Checking some things last night, I found that, at least in their certificates, they seem to favor SHA1 hashes. The certificates I saw were ultimately verified by Verisign, which used an MD5 hash in the parent certificate.
Yes, I can call him an elitist. And if Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or Bill Gates wants to use it, I'll call them elitist, too.
It's confusing enough for most users to deal with the billion-bytes vs. GB issue on hard drives without introducing yet another measurement system, not to mention one that is in some cases difficult to pronounce and in the most common cases just sounds stupid and invites ridicule.
For decades, it was understood that a kilobyte was 1024 bytes, with kilo having a slightly different meaning in the computing industry than elsewhere. "Gauge" as a measurement system still in common use around the world has different meanings depending on its application (wires based on the size of the hole from which they were drawn, shotguns based on the number of lead balls of the barrel's inside diameter were required to make up a pound, railways based on the distance between rails, steel the thickness of sheeting [borrowed, apparently, from wire gauge], and the amount of Plaster of Paris used in mixes to change dry rates). There's no reason, aside from a need to prove oneself to be "above" the common user, to make this kind of inane change.
No, that's where a handful of elitists are going. That "mebi/kibi" crap needs to go back to the hell that spawned it, and proves that engineers (apparently especially those that make up the IEC's governing body) should not be making up words, especially words like "exbibytes." Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
At best, you're being pedantic with this in attempting to defend the initial point. At worst, you're just trolling.
I just saw a commercial for Priceline with both Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in it (he's getting to look like irradiated Spock even without the make-up), so he's still doing something there. Not sure if the addition of Nimoy is a long-term thing, but the ad sort of suggested that he was sticking around.
Can even one story go by without someone dragging politics into it? I mean, I know this is Slashdot, home of the factless fanatic, but this is ridiculous.
Does Microsoft post MD5 sums? I know that their they use PGP when sending out security bulletins, which I thought was a major step for them to use an outside product like that, but I don't think I've seen MD5 sums from them. They prefer to use Authenticode, IIRC.
Historical reference. There are patents today which refer to older patents, which refer to still older patents, etc. Sometimes it's interesting to trace the developments of current ideas from their initial inspirations.
Also living in SoCal, I can add that enviros around the country consider the California desert their backyard. The Joshua tree and the desert tortoise are both endangered, and so building out there is really difficult.
I put more effort than most people I know to ensure that I'm using proper grammar, and I try to encourage others to do the same, spoken and written. But your take that even though language evolves, this must be incorrect, is not a strong foundation. If this has been a perceived problem on the part of grammarians for 200 years, then I would tend to say that it's part of the language.
I don't accept alterations such as "*ould of" or your own mention of "intensive purposes" simply because they're often not only grammatically incorrect but logically incorrect. I get hit with the same suggestion that language evolves and I should let it go. Those kind of things aren't evolutions of language -- they're mutations, and should rightly be corrected. But this is a case where the language clearly flows better in some cases, and both spoken and written language has come to reflect it. More and more grammarians are coming to accept it, and eventually it will become a commonly accepted method, even amongst the most pedantic English professors.
The best use of a language comes where the idea behind the words is most clearly communicated. In some cases, the use of a split infinitive communicates things more clearly than proper grammar. Sometimes clarity comes from a smooth flow of the sound of the words. Taking the classic example of "to boldly go where no man has gone before" (I'm a TOS guy), altering the phrasing such that it begins with "to go boldly" doesn't carry the same impact or flow. In another case, in a phrase such as "that we may further inspire others," the use of 'further' clearly modifies inspire in an expansive way. One alternate way of phrasing it includes "that we further may inspire others," but this is ambiguous -- are we expanding inspiration, or are we adding to an existing point? Another form is "that we may inspire others further," which is somewhat more clear than the example immediately prior, but seems (at least to me) to carry a bit less impact than the original form, and doesn't flow as smoothly.
The debate continues, but I believe that, as time goes by and most probably sooner than later, the decision will come down from on high that the split infinitive is, at least in limited cases, perfectly legitimate and accepted. At that time, I will regale my grandchildren with tales of the Great Split Infinitive Debate that nearly started a world war. (Hey, I have to come up with something more interesting than "I built networks as a youngster.")
Split infinitives are fairly hotly debated (as such topics go) amongst the elite grammarians. I remember reading a few years ago that the usage that has been condemned for more than 200 years is now becoming acceptable. While I couldn't find that article specifically, the following excerpt covers the gist of it.
From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996:
The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought. Should we condemn compound infinitives, such as I want to go and have a look, simply because the infinitive have has no to next to it?
Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place.
Anyway, that's a digression. Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design based on an already-approved 600MW design through the US NRC. That's the only way to get the costs down to 4.5 cents per KWh, which is where it starts to get competitive for a one-off plant. Expansions of the plant to include more reactors, and multiple constructions of the same reactor design, will help to cut the costs further. The trick is to actually get construction started once the design is approved.
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.
Sections 22349 and 22456 have to do with highway speeds and the maximums allowed (55, 60, 65, or 70, depending on surveys), and 22351 has to do both with driving on a highway at less than posted speeds and with enforcing and challenging prima facie speed limits on streets and alleys.
Summary: Black on white is the law. (However, black on yellow is a dare.;) )
I have two incidents on my record: one from when I was 19, and one from when I was 25. When the new term came around following the three-year points from each accident, my rates went down automatically. The first time I had Allstate, and the second time I was (and am) with Progressive.
As for the companies adjusting their rates when accident rates change... Well, that's how insurance companies work. They're betting on odds established from a lot of very painstaking work going over a lot of very arcane facts. If they find that the accident rates rise for your group, the rates will go up because the odds say that you, as a member of that group, are more likely to be in an accident.
If someone has a problem with their rates, they should go to the state insurance commissioner (or equivalent). There is a usually a method of fighting unfair rates.
For DVD playback, that's a problem, but working on an article for several hours shouldn't be a problem for most laptops. I found my two-year-old Dell Latitude C840 still running with the fans full-bore three and a half hours after I accidentally put it in the case without completing a poweroff (I was leaving in a hurry). The thing was almost too hot to touch, and I only knew because I heard the low battery warning, but it still had 7% battery left on the original 66WHr/4480mAh battery.
This is the first I've heard of eGroupware. As far as such platforms go, are there any others (commercial or not) besides eGroupware, Exchange, GroupWise, Openexchange, and OpenGroupware? Have any serious comparisons been done across all of them?
Working with a clean installation is the hang point here. Clean installations aren't really the problem. The problem is the installation after you've got everything in place.
I'll admit that I have a bad habit of throwing things in that aren't strictly necessary, but are useful at random points. But I can track memory usage better than the average user. The best accelerator I've found is Ad-Aware. Most extreme example came last week, when a cleaning of the spyware took a customer's computer from about a five-minute total time to usability (power-on to access to Windows Explorer) to a little over a minute. Took three cleanings and reboots to get there, but it made it.
Shuffling the array off to another enclosure frees up your main power supply to keep your computer running, a point of growing importance. For something of this magnitude, it would be simpler in the long run to push as much off to the other case as possible, save for maybe a single drive kept in the local system for some reason, like external link failure.
Ideas like dark energy can be more accurately thought of as cloaks over unclear sections of our model of the universe. The idea is to slowly peel back the cloak from one direction or another as our understanding of the universe grows. Hopefully, at some point, the cloak will be removed entirely.
There's still the issue of track management. You need tight control over what's happening on the rails because of the required acceleration and deceleration times and distances required for normal trains. Having these capable of entering and exiting the rail system almost at will would create headaches for the rail traffic controllers. That's not to say it can't be done, but it would be a helluva lot of work to do it right.
Some of my dad's friends were in Vietnam, and this kind of thing actually did happen from time to time. In the occasional extremely long firefight, soldiers would drop down into bunkers, foxholes, or just behind cover and grab a swig from the canteen to remain hydrated or a bite of a chocolate bar to keep the energy levels above zero. Usually this was done when they knew that gunships or other air support was about to open fire and they knew they could have a minute or so of downtime -- one fewer flash on the ground was one fewer chance to be misidentified and targeted by choppers, and one fewer soldier with his head up to shoot was one fewer soldier that could be hit by a rocket fragment or odd ricochet.
True, they didn't exactly feast, and this kind of thing didn't happen often, but sometimes they could get half a ration down when they really needed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Checking some things last night, I found that, at least in their certificates, they seem to favor SHA1 hashes. The certificates I saw were ultimately verified by Verisign, which used an MD5 hash in the parent certificate.
Yes, I can call him an elitist. And if Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or Bill Gates wants to use it, I'll call them elitist, too.
It's confusing enough for most users to deal with the billion-bytes vs. GB issue on hard drives without introducing yet another measurement system, not to mention one that is in some cases difficult to pronounce and in the most common cases just sounds stupid and invites ridicule.
For decades, it was understood that a kilobyte was 1024 bytes, with kilo having a slightly different meaning in the computing industry than elsewhere. "Gauge" as a measurement system still in common use around the world has different meanings depending on its application (wires based on the size of the hole from which they were drawn, shotguns based on the number of lead balls of the barrel's inside diameter were required to make up a pound, railways based on the distance between rails, steel the thickness of sheeting [borrowed, apparently, from wire gauge], and the amount of Plaster of Paris used in mixes to change dry rates). There's no reason, aside from a need to prove oneself to be "above" the common user, to make this kind of inane change.
No, that's where a handful of elitists are going. That "mebi/kibi" crap needs to go back to the hell that spawned it, and proves that engineers (apparently especially those that make up the IEC's governing body) should not be making up words, especially words like "exbibytes." Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
At best, you're being pedantic with this in attempting to defend the initial point. At worst, you're just trolling.
I just saw a commercial for Priceline with both Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in it (he's getting to look like irradiated Spock even without the make-up), so he's still doing something there. Not sure if the addition of Nimoy is a long-term thing, but the ad sort of suggested that he was sticking around.
Can even one story go by without someone dragging politics into it? I mean, I know this is Slashdot, home of the factless fanatic, but this is ridiculous.
When does Space Ghost make his guest appearance?
272391 KB / 1024 KB/MB = 266.01MB
Learn some math.
Does Microsoft post MD5 sums? I know that their they use PGP when sending out security bulletins, which I thought was a major step for them to use an outside product like that, but I don't think I've seen MD5 sums from them. They prefer to use Authenticode, IIRC.
Historical reference. There are patents today which refer to older patents, which refer to still older patents, etc. Sometimes it's interesting to trace the developments of current ideas from their initial inspirations.
I call NIMBY!
Also living in SoCal, I can add that enviros around the country consider the California desert their backyard. The Joshua tree and the desert tortoise are both endangered, and so building out there is really difficult.
Microsoft bought the Lindows name, so they'd be talking to themselves.
Dying vocalizations?
I put more effort than most people I know to ensure that I'm using proper grammar, and I try to encourage others to do the same, spoken and written. But your take that even though language evolves, this must be incorrect, is not a strong foundation. If this has been a perceived problem on the part of grammarians for 200 years, then I would tend to say that it's part of the language.
I don't accept alterations such as "*ould of" or your own mention of "intensive purposes" simply because they're often not only grammatically incorrect but logically incorrect. I get hit with the same suggestion that language evolves and I should let it go. Those kind of things aren't evolutions of language -- they're mutations, and should rightly be corrected. But this is a case where the language clearly flows better in some cases, and both spoken and written language has come to reflect it. More and more grammarians are coming to accept it, and eventually it will become a commonly accepted method, even amongst the most pedantic English professors.
The best use of a language comes where the idea behind the words is most clearly communicated. In some cases, the use of a split infinitive communicates things more clearly than proper grammar. Sometimes clarity comes from a smooth flow of the sound of the words. Taking the classic example of "to boldly go where no man has gone before" (I'm a TOS guy), altering the phrasing such that it begins with "to go boldly" doesn't carry the same impact or flow. In another case, in a phrase such as "that we may further inspire others," the use of 'further' clearly modifies inspire in an expansive way. One alternate way of phrasing it includes "that we further may inspire others," but this is ambiguous -- are we expanding inspiration, or are we adding to an existing point? Another form is "that we may inspire others further," which is somewhat more clear than the example immediately prior, but seems (at least to me) to carry a bit less impact than the original form, and doesn't flow as smoothly.
The debate continues, but I believe that, as time goes by and most probably sooner than later, the decision will come down from on high that the split infinitive is, at least in limited cases, perfectly legitimate and accepted. At that time, I will regale my grandchildren with tales of the Great Split Infinitive Debate that nearly started a world war. (Hey, I have to come up with something more interesting than "I built networks as a youngster.")
Split infinitives are fairly hotly debated (as such topics go) amongst the elite grammarians. I remember reading a few years ago that the usage that has been condemned for more than 200 years is now becoming acceptable. While I couldn't find that article specifically, the following excerpt covers the gist of it.
From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996:
The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought. Should we condemn compound infinitives, such as I want to go and have a look, simply because the infinitive have has no to next to it?
Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place.
Anyway, that's a digression. Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design based on an already-approved 600MW design through the US NRC. That's the only way to get the costs down to 4.5 cents per KWh, which is where it starts to get competitive for a one-off plant. Expansions of the plant to include more reactors, and multiple constructions of the same reactor design, will help to cut the costs further. The trick is to actually get construction started once the design is approved.
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit.
;) )
Sections 22349 and 22456 have to do with highway speeds and the maximums allowed (55, 60, 65, or 70, depending on surveys), and 22351 has to do both with driving on a highway at less than posted speeds and with enforcing and challenging prima facie speed limits on streets and alleys.
Summary: Black on white is the law. (However, black on yellow is a dare.
I have two incidents on my record: one from when I was 19, and one from when I was 25. When the new term came around following the three-year points from each accident, my rates went down automatically. The first time I had Allstate, and the second time I was (and am) with Progressive.
As for the companies adjusting their rates when accident rates change... Well, that's how insurance companies work. They're betting on odds established from a lot of very painstaking work going over a lot of very arcane facts. If they find that the accident rates rise for your group, the rates will go up because the odds say that you, as a member of that group, are more likely to be in an accident.
If someone has a problem with their rates, they should go to the state insurance commissioner (or equivalent). There is a usually a method of fighting unfair rates.
Notes isn't groupware. It's an excuse for homicide and suicide.
For DVD playback, that's a problem, but working on an article for several hours shouldn't be a problem for most laptops. I found my two-year-old Dell Latitude C840 still running with the fans full-bore three and a half hours after I accidentally put it in the case without completing a poweroff (I was leaving in a hurry). The thing was almost too hot to touch, and I only knew because I heard the low battery warning, but it still had 7% battery left on the original 66WHr/4480mAh battery.
This is the first I've heard of eGroupware. As far as such platforms go, are there any others (commercial or not) besides eGroupware, Exchange, GroupWise, Openexchange, and OpenGroupware? Have any serious comparisons been done across all of them?
Working with a clean installation is the hang point here. Clean installations aren't really the problem. The problem is the installation after you've got everything in place.
I'll admit that I have a bad habit of throwing things in that aren't strictly necessary, but are useful at random points. But I can track memory usage better than the average user. The best accelerator I've found is Ad-Aware. Most extreme example came last week, when a cleaning of the spyware took a customer's computer from about a five-minute total time to usability (power-on to access to Windows Explorer) to a little over a minute. Took three cleanings and reboots to get there, but it made it.
Shuffling the array off to another enclosure frees up your main power supply to keep your computer running, a point of growing importance. For something of this magnitude, it would be simpler in the long run to push as much off to the other case as possible, save for maybe a single drive kept in the local system for some reason, like external link failure.
Ideas like dark energy can be more accurately thought of as cloaks over unclear sections of our model of the universe. The idea is to slowly peel back the cloak from one direction or another as our understanding of the universe grows. Hopefully, at some point, the cloak will be removed entirely.
There's still the issue of track management. You need tight control over what's happening on the rails because of the required acceleration and deceleration times and distances required for normal trains. Having these capable of entering and exiting the rail system almost at will would create headaches for the rail traffic controllers. That's not to say it can't be done, but it would be a helluva lot of work to do it right.
Some of my dad's friends were in Vietnam, and this kind of thing actually did happen from time to time. In the occasional extremely long firefight, soldiers would drop down into bunkers, foxholes, or just behind cover and grab a swig from the canteen to remain hydrated or a bite of a chocolate bar to keep the energy levels above zero. Usually this was done when they knew that gunships or other air support was about to open fire and they knew they could have a minute or so of downtime -- one fewer flash on the ground was one fewer chance to be misidentified and targeted by choppers, and one fewer soldier with his head up to shoot was one fewer soldier that could be hit by a rocket fragment or odd ricochet.
True, they didn't exactly feast, and this kind of thing didn't happen often, but sometimes they could get half a ration down when they really needed it.
You forgot the ultimate words:
"...from Time-Life Books..."