which is why it's such a brilliant idea to leave the running of society ever more in the hands of large corporations. I suppose that's what the submitter tries to point out.
I didn't say I was happy about Apple's position, morally; just pointing out it's how things are. Trying to bring morality/principals into the issue seems like the submitter is naïve about our reality.
I get surprised when the OPPOSITE happens with companies.
but a very large price to pay for that in principals
This is not how businesses work. You either comply with the laws of a country or you don't get to do business. It's not the modus operandi of corporations to fight for principals.
Do people writing these summaries not understand how the real world works?
So not being able to view video on sites like YouTube seamlessly (ie. without requiring extensions/workarounds to view FLV files in a 3rd-party player) is a feature?
And do give me that shit about YouTube not having anything useful to watch. If so, you just aren't trying very hard.
Well they're about as realistic as you're going to get and still can be classified as a game (i.e. is still fun). Anything more would be, like you said, too realistic to be fun. Like actual war.
So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available? They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed. Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.
This novelist asks for something that already exist.
My biggest frustration when trying to sort out problems on other people's Windows boxes is the frequency with which one gets an error message which amounts to "Something went wrong, but we're not telling you what." The big mistake which the Windows developers make is hiding information from the user so even if you are capable of understanding the technical aspects of the problem, you're not allowed to see them.
Oh that's right, because Linux is so much better in this regard...
Why are they so obsessed with blocking porn? Are they really that prudish? And I though the US were the ultimate prudes (and hypocrites) when it came to sex.
It doesn't hurt anyone or break down society as near as I can tell. Plus, you can't stop the natural human natural instincts which hormones produce, short of requiring all men to take drugs to suppress the desire (Half-Life 2's suppression field anyone?)
The ONLY reason I can see for their obsessiveness with blocking porn is that it can be used as the basis for developing the technology and infrastructure necessary to block whatever it is they want. In other words, porn is used as a scapegoat for setting up the measures which can then be used to block other things, the stuff the Chinese Government ACTUALLY feels threatened about...
I notice several posts have been made regarding the current Slashdot con census regarding privacy. When some people say that they aren't worried about any privacy issues because they're too insignifant to care about as far as Google's concerned, some others pipe up and comment that in the "old days" of Slashdot, they'd be in the extreme minority, whereas nowadays it's fairly common to see this opinion.
Here's the problem - there IS no privacy on the Internet anymore. Compared to the old days of Slashdot, surveillance and logging has become so commonplace and pervasive, that even if you don't put your particulars on the Internet yourself, someone else might do it themselves. A good example would be a friend who uploads a picture on Facebook which has you tagged, even if you don't use Facebook. Heck, if you don't use it, you may not even know the picture exists until it's brought to your attention. At the very least, it's hard to remain isolated from the privacy issues of the Internet, short of becoming a hermit and avoiding any social contact.
So the reason privacy is being given up, as seen by some people, is because it's frigging tiring to have to check, double-check, workaround and in the end, give-up the fun and useful services and technologies available to us on the Internet, because very little of them respect total privacy. It's also hard to justify such extreme paranoia when it's highly unlikely you'll encounter any actual problems, so long as you use common sense.
In the end, we're all gonna die anyway, so freaking RELAX. Whatever privacy issues you were concerned about won't matter an iota regardless of whether you get buried, cremated or shot out of a canon into the sun.
PS. There's also the tiny fact that you WON'T CONVINCE EVERYONE about the importance of privacy anymore. That boat has sailed, given how much Facebook is used as a benchmark. So don't fret about worried how how you think privacy is becoming extinct. If you want to live in the modern digital age, it already has...
Feel free to disagree, but please provide a link to a high-end "netbook" with it.
I can't. Probably because anything I put forward will be disregarded as not being high-end enough (this is how Internet arguments work - you can't win).
What I was addressing was rather the perception that netbooks have to be low spec, that low spec is all they should be. Given the rate of technological improvements, I don't see it not being feasible for a netbook to house a decent 3D chipset and CPU to compete with mid-range laptops. Might suck up power moreso than other models, but that's a given with high-end equipment anyway.
That's the point of a netbook.. and the reason why Linux is so popular on them.
Who said netbooks needed to be low spec? The same people who thought netbooks would only be used for browsing and light typing?
Netbooks are simply small computers. They should have the capability to do whatever we want with them - this argument that netbooks are destined to only be low spec is short-sighted.
Some people say "Yay! Linux on netbooks means more mainstream acceptance!" From what I've seen however, this isn't the case. Linux netbooks, from what I've encountered, are
* Generally more expensive than their Windows counterparts (with identical specs) * Running some dodgy Linux distro that does nothing to help sell the benefits of running Linux and only provides headaches * Often simply not available
With this being the current situation, I don't see there being anything to be proud of. Yes, it's better than several years ago when Linux wasn't available anywhere mainstream. That doesn't mean things are going well either.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used REISUB several times in Ubuntu, and it's very useful.
I have to ask though, why is it that Ubuntu can lock up so effective sometimes? I've tracked the problem down to my Intel graphics drivers, and it doesn't happen as much before as it used to. But I've very rarely had full-system lockups in Windows, so why does Linux even have this occurrence where you can't even get to the console?
Gee, I hope they're not using Ubuntu 9.10 by any chance: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910
The damn bug is STILL not fixed apparently. Some people get the corruption, and some don't. Scares me enough to not even try using ext4 just yet, and I'm still surprised Canonical was stupid enough to have ext4 as the default filesystem in Karmic.
Then again, perhaps Google knows what they're doing.
Just wanted to make a comment regarding anti-virus/malware vendors and how they co-operate with each other. Recently I took on some Sophos training for work - Sophos makes security software which includes (among other things) anti-virus.
From what I was told, they DO work with other AV vendors in one particular situation: samples. If a new virus/trojan/nasty is detected by any vendor in a partnership of vendors, they will provide a sample to others, but won't tell them their detection algorithms. That way the separate vendors are free to determine what to do with it, while at the same time ensuring one vendor doesn't hog all the info.
Apparently it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for everyone, possibly because there's no point hogging the samples because actual infected binaries will appear anyway. At least that's how I remember it. If anyone can add or correct this, feel free.
If I read a resume from someone with the email jsmith@aol.com, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
If I read a resume from someone with the email buttsex69@hotmail.com, I would be concerned as to why they didn't bother to submit their resume with a different email address. It's not hard to make a free one with at least part of your real name, and it shows professionalism and frankly, social understanding.
I say the last bit before some geek complains that I'm focusing more on "image" instead the applicants credentials and hence ability to do the job. Unfortunately image is an important part of being human, and I didn't make the rules of human nature.
Duke Nukem 3D did have a rather interesting engine. As someone else has posted, it did various things other engines at the time couldn't do (eg. mirrors) and was well optimized.
For anyone who's interested about the history of the engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSVzn0F3pyQ
OK, it's got nothing to do with DNF but I found this video recently and felt it was worth sharing. :)
Won't this bloody game ever die?!? I feel sorry for the Duke actually, being dragged through this ordeal when he should have been put to rest a long time ago.
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts the body of Duke Nukem on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
Duke Nukem: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
Duke Nukem: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
Duke Nukem: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Duke Nukem: I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Duke Nukem: I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
Duke Nukem: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
Duke Nukem: I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Duke Nukem: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Duke with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body: Right.
You know the reason - Slashdot is EXTREMELY biased against Microsoft to the point of irrationality at times. Gets rather tiring at times, but hey, every source of media has some bias (except perhaps Reuters).
I dunno, people like me who wants to be legit (ie. not torrent movies all the time) and yet doesn't want to go entirely without?
I wouldn't say that it did "nothing". It caused a lot of pain for IT folks trying to clean that shit out of their networks, that's for sure. On the other hand, it was not as dramatically serious as the media would have you believe (but then the media always blows things out of proportion - that's their job apparently).
If my child was terrified of the dark, I'd try to help them conquer their fear and show them the dark is nothing to be afraid of.
An ignorant novelist (and indeed anyone with a misguided opinion) can also be treated in the same manner. Otherwise, they'll continue to harbor the same hatred and pass on the hatred to others. It's in our best interests to nip it in the bud, particularly if they're influential.
You only hear about the successful ones. The ones that tried and failed aren't heard of, and I bet they'd make the vast bulk of folks trying to change the world. We *generally* aren't influential enough on our own, and I don't believe most people are capable of projecting the influence necessary to get things changed.
Idealism is also a great way to get oneself killed. It's not always a fight worth fighting with the limited time we'll be alive on this planet.
I didn't say I was happy about Apple's position, morally; just pointing out it's how things are. Trying to bring morality/principals into the issue seems like the submitter is naïve about our reality.
I get surprised when the OPPOSITE happens with companies.
This is not how businesses work. You either comply with the laws of a country or you don't get to do business. It's not the modus operandi of corporations to fight for principals.
Do people writing these summaries not understand how the real world works?
I don't consider a lack of fullscreen support as something that "works great".
Perhaps you can Compiz zoom into the video area, but it's messy and doesn't work as well as a proper fullscreen.
So not being able to view video on sites like YouTube seamlessly (ie. without requiring extensions/workarounds to view FLV files in a 3rd-party player) is a feature?
And do give me that shit about YouTube not having anything useful to watch. If so, you just aren't trying very hard.
Well they're about as realistic as you're going to get and still can be classified as a game (i.e. is still fun). Anything more would be, like you said, too realistic to be fun. Like actual war.
So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available? They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed. Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.
This novelist asks for something that already exist.
Oh that's right, because Linux is so much better in this regard...
http://i.imgur.com/Y56vJ.png
Who the fuck at the Chinese to criticize Americans for how THEY do things?
Seriously, everyone judges everyone. It's part of being human. Now FUCK OFF and leave me to judge.
Why are they so obsessed with blocking porn? Are they really that prudish? And I though the US were the ultimate prudes (and hypocrites) when it came to sex.
It doesn't hurt anyone or break down society as near as I can tell. Plus, you can't stop the natural human natural instincts which hormones produce, short of requiring all men to take drugs to suppress the desire (Half-Life 2's suppression field anyone?)
The ONLY reason I can see for their obsessiveness with blocking porn is that it can be used as the basis for developing the technology and infrastructure necessary to block whatever it is they want. In other words, porn is used as a scapegoat for setting up the measures which can then be used to block other things, the stuff the Chinese Government ACTUALLY feels threatened about...
Obligatory Denis Leary rant about the lack of a simple coffee flavor anymore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQxgv4QtKM8
I notice several posts have been made regarding the current Slashdot con census regarding privacy. When some people say that they aren't worried about any privacy issues because they're too insignifant to care about as far as Google's concerned, some others pipe up and comment that in the "old days" of Slashdot, they'd be in the extreme minority, whereas nowadays it's fairly common to see this opinion.
Here's the problem - there IS no privacy on the Internet anymore. Compared to the old days of Slashdot, surveillance and logging has become so commonplace and pervasive, that even if you don't put your particulars on the Internet yourself, someone else might do it themselves. A good example would be a friend who uploads a picture on Facebook which has you tagged, even if you don't use Facebook. Heck, if you don't use it, you may not even know the picture exists until it's brought to your attention. At the very least, it's hard to remain isolated from the privacy issues of the Internet, short of becoming a hermit and avoiding any social contact.
So the reason privacy is being given up, as seen by some people, is because it's frigging tiring to have to check, double-check, workaround and in the end, give-up the fun and useful services and technologies available to us on the Internet, because very little of them respect total privacy. It's also hard to justify such extreme paranoia when it's highly unlikely you'll encounter any actual problems, so long as you use common sense.
In the end, we're all gonna die anyway, so freaking RELAX. Whatever privacy issues you were concerned about won't matter an iota regardless of whether you get buried, cremated or shot out of a canon into the sun.
PS. There's also the tiny fact that you WON'T CONVINCE EVERYONE about the importance of privacy anymore. That boat has sailed, given how much Facebook is used as a benchmark. So don't fret about worried how how you think privacy is becoming extinct. If you want to live in the modern digital age, it already has...
I can't. Probably because anything I put forward will be disregarded as not being high-end enough (this is how Internet arguments work - you can't win).
What I was addressing was rather the perception that netbooks have to be low spec, that low spec is all they should be. Given the rate of technological improvements, I don't see it not being feasible for a netbook to house a decent 3D chipset and CPU to compete with mid-range laptops. Might suck up power moreso than other models, but that's a given with high-end equipment anyway.
Who said netbooks needed to be low spec? The same people who thought netbooks would only be used for browsing and light typing?
Netbooks are simply small computers. They should have the capability to do whatever we want with them - this argument that netbooks are destined to only be low spec is short-sighted.
Some people say "Yay! Linux on netbooks means more mainstream acceptance!" From what I've seen however, this isn't the case. Linux netbooks, from what I've encountered, are
* Generally more expensive than their Windows counterparts (with identical specs)
* Running some dodgy Linux distro that does nothing to help sell the benefits of running Linux and only provides headaches
* Often simply not available
With this being the current situation, I don't see there being anything to be proud of. Yes, it's better than several years ago when Linux wasn't available anywhere mainstream. That doesn't mean things are going well either.