I certainly wouldn't object to receiving one email from each candidate stating their stances on important issues and why I should vote for them.
This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.
And this is the key. I actually trust both Windows and Linux reasonably well. I don't necessarily not trust coLinux either. But this is definitely a very dangerous piece of software so I'd give it a little bit of time to ensure that it is indeed safe.
Why this does seem quite cool I want to offer a warning before you go and install this on your non-backed up mission critical server.
Many projects have attempted to achieve this goal. It's taken quite a bit of time so far. This project has taken a short cut though by simply letting the Windows kernel and Linux kernel run side-by-side in kernel mode. Traditional approaches don't allow this.
That's because if anything goes wrong in the Windows kernel, you risk trashing your Linux kernel the same applies for the Linux kernel trashing the Windows kernel.
Before you go and so Linux never crashes or Windows never crashes, what you're relying on is that this particular project has enough of an understanding of both kernels that they can cover every circumstance where there would be a negative interaction.
I'm not saying this can't work, I'm just saying I'd be very careful about running it on anything I cared about.
"White people are the victims when Affirmative action programs Hire those For race reasons only. White people Have no place to run to when illegals take over USA"
"The Jews promoted the WAR on Iraq. The Jews are the only ones plus Halliburton Dick Cheney's Co that profited from the War in Iraq."
"AIDS has spread because of stupid Catholic and right wing Nuts being allowed to much say about what causes AIDS"
All via Project Vote Smart. While I'm all about supporting the little guy, I'd be careful about what you're saying giving him your money...
Where's the uneducated under-dog who isn't a racist and bigot?
As some have mentioned, Sametime is an enterprise IM client specifically designed for corporations. Among some of the nice features it supports are encrypted messages (as in all messages are encrypted by default) and typing notification (it's had this long before it became popular in AIM clients).
I'm not sure what kind of clients are available publicly but all of IBM uses it quite effectively.
It's always hard to just request donations for a dollar sum as an open source project. I think they'd have much better luck requesting hosting/hardware donations. It's much easier for a corporation to donate hardware (they get to write off their cost retail even though the actual cost to them is far below that) than money.
When its just hosting needs, being able to massively farm out helps to. A lot of university groups look to help host a few different things. One group may not be able to satisfy all the needs but ten groups might.
Something certainly can not be bounded by a function of any degree where you allow the coefficients to be arbitrarily large.
Rather, O(n) describes the upper bound of a function. A bubblesort has an O(n) of n*n and rightly so an O(n) of n*n*n because they both are upper bounds.
O(n) has the unfortunate nature to be described both in a traditional sense O(n) = log n where O is a function of the variable n and in a more relaxed sense of O(n) which really is O(n) = n.
O(1) is more properly written as O(n) = 1. This means that for any value of n, the performance is always the same.
I've chosen to demonstrate that since the average number of processes on my machine is 84, then the performance of an O(1) algorithm can be as bad as an O(n) function where n=84.
What I was trying to establish is that since n is relatively high usually, that if you consider a scheduler that was O(log n), then on my desktop, the O(1) scheduler could afford to be 7 times worse in terms of scheduling a single process.
BTW: it also is important to note that any algorithm has an O(1) solution using a lookup table. In fact, this solution also has an extremely low constant factor. However, these solutions are not often practical because of other factors. Performance analysis is a complicated beast.
I'm just using this machine as a typical desktop (I've just got mozilla and gaim running at the moment) and I've got 84 processes. Remember, the scheduler works with any process, thread, or whatever.
So, even with a damn good O(log n) scheduler, an O(1) scheduler can afford to have a constant factor 7 times worse than a O(log n). So, I don't think this is much an issue here since n is usually pretty large.
well.. Xen is designed to run 100 VMs at once. I think limiting Savannah to 100 projects is a bit restrictive.
Using a chroot and only letting things run in that chroot'd environment as a lesser user is pretty much as good as long as we can avoid kernel holes. Of course, this was the original problem....
I could of course be wrong but I'm pretty sure there aren't 31-bit architectures. At least, these architectures are exceedingly rare if they do indeed exist.
What I believe this article is referring to is that some software may have been coded to use a bit in integers to store extra info. This seems like a pretty bad idea though as it would have all sorts of interesting effects on overflow and such. It would seem like it would only be useful to a very very very tiny portion of software since the overhead in using this method as a general purpose solution would be terribly difficult.
Sounds like it's just the story of yet another software bug...
I woke up early and felt completely refreshed and ready to go. I never felt like that after waking up, ever.
That's the danger of pills like this. It would be very easy to become addicted to something like this.
I simply want them for nights where I absolutely cannot fall asleep and lay awake for 2 hours on end.
There's been plenty of nights when I lay awake for 2 hours or so... usually it's because I'm stress about something or the like. Sometimes I'm just not tired or what's more common is that my sleep schedule is all screwed up.
I mean, that's what those pills are designed to do. Why even bother selling them then if the docs aren't gonna prescribe them?
No, it's not. Those pills are designed for people with chemical inbalances that prevent them from sleeping like a normal person. It takes a doctor to diagnose something like this.
It's like saying: "I'm tired, I should take some speed today because heck, why even bother selling it if I can't take it when I'm tired."
I've been lookin' at some of those sites lately because I would like some Ambien. I've had sleeping issues for years now and doctors are very reluctant to prescribe them to me because they're "too addictive", which is total BS.
Ok, for once a doctor is not prescribing something. He cites the main reason as it being too addictive.
They might be, but I don't have addictive personality. The best sleep I've had in my life has been while on those pills.
So you have "sleeping issues" and think that these pills are going to solve it. Because you had them before and now you need them to be able to live your life normally. Um, that's an addiction pal:-)
If you're not diagnosed with a sleeping disorder (and sleep problems are just a symptom of something else), then sleeping pills are not going to help you in the long term. If it's not stress/lifestyle/health, then go see a sleep specialist. Some sleep disorders are very very serious (read: life threatening).
This is why self-medicating is bad. If being able to buy these things online prevents you from going to see a specialist and inevitably leads to you not getting diagnosed with a serious illness then that would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Um, so, the Samba VFS modules (via Konquer and Nautilus) suck big time. That's why we have CIFS FS and SMB FS. They work very well. That's what you should use.
No, the Supreme Court still cannot create law. They simply interpret it. The Supreme Court can not simply say "x is legal because of this international law".
The UN can try to regulate things all they want. In the US at least, it's all but meaningless. Why?
Well, for the US to even recognize a UN ruling requires approval of the president and 2/3 of the House and Senate. Technically, UN rulings are considered treaties. Even when it's recognized, it still requires an act of Congress to enact some sort of legislation before anyone can be prosecuted.
The one thing our government does well is ensuring that we're the only ones making bonehead laws that are enforcable in this country.
Open Source software is largely driven, and will continue to succeeded, because of a hatred of Bill Gates.
This is so far from the truth it's not even funny. I don't know of a single Open Source developer that develops software based on some personal feelings toward anyone at Microsoft.
This is a misconception that really gets me because it inevitably leads to the "If you want X project to beat M$, you need to put feature Y in just like in the M$ product."
What people fail to understand is that I, and most Open Source developers I know, simply don't care about beating anyone. I'm just out to make good software that I'm proud of. That's it.
I remember an art teacher explaining to us way back in the day what these brown spots were for.
Apparently, they're signals to the projectionist that it's time to change the reel soon. They're definitely are in old movies (especially in long old movies).
Sometimes you see VHS's with the spots still in them. I must admit I haven't RTFA but I do believe there's a good chance someone's just over reacting.
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the Tranquil PC. This is perhaps the quietest and sexiest mini-itx based system and the starting price is ~$600 USD.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly wouldn't object to receiving one email from each candidate stating their stances on important issues and why I should vote for them.
This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.
And this is the key. I actually trust both Windows and Linux reasonably well. I don't necessarily not trust coLinux either. But this is definitely a very dangerous piece of software so I'd give it a little bit of time to ensure that it is indeed safe.
LKML == Linux Kernel Mailing List
This project is called Co-operative Linux or CoLinux for short.
Why this does seem quite cool I want to offer a warning before you go and install this on your non-backed up mission critical server.
Many projects have attempted to achieve this goal. It's taken quite a bit of time so far. This project has taken a short cut though by simply letting the Windows kernel and Linux kernel run side-by-side in kernel mode. Traditional approaches don't allow this.
That's because if anything goes wrong in the Windows kernel, you risk trashing your Linux kernel the same applies for the Linux kernel trashing the Windows kernel.
Before you go and so Linux never crashes or Windows never crashes, what you're relying on is that this particular project has enough of an understanding of both kernels that they can cover every circumstance where there would be a negative interaction.
I'm not saying this can't work, I'm just saying I'd be very careful about running it on anything I cared about.
Holy crap. Check out these quotes from him:
"White people are the victims when Affirmative action programs Hire those For race reasons only. White people Have no place to run to when illegals take over USA"
"The Jews promoted the WAR on Iraq. The Jews are the only ones plus Halliburton Dick Cheney's Co that profited from the War in Iraq."
"AIDS has spread because of stupid Catholic and right wing Nuts being allowed to much say about what causes AIDS"
All via Project Vote Smart. While I'm all about supporting the little guy, I'd be careful about what you're saying giving him your money...
Where's the uneducated under-dog who isn't a racist and bigot?
As some have mentioned, Sametime is an enterprise IM client specifically designed for corporations. Among some of the nice features it supports are encrypted messages (as in all messages are encrypted by default) and typing notification (it's had this long before it became popular in AIM clients).
I'm not sure what kind of clients are available publicly but all of IBM uses it quite effectively.
It's always hard to just request donations for a dollar sum as an open source project. I think they'd have much better luck requesting hosting/hardware donations. It's much easier for a corporation to donate hardware (they get to write off their cost retail even though the actual cost to them is far below that) than money.
When its just hosting needs, being able to massively farm out helps to. A lot of university groups look to help host a few different things. One group may not be able to satisfy all the needs but ten groups might.
Just my two cents...
Something certainly can not be bounded by a function of any degree where you allow the coefficients to be arbitrarily large.
Rather, O(n) describes the upper bound of a function. A bubblesort has an O(n) of n*n and rightly so an O(n) of n*n*n because they both are upper bounds.
O(n) has the unfortunate nature to be described both in a traditional sense O(n) = log n where O is a function of the variable n and in a more relaxed sense of O(n) which really is O(n) = n.
O(1) is more properly written as O(n) = 1. This means that for any value of n, the performance is always the same.
I've chosen to demonstrate that since the average number of processes on my machine is 84, then the performance of an O(1) algorithm can be as bad as an O(n) function where n=84.
What I was trying to establish is that since n is relatively high usually, that if you consider a scheduler that was O(log n), then on my desktop, the O(1) scheduler could afford to be 7 times worse in terms of scheduling a single process.
BTW: it also is important to note that any algorithm has an O(1) solution using a lookup table. In fact, this solution also has an extremely low constant factor. However, these solutions are not often practical because of other factors. Performance analysis is a complicated beast.
I'm just using this machine as a typical desktop (I've just got mozilla and gaim running at the moment) and I've got 84 processes. Remember, the scheduler works with any process, thread, or whatever.
O(1) = 1
O(log n) = 7
O(n) = 84
O(n log n) = 537
O(n*n) = 7056
So, even with a damn good O(log n) scheduler, an O(1) scheduler can afford to have a constant factor 7 times worse than a O(log n). So, I don't think this is much an issue here since n is usually pretty large.
well.. Xen is designed to run 100 VMs at once. I think limiting Savannah to 100 projects is a bit restrictive.
Using a chroot and only letting things run in that chroot'd environment as a lesser user is pretty much as good as long as we can avoid kernel holes. Of course, this was the original problem....
It's 31-bit addressable but it still does 32-bit arthimetic. Check out some of the other responses in this thread...
The IBM OS/390 and Z/OS operating systems, which run on most IBM mainframes, are both 31-bit.
They're actually 32-bit platforms but only are addressable by 31 bits. I believe they do arthimetic on 32 bits...
Do you have examples?
36 bit architectures are common. Of the mainframes I know of none are 31 bits...
I could of course be wrong but I'm pretty sure there aren't 31-bit architectures. At least, these architectures are exceedingly rare if they do indeed exist.
What I believe this article is referring to is that some software may have been coded to use a bit in integers to store extra info. This seems like a pretty bad idea though as it would have all sorts of interesting effects on overflow and such. It would seem like it would only be useful to a very very very tiny portion of software since the overhead in using this method as a general purpose solution would be terribly difficult.
Sounds like it's just the story of yet another software bug...
So you're using smbfs (it's not called Kernel-Samba) plus Samba 2.2.3a.
Both of those are very old and unmaintained. You should try out this setup with Samba 3.0 and cifsfs (available for 2.4 or 2.6).
If you still have this problem, submit a bug report to Samba.
Sorry, kept trying to post the proof of P = NP here but /. lameness filters won't let me.
;-)
Oh well, I'll leave the proof as an exercise for the reader...
I woke up early and felt completely refreshed and ready to go. I never felt like that after waking up, ever.
That's the danger of pills like this. It would be very easy to become addicted to something like this.
I simply want them for nights where I absolutely cannot fall asleep and lay awake for 2 hours on end.
There's been plenty of nights when I lay awake for 2 hours or so... usually it's because I'm stress about something or the like. Sometimes I'm just not tired or what's more common is that my sleep schedule is all screwed up.
I mean, that's what those pills are designed to do. Why even bother selling them then if the docs aren't gonna prescribe them?
No, it's not. Those pills are designed for people with chemical inbalances that prevent them from sleeping like a normal person. It takes a doctor to diagnose something like this.
It's like saying: "I'm tired, I should take some speed today because heck, why even bother selling it if I can't take it when I'm tired."
I've been lookin' at some of those sites lately because I would like some Ambien. I've had sleeping issues for years now and doctors are very reluctant to prescribe them to me because they're "too addictive", which is total BS.
:-)
Ok, for once a doctor is not prescribing something. He cites the main reason as it being too addictive.
They might be, but I don't have addictive personality. The best sleep I've had in my life has been while on those pills.
So you have "sleeping issues" and think that these pills are going to solve it. Because you had them before and now you need them to be able to live your life normally. Um, that's an addiction pal
If you're not diagnosed with a sleeping disorder (and sleep problems are just a symptom of something else), then sleeping pills are not going to help you in the long term. If it's not stress/lifestyle/health, then go see a sleep specialist. Some sleep disorders are very very serious (read: life threatening).
This is why self-medicating is bad. If being able to buy these things online prevents you from going to see a specialist and inevitably leads to you not getting diagnosed with a serious illness then that would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Check out SleepNet for more info.
Um, so, the Samba VFS modules (via Konquer and Nautilus) suck big time. That's why we have CIFS FS and SMB FS. They work very well. That's what you should use.
No, the Supreme Court still cannot create law. They simply interpret it. The Supreme Court can not simply say "x is legal because of this international law".
The UN can try to regulate things all they want. In the US at least, it's all but meaningless. Why?
Well, for the US to even recognize a UN ruling requires approval of the president and 2/3 of the House and Senate. Technically, UN rulings are considered treaties. Even when it's recognized, it still requires an act of Congress to enact some sort of legislation before anyone can be prosecuted.
The one thing our government does well is ensuring that we're the only ones making bonehead laws that are enforcable in this country.
Open Source software is largely driven, and will continue to succeeded, because of a hatred of Bill Gates.
This is so far from the truth it's not even funny. I don't know of a single Open Source developer that develops software based on some personal feelings toward anyone at Microsoft.
This is a misconception that really gets me because it inevitably leads to the "If you want X project to beat M$, you need to put feature Y in just like in the M$ product."
What people fail to understand is that I, and most Open Source developers I know, simply don't care about beating anyone. I'm just out to make good software that I'm proud of. That's it.
I remember an art teacher explaining to us way back in the day what these brown spots were for.
Apparently, they're signals to the projectionist that it's time to change the reel soon. They're definitely are in old movies (especially in long old movies).
Sometimes you see VHS's with the spots still in them. I must admit I haven't RTFA but I do believe there's a good chance someone's just over reacting.
All one needs to do to defeat these schemes is set up a relay host that spoofs the originating exchange.
STMP is inherently untrusted. You could simply claim that you don't accept relayed mail but wth, why even bother using STMP anymore if you do that..
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the Tranquil PC. This is perhaps the quietest and sexiest mini-itx based system and the starting price is ~$600 USD.