Funny I see this now -- all day today I have been receiving SPAM with "ADV:" in the subject line. I was wondering what this was about! I guess it is safe to set up my filter now.....
As an example, from a simple optimization point of view -- will a loosely cast language cast "My String" as an efficient static string, hoping that I will never try to change it, or as some sort of dynamic string (StringBuffer), which is inefficiently stored, but flexible for modification? If all of your code is in one file, the compiler can usually figure it out. But if you have multiple files that are compiled separately, and linked at a later stage, the compiler has to choose during compilation, and hope that some action in another module does not make it perform runtime conversions. I'd rather tell it EXACTLY what I plan to do with that string -- then I can make it dance the way I want to.
Also, it's statically typed. It's so.. annoying to have to typecast everything
Typecasting is a tool -- do you really trust the compiler to recognize exactly what you mean in every scenario, throughout your hundereds of thousands of lines of code? I don't want to have the compiler (or run-time environment, or interpreter, whatever) to "guess" at what I mean -- I want to tell it exactly what I mean.
<flame> Perhaps this is why huge applications are usually written in languages requiring typecasting, and the "looser" languages are usually relegated to simple task duty.</flame>:)
mmmm.....well, I would use the standard 8 data pins to select the device, then the 5 control pins to send actions to the selected device.
Although, it may make more sense to use the 5 control lines as select (limiting you to 32 devices), the 4 low data lines for "instructions", the 4 high data lines for output data, and the 4 input lines for input data.
Of course, then again, I am definitely spending way to many brain cycles on this.......
With a few extra chips (decoders), it would be awfully easy to control 2^8=256 devices. Note that I said "control", and not "drive". You will definitely need some external power to drive this....
Unfortunately, I have not found a lightweight distro which is "easy" to install. Gentoo is great, because it can be uber-optimized, but it is also tough to install. Redhat and Mandrake are easy to install, but are very heavy. I'd recommend checking out *BSD. FreeBSD 4.8 runs on pretty skimpy hardware. Throw something like fluxbox on there, and you are ready to go.
Price/Performance is only one factor in the TCO calculation. I prefer to look at Price/Work_Output. I know I'll start a war with these comments, but consider this:
First, the "Windows" part of "wintel": How much down time is caused by rebooting Windows? How much down time is caused by patching Windows? Is the cost of the Apple solution outweighed by the cost of downtime experienced by Windows users?
Second, there are other Intel-based OSs, like Linux and *BSD. These are excellent, top-notch OSs, however, it can be tough to convince management that they can rely on a vendorless OS. (Yeah, blah blah RedHat blah blah).
If I could convince my management to give up Exchange, then OS X would be a great solution for the default desktop config.
If we were all on the same STABLE OS, with a single vendor supporting our Hardware and OS, with the large selection of vendor-backed applications, our work output would go through the roof.
Generally, Domains should be used for geographically distinct locations. OUs should be used for logical subdivisions within the same geographical location.
However, if you need different password policies, you need your own domain.
I have often wondered why they do not do this, and then pass a law that all porn sites must be in.porn. This would make it easier to find porn for those who want to, and easier to avoid it for those that don't.
ALL primes will have to be of the form: 2n+1 (not divisible by 2) 3n+1, 3n+2 (not divisible by 3) 5n+1, 5n+2, 5n+3, 5n+4 (not divisible by 5) etc for all Pn+d , where P is prime, n is an integer, and d is an integer 1<=d<P
So, your theorem is correct, as all primes will have to fit the form ((2n+1) AND ((3n+1) OR (3n+2))), which can be written as ((6n+1) OR (6n-1)), but unfortunately, this does not help much.
It would be much more helpful to find an equation stating that all numbers of the single form (...) are prime, instead of all primes fit the form (...).
Hello, Bill? This is your old pal Satan -- what the earth is going on up there? It's frickin' freezing down here! Did you open up some code or something?.....
To answer your first question, physically visiting the switch to physically pull the cable takes a lot more time (especially at physically large universities) than telneting to the router to kill the MAC.
Unfortunately, this means you then take responsibility for maintaining all of these machines, which can mean a huge workload. A massive patch push across many different hardware/software combinations is asking for trouble anyway. Patch push works great if all of your machines are similar in configuration, though.
This is an EXCELLENT suggestion. I have done this many times. However, this really works best only if the aaplication only needs read access! Otherwise, the application's writes need to be referred to the writable master copy, which in this configuration, is unencrypted.
Also note: if you limit your LDAP replica to listening only on the loopback address, then it may not be able to receive updates from the master (unless your LDAP server has a separate replication daemon, i.e., slurpd).
In some circumstances, I would agree with you, however, most of the time I find myself burning the midnight oil because management decids to ignore the technical recommendations and have set unrealistic deadlines
Oops -- should be 206 University Members / 1 IT Staff and of course, our level of IT support for students is lower than the level provided for Faculty and Staff......
6,000+ Faculty, Staff 25,000+ Students 100-150+ Central IT Staff (plus a couple dozen "freelance" IT withing various departments).
150/(25000+6000) ~= 206 Employees / 1 IT Staff
IT provides groupware, Mainframe batch data processing, file services, workstation deployment and maintenance, helpdesk, custom apps (on Mainframe), HR+Payroll+Student systems, and much more!
If your client can run X, then this is already do-able. I run Lotus Notes under Wine, along with a few other windows apps. As long as Wine is configured to allow the Window Manager to manage Wine application windows ("Managed=yes" in ~/.wine/config), the application can be exported using standard X procedures (either ssh -x, or set DISPLAY, xhost, etc). So, I ssh -x into my "server" which has WINE and Lotus Notes from my FreeBSD box running XFree86-4, and export my Lotus Notes interface with no problems.
What does CodeWeavers offer that this setup does not?
Slashdot Mirror
Database independence is already there also, you don't need to choose from 4 wrapper layers like PHP has.
.... ?
You mean like JDBC, JNDI, JDO, EJB,
Believe it or not, as funny as my post may have been, I REALLY have been receiving spam today with "ADV:" in the subject.......
Funny I see this now -- all day today I have been receiving SPAM with "ADV:" in the subject line. I was wondering what this was about! I guess it is safe to set up my filter now.....
Reminds me of a certain SouthPark episode, involving a Trapper Keeper.......
... Children, there's some huge bulbous monstrosity heading for the classroom! ...
Mr Garrison:
Rosie O'Donnell: Hello, kids!
Maybe she went swimming and drown?
Cmdr Taco has a dog rectum fetish? If it is in a CNET article, copied & pasted to Slashdot, it MUST be true!
As an example, from a simple optimization point of view -- will a loosely cast language cast "My String" as an efficient static string, hoping that I will never try to change it, or as some sort of dynamic string (StringBuffer), which is inefficiently stored, but flexible for modification? If all of your code is in one file, the compiler can usually figure it out. But if you have multiple files that are compiled separately, and linked at a later stage, the compiler has to choose during compilation, and hope that some action in another module does not make it perform runtime conversions.
I'd rather tell it EXACTLY what I plan to do with that string -- then I can make it dance the way I want to.
Also, it's statically typed. It's so .. annoying to have to typecast everything
:)
Typecasting is a tool -- do you really trust the compiler to recognize exactly what you mean in every scenario, throughout your hundereds of thousands of lines of code? I don't want to have the compiler (or run-time environment, or interpreter, whatever) to "guess" at what I mean -- I want to tell it exactly what I mean.
<flame> Perhaps this is why huge applications are usually written in languages requiring typecasting, and the "looser" languages are usually relegated to simple task duty.</flame>
mmmm.....well, I would use the standard 8 data pins to select the device, then the 5 control pins to send actions to the selected device.
Although, it may make more sense to use the 5 control lines as select (limiting you to 32 devices), the 4 low data lines for "instructions", the 4 high data lines for output data, and the 4 input lines for input data.
Of course, then again, I am definitely spending way to many brain cycles on this.......
With a few extra chips (decoders), it would be awfully easy to control 2^8=256 devices. Note that I said "control", and not "drive". You will definitely need some external power to drive this....
Unfortunately, I have not found a lightweight distro which is "easy" to install. Gentoo is great, because it can be uber-optimized, but it is also tough to install. Redhat and Mandrake are easy to install, but are very heavy.
I'd recommend checking out *BSD. FreeBSD 4.8 runs on pretty skimpy hardware. Throw something like fluxbox on there, and you are ready to go.
Price/Performance is only one factor in the TCO calculation. I prefer to look at Price/Work_Output. I know I'll start a war with these comments, but consider this:
.. I'm ready for the flames now :)
First, the "Windows" part of "wintel":
How much down time is caused by rebooting Windows?
How much down time is caused by patching Windows?
Is the cost of the Apple solution outweighed by the cost of downtime experienced by Windows users?
Second, there are other Intel-based OSs, like Linux and *BSD. These are excellent, top-notch OSs, however, it can be tough to convince management that they can rely on a vendorless OS. (Yeah, blah blah RedHat blah blah).
If I could convince my management to give up Exchange, then OS X would be a great solution for the default desktop config.
If we were all on the same STABLE OS, with a single vendor supporting our Hardware and OS, with the large selection of vendor-backed applications, our work output would go through the roof.
Ok
Generally, Domains should be used for geographically distinct locations. OUs should be used for logical subdivisions within the same geographical location.
However, if you need different password policies, you need your own domain.
Why is VNC out of the question?
I have often wondered why they do not do this, and then pass a law that all porn sites must be in .porn. This would make it easier to find porn for those who want to, and easier to avoid it for those that don't.
Can anyone tell me what is meant on page 14 of the slideshow by:
"MS the default format"
mmm....beer......
ALL primes will have to be of the form:
2n+1 (not divisible by 2)
3n+1, 3n+2 (not divisible by 3)
5n+1, 5n+2, 5n+3, 5n+4 (not divisible by 5)
etc for all Pn+d , where P is prime, n is an integer, and d is an integer 1<=d<P
So, your theorem is correct, as all primes will have to fit the form ((2n+1) AND ((3n+1) OR (3n+2))), which can be written as ((6n+1) OR (6n-1)), but unfortunately, this does not help much.
It would be much more helpful to find an equation stating that all numbers of the single form (...) are prime, instead of all primes fit the form (...).
Hello, Bill? This is your old pal Satan -- what the earth is going on up there? It's frickin' freezing down here! Did you open up some code or something? .....
To answer your first question, physically visiting the switch to physically pull the cable takes a lot more time (especially at physically large universities) than telneting to the router to kill the MAC.
Unfortunately, this means you then take responsibility for maintaining all of these machines, which can mean a huge workload. A massive patch push across many different hardware/software combinations is asking for trouble anyway.
Patch push works great if all of your machines are similar in configuration, though.
This is an EXCELLENT suggestion. I have done this many times. However, this really works best only if the aaplication only needs read access! Otherwise, the application's writes need to be referred to the writable master copy, which in this configuration, is unencrypted.
Also note: if you limit your LDAP replica to listening only on the loopback address, then it may not be able to receive updates from the master (unless your LDAP server has a separate replication daemon, i.e., slurpd).
In some circumstances, I would agree with you, however, most of the time I find myself burning the midnight oil because management decids to ignore the technical recommendations and have set unrealistic deadlines
Oops -- should be 206 University Members / 1 IT Staff
and of course, our level of IT support for students is lower than the level provided for Faculty and Staff......
Large University in New England:
6,000+ Faculty, Staff
25,000+ Students
100-150+ Central IT Staff (plus a couple dozen "freelance" IT withing various departments).
150/(25000+6000) ~= 206 Employees / 1 IT Staff
IT provides groupware, Mainframe batch data processing, file services, workstation deployment and maintenance, helpdesk, custom apps (on Mainframe), HR+Payroll+Student systems, and much more!
If your client can run X, then this is already do-able. I run Lotus Notes under Wine, along with a few other windows apps. As long as Wine is configured to allow the Window Manager to manage Wine application windows ("Managed=yes" in ~/.wine/config), the application can be exported using standard X procedures (either ssh -x, or set DISPLAY, xhost, etc).
So, I ssh -x into my "server" which has WINE and Lotus Notes from my FreeBSD box running XFree86-4, and export my Lotus Notes interface with no problems.
What does CodeWeavers offer that this setup does not?