I don't know about that, I will have to wait until they select me, but I am guessing you don't need to buy Tide laundry detergent (or pods, or whatever) with the tide button. There was some indication that you select what each button does.
Which seems to not exist according to Google. Perhaps you mean the SM951? This is a mSATA card that runs over PCIe, not a desktop computer card that runs over a PCIe slot. They are completely different things. Look at the size of the Intel card, it is a full daughter board with many large flash chips. The Samsung has like 3 chips on it. I would expect this would be a much lesser part that isn't designed for enterprise level loads like the Intel card is designed for.
Apple is using Samsung for mSATA, not PCIe
Guess which PCIe 3.0 x4 drive the PCIe SSDs in the 2015 mbp and mb are based on.
Which is why only quoting a portion of the sentence is silly. I said they are electrically similar, however, they are physically very different.
and theirs doesn't push near the speed of this product as this one pushes 2.4GByte/sec read and 1.2GB/s write.
Yeah, it's not like a 512GB SM915 manages to outperform a 1.2TB 750 for real world I/O traces. Oh.
Interesting, as the response time was faster for the Intel, not the Samsung, and the performance figures were less than half, I wonder if maybe AnandTech had their card misconfigured. The Samsungs on the test (of which one was slower and one was marginally faster) were both in AHCI mode, whereas the Intel was in NVMe mode, which according to the spec sheet isn't correct for the Intel (should also be in AHCI mode). Perhaps they had an old bios that doesn't support this card yet, or were in some other way messing up the test. SSDs don't magically perform at half speed, something has to be done to cause it to happen.
The specs mention Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 as well as a UEFI version of 2.3.1 or later. No mention of Linux support, so I guess I won't get this for my ESX box:(
Does Samsung even have a competing product? Also, your price and size make no sense as the article is about a 400Gb and 1.2TB model at around $1/GB (a little less than, but not much) The Samsung model you mention is also a SATA drive, not a PCIe drive, and most likely would not be able to put up the numbers these drives can push. Apple is using Samsung for mSATA, not PCIe (though there isn't a terrible lot different electrically..), and theirs doesn't push near the speed of this product as this one pushes 2.4GByte/sec read and 1.2GB/s write.
Funny, the specs say 70GB/Day, that is significantly different. This appears at the bottom of the linked HotHardware article on the right hand column of the spec sheet, and it is for the 1.2 TB model.
This is China we are talking about. They just ask Baidu to give them a copy of the SSL cert. I administer devices that are 1U and can act as a MITM at 10Gbit speeds, they are called load balancers. How hard would it be to reprogram a load balancer to also insert a script? Not very.
Frankly, it would be just as easy to make Baidu serve up the script for them, or even hack the Baidu servers to add the "malicious" script themselves. This is a government, they have the power.
How will HTTPS help in this situation? The Great Firewall could just as easily act as a MITM attack and still do the exact same attack? Are we even sure it was the firewall and not Baidu themselves?
The spirit of the forefathers would have all women not having the vote (as all MEN were created equal), and only the wealthy land owners having a vote (which is who the vote was originally allowed for).
Than go somewhere else. This happens every freaking year, and there are always people bitching and moaning about it. If you don't enjoy April Fools day, than you need to go elsewhere. April Fools day is a huge geek holiday, just like March 14, or May 4.
Obama the Nobel Peace prize winner bombed 7 different mostly Muslim countries. Bush the war mongering Republican bombed 4 (which are also in Obama's list).
Much the same can be said of Clinton, he was involved in many offensive actions, though no declared wars (YES, Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars, congress passed resolutions declaring both wars). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
So, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, at least in the last 20 years. Trying to pin all the war mongering on the Republicans makes you look ignorant.
By definition, the courts are constitutional. Get off your high horse and think about what you said. The supreme court rules what is and isn't constitutional. They CANNOT be found unconstitutional.
Thank you for that post. You summed up more information than I had seen on the subject. I had just assumed when reading the/. article that GreatFire was just a reference to the source of the attack, I had never heard of the software.
I wonder if GreatFire has a donation link...Googling does not answer this question for me though.
I am saying the state just needs to hand out the certificates and let the church decide if they will marry a specific couple.
Already the Catholic church will not marry a couple that is not intending to have children, gay straight old young, it doesn't matter. The children are required for the marriage. So post menopausal women aren't allowed to marry in the catholic church (though this may have changed in the 12 years since I got married). The church is defining the rules under which they will perform a ceremony. I also don't have a problem with the Methodist church defining marriage as between you, your brother, your mother, your boyfriend (all assuming you are a guy...), it bothers me none. I also don't have a problem with the church of latter day saints allowing polygamy. It should be legal as long as all parties involved agree to it (the existing wife should also approve of the new wife, just as the new wife has to approve).
That is the same as I was saying stated another way. The state shouldn't tell any church the definition of marriage. The state should hand over the marriage certificate, the person presiding (and witnesses) signs, and boom you are married. It shouldn't be the state telling the church that they have to marry this couple or be sued...which is where it is heading with the anti religion crowd as the outcry against this Indiana law shows.
The requirement is to keep Official Records. Those are transferred to the national archives. They are the ones who release items that are no longer classified. The paper records were for years maintained. When scanning became possible, the archives started digitizing everything. When digital methods came around of generating records, digital records were expected to be maintained and transferred just like the old paper ones.
Obviously the old laws didn't cover email specifically, but they covered records, of which email was a record when it started to be used for the purpose.
Last I checked the First Amendment was passed in 1791 and stated that the state was forbidden from "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". This law that is being discussed in TFA is talking about that, and I was bringing up another side to it. I am saying the state shouldn't be determining what marriage is because it is a religious ceremony. It should be each religion's choice whether they will marry a gay couple, not the state's choice. The recent outcry over this Indiana law highlights that it is just a matter of time before anti religion people try to take that power next, and forget that this country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
If the Methodists want to marry gay people, more power to them, it doesn't effect me in any way. If the state tells all religions that they are required to marry any couple no matter what sexes they are, that is wrong and against the first amendment.
"The state should not define what the church does" ?
I am saying that the state redefining marriage is wrong as it is a religious ceremony, and as TFA is talking about, it is just a matter of time before the hate filled anti religion bigots decide that they need to tell the church that they will have to marry gay people even though it is wrong in their eyes.
But I'm the hate filled bigot trying to say that religion should be able to choose, and if the Methodists want to allow gay marriage, more power to them, but the state is FORBIDDEN from doing so by the first amendment, and now the state is going against the first amendment and telling people that their religious objections are meaningless, and that the state knows best.
You might want to work on reading comprehension as well. I have not a single time said anything hate filled. I haven't yet said that gay marriage is wrong, or shouldn't happen. I said it should be up to the church on if they want to preform a religious ceremony for someone who the religion itself says is sinning by even considering marriage. I am saying (as this law is trying to codify) that no one should be forced to photograph a gay wedding that makes them uncomfortable. That is called hostile workplace lawsuit. But there have been cases where a photographer was sued because they didn't want to participate. Is this right? NO.
If anyone is being intellectually lazy here, it is you. You have said not one thing in response to what I have said, you haven't made a point, you just state in a very lazy manner that I am a bigot without taking on any of the points I made.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that, I will have to wait until they select me, but I am guessing you don't need to buy Tide laundry detergent (or pods, or whatever) with the tide button. There was some indication that you select what each button does.
Waterproof tablet. It also has the bonus of some entertainment.
Does Samsung even have a competing product?
Yes. SM915.
Which seems to not exist according to Google. Perhaps you mean the SM951? This is a mSATA card that runs over PCIe, not a desktop computer card that runs over a PCIe slot. They are completely different things. Look at the size of the Intel card, it is a full daughter board with many large flash chips. The Samsung has like 3 chips on it. I would expect this would be a much lesser part that isn't designed for enterprise level loads like the Intel card is designed for.
Apple is using Samsung for mSATA, not PCIe
Guess which PCIe 3.0 x4 drive the PCIe SSDs in the 2015 mbp and mb are based on.
Which is why only quoting a portion of the sentence is silly. I said they are electrically similar, however, they are physically very different.
and theirs doesn't push near the speed of this product as this one pushes 2.4GByte/sec read and 1.2GB/s write.
Yeah, it's not like a 512GB SM915 manages to outperform a 1.2TB 750 for real world I/O traces.
Oh.
Interesting, as the response time was faster for the Intel, not the Samsung, and the performance figures were less than half, I wonder if maybe AnandTech had their card misconfigured. The Samsungs on the test (of which one was slower and one was marginally faster) were both in AHCI mode, whereas the Intel was in NVMe mode, which according to the spec sheet isn't correct for the Intel (should also be in AHCI mode). Perhaps they had an old bios that doesn't support this card yet, or were in some other way messing up the test. SSDs don't magically perform at half speed, something has to be done to cause it to happen.
Oh no! My electrolyte levels will drop, must order more Brawndo!
The specs mention Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 as well as a UEFI version of 2.3.1 or later. No mention of Linux support, so I guess I won't get this for my ESX box :(
Does Samsung even have a competing product? Also, your price and size make no sense as the article is about a 400Gb and 1.2TB model at around $1/GB (a little less than, but not much) The Samsung model you mention is also a SATA drive, not a PCIe drive, and most likely would not be able to put up the numbers these drives can push. Apple is using Samsung for mSATA, not PCIe (though there isn't a terrible lot different electrically..), and theirs doesn't push near the speed of this product as this one pushes 2.4GByte/sec read and 1.2GB/s write.
Funny, the specs say 70GB/Day, that is significantly different. This appears at the bottom of the linked HotHardware article on the right hand column of the spec sheet, and it is for the 1.2 TB model.
This is China we are talking about. They just ask Baidu to give them a copy of the SSL cert. I administer devices that are 1U and can act as a MITM at 10Gbit speeds, they are called load balancers. How hard would it be to reprogram a load balancer to also insert a script? Not very.
Frankly, it would be just as easy to make Baidu serve up the script for them, or even hack the Baidu servers to add the "malicious" script themselves. This is a government, they have the power.
How will HTTPS help in this situation? The Great Firewall could just as easily act as a MITM attack and still do the exact same attack? Are we even sure it was the firewall and not Baidu themselves?
Yup, and you're an AC.
The spirit of the forefathers would have all women not having the vote (as all MEN were created equal), and only the wealthy land owners having a vote (which is who the vote was originally allowed for).
Than go somewhere else. This happens every freaking year, and there are always people bitching and moaning about it. If you don't enjoy April Fools day, than you need to go elsewhere. April Fools day is a huge geek holiday, just like March 14, or May 4.
You thinking it is only the Republicans is kind of cute, but you really need to grow up.
http://www.poynter.org/news/me...
Obama the Nobel Peace prize winner bombed 7 different mostly Muslim countries.
Bush the war mongering Republican bombed 4 (which are also in Obama's list).
Much the same can be said of Clinton, he was involved in many offensive actions, though no declared wars (YES, Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars, congress passed resolutions declaring both wars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
So, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, at least in the last 20 years. Trying to pin all the war mongering on the Republicans makes you look ignorant.
Being a geek was ever cool? I would say that now it is the "in" thing, but I don't believe it was ever cool to be a geek.
Or downgraded depending on how you look at it. He was the one wearing the bag that said "I'm not famous anymore"
By definition, the courts are constitutional. Get off your high horse and think about what you said. The supreme court rules what is and isn't constitutional. They CANNOT be found unconstitutional.
Some states (New York I believe is one) actually seize your car, it is a law on the books.
If that was the case, it would be trivial to get the evidence thrown out.
Thank you for that post. You summed up more information than I had seen on the subject. I had just assumed when reading the /. article that GreatFire was just a reference to the source of the attack, I had never heard of the software.
I wonder if GreatFire has a donation link...Googling does not answer this question for me though.
No failure of logic or issue with homosexuals involved. I agree fully with the rest of your statement.
Why is poligamy against the law? Who was harmed?
Why is incest against the law? Who is harmed?
Why was homosexual marriage against the law? Who was harmed?
The state shouldn't be restricting marriage, they should be allowing whatever marriage a church will perform.
Better?
I am saying the state just needs to hand out the certificates and let the church decide if they will marry a specific couple.
Already the Catholic church will not marry a couple that is not intending to have children, gay straight old young, it doesn't matter. The children are required for the marriage. So post menopausal women aren't allowed to marry in the catholic church (though this may have changed in the 12 years since I got married). The church is defining the rules under which they will perform a ceremony. I also don't have a problem with the Methodist church defining marriage as between you, your brother, your mother, your boyfriend (all assuming you are a guy...), it bothers me none. I also don't have a problem with the church of latter day saints allowing polygamy. It should be legal as long as all parties involved agree to it (the existing wife should also approve of the new wife, just as the new wife has to approve).
That is the same as I was saying stated another way. The state shouldn't tell any church the definition of marriage. The state should hand over the marriage certificate, the person presiding (and witnesses) signs, and boom you are married. It shouldn't be the state telling the church that they have to marry this couple or be sued...which is where it is heading with the anti religion crowd as the outcry against this Indiana law shows.
The requirement is to keep Official Records. Those are transferred to the national archives. They are the ones who release items that are no longer classified. The paper records were for years maintained. When scanning became possible, the archives started digitizing everything. When digital methods came around of generating records, digital records were expected to be maintained and transferred just like the old paper ones.
Obviously the old laws didn't cover email specifically, but they covered records, of which email was a record when it started to be used for the purpose.
Last I checked the First Amendment was passed in 1791 and stated that the state was forbidden from "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". This law that is being discussed in TFA is talking about that, and I was bringing up another side to it. I am saying the state shouldn't be determining what marriage is because it is a religious ceremony. It should be each religion's choice whether they will marry a gay couple, not the state's choice. The recent outcry over this Indiana law highlights that it is just a matter of time before anti religion people try to take that power next, and forget that this country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
If the Methodists want to marry gay people, more power to them, it doesn't effect me in any way. If the state tells all religions that they are required to marry any couple no matter what sexes they are, that is wrong and against the first amendment.
Is it hate filled to say:
"The state should not define what the church does"
?
I am saying that the state redefining marriage is wrong as it is a religious ceremony, and as TFA is talking about, it is just a matter of time before the hate filled anti religion bigots decide that they need to tell the church that they will have to marry gay people even though it is wrong in their eyes.
But I'm the hate filled bigot trying to say that religion should be able to choose, and if the Methodists want to allow gay marriage, more power to them, but the state is FORBIDDEN from doing so by the first amendment, and now the state is going against the first amendment and telling people that their religious objections are meaningless, and that the state knows best.
You might want to work on reading comprehension as well. I have not a single time said anything hate filled. I haven't yet said that gay marriage is wrong, or shouldn't happen. I said it should be up to the church on if they want to preform a religious ceremony for someone who the religion itself says is sinning by even considering marriage. I am saying (as this law is trying to codify) that no one should be forced to photograph a gay wedding that makes them uncomfortable. That is called hostile workplace lawsuit. But there have been cases where a photographer was sued because they didn't want to participate. Is this right? NO.
If anyone is being intellectually lazy here, it is you. You have said not one thing in response to what I have said, you haven't made a point, you just state in a very lazy manner that I am a bigot without taking on any of the points I made.