First off you bottleneck on the SATA portion of the chip-set at 6Gbps. The SATA over nvme m.2 operated by bridging the SATA controller data stream over a pci-e link. Secondly nvme is is an entirely different block layer, which the kernel expect to be directed to the drive controller. A controller in the middle is going to double latency and minimum and would have to redesigned for the different protocol. Possible but still I ask why?
Why? what the heck is the use case? Dedicated hardware that can to it case enough is going to expensive, complicate the platform, and destory some of the advantages of nvme (few abstraction layers, nvme). The man reason for nvme in hardware raid 0 is as a large scratch disk cheaper than RAM, but a lot faster than thrashing to disk. Raid 1 lets you keep a server running after a disk fails until the maintenance window. and you can bring it down to place in a new disk. However you I don't think a lot of admins are going to be keep to hot swap nvme devices (especially m.2 ones where dropping a screw can short the motherboard) to rebuild the array. Might as well have the data somewhere else and go 0 or 10. Honestly if you need more than 4 nvme drives, you should be looking at specially pci-e x16 or fiber attach hardware.
Both form factors suck. Admit that thunderbolt isn't quite right for the professional, and introduce an ATX and micro-ATX form factor alongside the mini, with Xeon E5, E3, and pentium respectively.
Um, no. You're confusing the BSD and GNU versions of the command. I've found references of "route add default gw x.x.x.x " at least back to 2006. While the latest FreeBSD manual refers to your syntax.
Doesn't necessarily need to be and executable. A malicious word or flash document would probably work just fine in most cases. A large company is probably going to firewall SMB to unkown remote sites, but smaller companies certianly wouldn't.
Keven sharp's expertise is Renaissance and Early Modern Studies. And that law was titled " Act for the Advancement of True Religion" and was more properly considered a reaction against reformation that was stirring things up in other parts of Europe. Also that is still at least 43 years to late to be considered middle ages. It also put the same prohibition upon most men. There were certainly panics and reactionary measures against the changing role of women in the early modern period, but it wasn't a trait of the medieval period.
So, citing a Wikipedia section that cites 8 peer-reviewed studies is "Off the wall"? If that's your idea of "off the wall" you must be pretty boring at parties. Neuroticism is one of the big 5 human personality traits, as discussed in just about every "Pych 101" textbook that there is. And this mention is right after the diagram that disclaims "Populations have significant overlap". He's using it as a scientific, descriptive term and not as a pejorative.
It doesn't actually give any sources related to the middle ages. The example it gives is of Charlemagne, who legislated for the education of all catechumenates, but this was about church doctrine, not necessarily reading. He did also found monastic schools, collect and copy manuscripts, and encouraged education amoung court and government officials. And the timeline of the paragraph is all over the place. "as light and leisure time and printed religious indoctrination spread" points to late reinsurance or early industrial, as does the bit after the Charlemagne reference. Anyways even though complete literacy was rare, there were women that influence the intellectual development of the period. https://books.google.com/books...
Most women outside of the religious orders and high elites were to busy with children (being married at 15-17 was the norm) and caring for the household, and education was personal and expensive. It just didn't make much sense to educate daughters, unless you knew they were going to be a nun.
I'm not listening to a 30 min podcast that mentions nothing about the topic as hand in the summary. The closest thing is a mention of 18th century women, which is four centuries after the medieval period. Also this isn't a academic source by any means. My point being not educating, is not the same as a prohibition, especially given that most men couldn't read either.
Iran has fewer economic opportunities overall, leading Women that can do CS to more seriously consider it, with an increased effect from the public image. Also CS and engineering aren't from the average, they're drawing from the top 5-10%, which draws more heavily from men due to a higher standard deviation. You need to look at the distribution, and not just the averages to get the full story.
Source? It was certainly common for women of the religious orders to be literate. Otherwise education was rare and expensive and largely limited to the ruling class and merchants. Nonetheless most people of the time couldn't read, and if you didn't know Greek and Latin, there wasn't much material out there for you to read anyways.
Stereotypes come from somewhere. On average women are less capable, less inclined, and less willing to be engineers. That doesn't mean all women are the same, and that a particular women is a worse engineer than a particular man. He hypothesized that changing job roles, work flows, and hour requirements would work to attract more women to Google, and that women-only programs and favored hiring could be considered legally problematic while ignoring the needs of men.
" Is Conservativism now about asserting the inferiority of women?" If you read the paper you'd no the answer is no. Conservatives tend to view disparities as expected, natural, and just. Women on average are biologically and psychological different than men, as reflected across a broad range of cultures. Given that there are real differences, differences in outcomes are not prima facie evidence of discriminatory behavior.
Source? Have your read the paper? What paragraph specifically would give you reason to think he wouldn't fairly judge his female colleagues? Did the "demoralized women" actually read to paper to just react to the headlines and commentary which ignored the actual content of the paper?
As and outside observer and having read the paper, Google's reaction makes it clear the paper was right on the nose. I would many on the women weren't afraid of performance reviews, that was just the excuse they are using to mask a moralistic judgment against James Damore for daring to question exact gender equality, and this sacred cow is that of equal outcome. To support that idea of equality you need to either believe the genders are of equal ability, personality, and desires on average and standard deviation (provably false), or believe equality of opportunity (of which affirmative action is not) and the right to be judged as individual is somehow wrong or insufficient. Additionally, if James had actually ever treated women unfairly, I would expect every story and anecdote would have been out into the spotlight by SJW's, but I don't see that happening.
As you pointed out the subscription was not a mere purchase, but a contract that covered future releases, would could be seen as and inducement to re-offend. Some of the subscribers may subscribe for the competitive advantage of the secret sauce and would not have subscribed if not for the objectionable clause. It may not be a winner, but neither would I expect it to be dismissed before trial.
If the patch set were an original work you'd be correct. However the patch set is a derivative work of the kernel, and as such the grsecurity dudes are obligated not to put any additional terms upon copying, modifying, or distribution the software, whether that restriction is bundle in some service contract, or patent license.
"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."
There is no claim that customers directly infringed upon the kernel copyright or themselves breached the GPL. Only that they knew or should have Known grsecurities subscription agreement was contrary to the terms of the GPL and likely infringed on kernel copyright.
The subscription agreement they use is definitely against the spirit of the GPL, but could be within the letter if they were distributing a completely original work, for which they held all copyrights and had the correct sort of patent licenses to distribute code that way. But the question naturally arises why the hell wouldn't they just outright pick a restrictive license if they just outright held all rights to an original work and wanted to restrict redistribution.
The answer is that the lawyers at GrSecurity believe their patch set would likely be found to be a derivative work of the Linux kerne should the question arise in court. Additionally I speculate they may be taking advantage of patent license that are more liberal with OSS licensees. In fact in the legal complaint, GrSecurity does not counter or otherwise address Bruce's assertion that the patch set is a derived work of the Linux kernel.
On the grsecurity's home page, they describe their product as being primarily "an extensive security enhancement to the Linux kernel". This strengthens and reflects Bruce's claim that the grsecurity patch set is a derived work of the Linux kernel.
In the actual complaint, there's a lot of slime in paragraphs 14,18, and 19 are particularly flawed. The GPL does not merely cover the patches once distributed, but also the original distribution because they are a derived work of the Linux kernel and as such may only be distributed in compliance with the terms of the GPL or a compatible license. Thus Paragraph 14 is false. Paragraph 18 is also false in so far as future version will almost surely be derived from a GPLv2 licenses Linux and subject to GPL terms upon the first distribution.
While it's true the subscription agreement only sets out an explicit limit of future access, it's clearly and plainly designed to limit the actual and current exercise of rights granted under the the kernel's GPLv2 license. There is a conflation of simple "exercise" and "ability to exercise", which are not the same thing. They way it is written and the way that it is intended is that for works under the GPL, only the GPL may restrict copying, modification and redistribution.
Did you actually consult any engineering sources? Douglas fir is stronger, stiffer, harder, and provides more sheer resistance the redwood. If it was old growth redwood, the performance is even worse. http://workshopcompanion.com/K... Also 1920's with local materials would have required more specialized labor to build.
Lumber is usually cut in the mill while "green" and sold "kiln-dried". Wood shrinks, particularly in the cross section when it loses moisture. An additional amount is lost when rough boards are surfaced. You can still buy raw cuts, but nobody does so in quantity, because it's a pain to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
First off you bottleneck on the SATA portion of the chip-set at 6Gbps. The SATA over nvme m.2 operated by bridging the SATA controller data stream over a pci-e link. Secondly nvme is is an entirely different block layer, which the kernel expect to be directed to the drive controller. A controller in the middle is going to double latency and minimum and would have to redesigned for the different protocol. Possible but still I ask why?
Why? what the heck is the use case? Dedicated hardware that can to it case enough is going to expensive, complicate the platform, and destory some of the advantages of nvme (few abstraction layers, nvme). The man reason for nvme in hardware raid 0 is as a large scratch disk cheaper than RAM, but a lot faster than thrashing to disk. Raid 1 lets you keep a server running after a disk fails until the maintenance window. and you can bring it down to place in a new disk. However you I don't think a lot of admins are going to be keep to hot swap nvme devices (especially m.2 ones where dropping a screw can short the motherboard) to rebuild the array. Might as well have the data somewhere else and go 0 or 10. Honestly if you need more than 4 nvme drives, you should be looking at specially pci-e x16 or fiber attach hardware.
>Begin pedantic annoyance: If it's UEFI, it's technically not BIOS anymore.
Wasn't one of the big advantages of EFI that you could program a lot of the firmware in C? If you need a dissasembler to fix bugs, what's the point?
Both form factors suck. Admit that thunderbolt isn't quite right for the professional, and introduce an ATX and micro-ATX form factor alongside the mini, with Xeon E5, E3, and pentium respectively.
Ring.cx, and tox.chat look promising. IRC + mumble works pretty well for a lot of purposes.
Um, no. You're confusing the BSD and GNU versions of the command. I've found references of "route add default gw x.x.x.x " at least back to 2006. While the latest FreeBSD manual refers to your syntax.
Doesn't necessarily need to be and executable. A malicious word or flash document would probably work just fine in most cases. A large company is probably going to firewall SMB to unkown remote sites, but smaller companies certianly wouldn't.
Indeed,f It seems the number of people that know how to do stuff with thier hands is continually decreaseing.
Keven sharp's expertise is Renaissance and Early Modern Studies. And that law was titled " Act for the Advancement of True Religion" and was more properly considered a reaction against reformation that was stirring things up in other parts of Europe. Also that is still at least 43 years to late to be considered middle ages. It also put the same prohibition upon most men. There were certainly panics and reactionary measures against the changing role of women in the early modern period, but it wasn't a trait of the medieval period.
So, citing a Wikipedia section that cites 8 peer-reviewed studies is "Off the wall"? If that's your idea of "off the wall" you must be pretty boring at parties. Neuroticism is one of the big 5 human personality traits, as discussed in just about every "Pych 101" textbook that there is. And this mention is right after the diagram that disclaims "Populations have significant overlap". He's using it as a scientific, descriptive term and not as a pejorative.
It doesn't actually give any sources related to the middle ages. The example it gives is of Charlemagne, who legislated for the education of all catechumenates, but this was about church doctrine, not necessarily reading. He did also found monastic schools, collect and copy manuscripts, and encouraged education amoung court and government officials. And the timeline of the paragraph is all over the place. "as light and leisure time and printed religious indoctrination spread" points to late reinsurance or early industrial, as does the bit after the Charlemagne reference. Anyways even though complete literacy was rare, there were women that influence the intellectual development of the period. https://books.google.com/books...
Most women outside of the religious orders and high elites were to busy with children (being married at 15-17 was the norm) and caring for the household, and education was personal and expensive. It just didn't make much sense to educate daughters, unless you knew they were going to be a nun.
I'm not listening to a 30 min podcast that mentions nothing about the topic as hand in the summary. The closest thing is a mention of 18th century women, which is four centuries after the medieval period. Also this isn't a academic source by any means. My point being not educating, is not the same as a prohibition, especially given that most men couldn't read either.
Iran has fewer economic opportunities overall, leading Women that can do CS to more seriously consider it, with an increased effect from the public image. Also CS and engineering aren't from the average, they're drawing from the top 5-10%, which draws more heavily from men due to a higher standard deviation. You need to look at the distribution, and not just the averages to get the full story.
Source? It was certainly common for women of the religious orders to be literate. Otherwise education was rare and expensive and largely limited to the ruling class and merchants. Nonetheless most people of the time couldn't read, and if you didn't know Greek and Latin, there wasn't much material out there for you to read anyways.
Read the paper.
Stereotypes come from somewhere. On average women are less capable, less inclined, and less willing to be engineers. That doesn't mean all women are the same, and that a particular women is a worse engineer than a particular man. He hypothesized that changing job roles, work flows, and hour requirements would work to attract more women to Google, and that women-only programs and favored hiring could be considered legally problematic while ignoring the needs of men.
" Is Conservativism now about asserting the inferiority of women?" If you read the paper you'd no the answer is no. Conservatives tend to view disparities as expected, natural, and just. Women on average are biologically and psychological different than men, as reflected across a broad range of cultures. Given that there are real differences, differences in outcomes are not prima facie evidence of discriminatory behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cited Directly
http://www.professormarkvanvug... http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsse... Two of the papers cited in the Wikipedia Article.
This stuff is fairly well established. Don't be a science denier.
Source? Have your read the paper? What paragraph specifically would give you reason to think he wouldn't fairly judge his female colleagues? Did the "demoralized women" actually read to paper to just react to the headlines and commentary which ignored the actual content of the paper?
As and outside observer and having read the paper, Google's reaction makes it clear the paper was right on the nose. I would many on the women weren't afraid of performance reviews, that was just the excuse they are using to mask a moralistic judgment against James Damore for daring to question exact gender equality, and this sacred cow is that of equal outcome. To support that idea of equality you need to either believe the genders are of equal ability, personality, and desires on average and standard deviation (provably false), or believe equality of opportunity (of which affirmative action is not) and the right to be judged as individual is somehow wrong or insufficient. Additionally, if James had actually ever treated women unfairly, I would expect every story and anecdote would have been out into the spotlight by SJW's, but I don't see that happening.
As you pointed out the subscription was not a mere purchase, but a contract that covered future releases, would could be seen as and inducement to re-offend. Some of the subscribers may subscribe for the competitive advantage of the secret sauce and would not have subscribed if not for the objectionable clause. It may not be a winner, but neither would I expect it to be dismissed before trial.
If the patch set were an original work you'd be correct. However the patch set is a derivative work of the kernel, and as such the grsecurity dudes are obligated not to put any additional terms upon copying, modifying, or distribution the software, whether that restriction is bundle in some service contract, or patent license.
"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."
There is no claim that customers directly infringed upon the kernel copyright or themselves breached the GPL. Only that they knew or should have Known grsecurities subscription agreement was contrary to the terms of the GPL and likely infringed on kernel copyright.
And I don't Title this post just to flamebait.
The subscription agreement they use is definitely against the spirit of the GPL, but could be within the letter if they were distributing a completely original work, for which they held all copyrights and had the correct sort of patent licenses to distribute code that way. But the question naturally arises why the hell wouldn't they just outright pick a restrictive license if they just outright held all rights to an original work and wanted to restrict redistribution.
The answer is that the lawyers at GrSecurity believe their patch set would likely be found to be a derivative work of the Linux kerne should the question arise in court. Additionally I speculate they may be taking advantage of patent license that are more liberal with OSS licensees. In fact in the legal complaint, GrSecurity does not counter or otherwise address Bruce's assertion that the patch set is a derived work of the Linux kernel.
On the grsecurity's home page, they describe their product as being primarily "an extensive security enhancement to the Linux kernel". This strengthens and reflects Bruce's claim that the grsecurity patch set is a derived work of the Linux kernel.
In the actual complaint, there's a lot of slime in paragraphs 14,18, and 19 are particularly flawed. The GPL does not merely cover the patches once distributed, but also the original distribution because they are a derived work of the Linux kernel and as such may only be distributed in compliance with the terms of the GPL or a compatible license. Thus Paragraph 14 is false. Paragraph 18 is also false in so far as future version will almost surely be derived from a GPLv2 licenses Linux and subject to GPL terms upon the first distribution.
While it's true the subscription agreement only sets out an explicit limit of future access, it's clearly and plainly designed to limit the actual and current exercise of rights granted under the the kernel's GPLv2 license. There is a conflation of simple "exercise" and "ability to exercise", which are not the same thing. They way it is written and the way that it is intended is that for works under the GPL, only the GPL may restrict copying, modification and redistribution.
Did you actually consult any engineering sources? Douglas fir is stronger, stiffer, harder, and provides more sheer resistance the redwood. If it was old growth redwood, the performance is even worse. http://workshopcompanion.com/K... Also 1920's with local materials would have required more specialized labor to build.
Lumber is usually cut in the mill while "green" and sold "kiln-dried". Wood shrinks, particularly in the cross section when it loses moisture. An additional amount is lost when rough boards are surfaced. You can still buy raw cuts, but nobody does so in quantity, because it's a pain to work with.