Unfortunately, other people that I have to work with did not approve.
I've tried as well. The highly fragmented sleep posed a serious detriment to my ability to function, and also the scheduling would be very conflicting with much of my daily activities. Even for moments of my life when I had next to nothing to do it would still cause issues.
The best way to perform it is with larger fragments of sleep, with 2 I've found (as well as discovered in research) as being the most expedient. This article here is especially intriguing to me, because it correlates with my previous research and personal experience on it. Two 3-hour sessions of sleep (I've found before and after work) are very refreshing, and even if my schedule does not allow 3 hours during that day, I can adjust to have a larger period at night and a shorter power nap during the day after work and it offers just as much. Given that from what I've learned from sleep psychology that the body performs a full sleep cycle in around 3 1/2 hours only to repeat it again during a standard period of 7-8 hours of sleep, I can see why this would be the more natural approach.
Correct. One is still using cells of a pig to create pig meat. Just because it's not extracted from an entire pig does it mean it's no longer classified as pig flesh.
I'm sorry, but I am well aware that there is plenty of music that is greatly enhanced given better sampling and other quality improvements. I can recall plenty of songs that I've initially heard from Youtube in poor quality samples but purchased later and heard instruments that I could not recognize in the lower-quality version, or instruments producing sounds that never ends up being experienced in the lower-quality version. Though there is in fact times where I want lower-sampled versions compared to their higher-quality alternatives. Prime examples are soundtracks from video games from past consoles (NES, SNES, Genesis). Adjusting the sampling rate has a drastic effect on the sound produced, and my preference stands on the weaker end. Regardless, quality plays a big role in the presentation of music, so don't act like it does not alter anything to a listener's perspective.
The quality of the track will most likely not make or break a music piece, but it does have the potential to improve or degrade the listening experience. Some individuals are passionate enough to try an achieve as much as they can to reduce anything that may otherwise impede on the presentation of the audio so they may garner as much audible bliss as they may receive from it. I agree some go to unnecessary extremes well beyond rational thought. But for the most part, the pursuit itself should not be judged negatively. As an example, I personally listen through a music piece several times, and I will often adjust my perception of it to enjoy it in a new venue. Sometimes I will focus on the lyrics; sometimes I will focus on the artistic prowess of the instrumentation; most often I want to simply indulge in the aesthetics of the audio. But the fact remains that either way I listen to it, I am enjoying it. Call me an audiophile in a derogatory sense, but my pursuit has always been to cherish and appreciate music and enjoy it to the best capacity I can.
That would be too obvious and I'm sure they have regulations that would stop that short. Instead, you will have people posting by purchasing larger ranges of pixels and upload various images/colors to construct a fitting representation of said genitalia.
I talked with the researchers involved with Folding@Home, and they told me that indeed, processing power is at least partly used to research Tau protein misfolding.
So, if you want to do something good for your future (since there is a good chance you'll be hit by Alzheimer's if you live long enough), I suggest contributing your CPU and graphics cards cycles to Folding@Home.
Can I instead use my graphics cards to mine bitcoins to fund said project?
There are plenty of individuals out there - including myself - that would go in a frenzy and would attempt to earn all the achievements, regardless if they're bad or not.
"We found em! Now let's just publicly release our information prior to the suspects being apprehended so that they can discover they've been found and cough up a small percentage of their illegally-garnered wealth to hide themselves from the officials and force the investigation to continue for years to come!"
But more to the point, I didn't see much about what might be NEW with this file system, only what's OLD and being discarded.
Mind you, some basic feature cleanup never hurt anyone. But if that's the case, why not NTFS2 instead of a marketing buzzword?
The article hints in various areas that they are restricted by maintaining a high level of compatibility. ReFS is merely a transitional FS from NTFS, and as an unfortunate result it carries some of that burden with being compliant to a high compatibility standard. Part of me thinks this may be the "Vista" of file systems (much of what caused Vista to be awful was due to extreme efforts to maintain compatibility), but I will be critically optimistic about it, given the changes it advertises.
On a side note, the original MSDN blog confuses me on a couple things, namely their statement on deduplication. While they say the ReFS itself does not natively incorporate deduplication, but - like NTFS - will permit 3rd-party support of it, why is it that people have found new FSCTL ops for it in the Win8 header files? Maybe they dropped it? Curious.
While I agree Symantec products are awful bloatware that infect many OEM and the PCs of other less educated souls, I do enjoy their malware analysis blog. Being someone who's studying reverse engineering, kernel debugging, and advanced PC troubleshooting (investigating BSODs, hangs, etc.), I enjoy reading about the dissection of malware and their approach in doing so. Indeed, there are many malware analysis blogs out there that offer the same, but I can't see how someone wouldn't appreciate more, regardless of whoever it is that's providing it.
While initially I figured deeming them "rogueware" would be nonsensical, I then realized their incapacity to perform their advertised functions makes it appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Phone 7 is peering through a window to watch the fight, eyes welling with tears.
Always wanted to try the Uberman http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/15/103358/720
Unfortunately, other people that I have to work with did not approve.
I've tried as well. The highly fragmented sleep posed a serious detriment to my ability to function, and also the scheduling would be very conflicting with much of my daily activities. Even for moments of my life when I had next to nothing to do it would still cause issues.
The best way to perform it is with larger fragments of sleep, with 2 I've found (as well as discovered in research) as being the most expedient. This article here is especially intriguing to me, because it correlates with my previous research and personal experience on it. Two 3-hour sessions of sleep (I've found before and after work) are very refreshing, and even if my schedule does not allow 3 hours during that day, I can adjust to have a larger period at night and a shorter power nap during the day after work and it offers just as much. Given that from what I've learned from sleep psychology that the body performs a full sleep cycle in around 3 1/2 hours only to repeat it again during a standard period of 7-8 hours of sleep, I can see why this would be the more natural approach.
The skeletons in your closet.
A 3rd-party entity finding you have said skeletons in said closet.
Which of these is the real problem?
I'd also like to know why handcuffs are a purchasing decision for when going to a carnival.
Remind me as to why them retaining my search history would be detrimental to me?
So you mean they'd just make a mutated catfish, tuna or soybean?
Correct. One is still using cells of a pig to create pig meat. Just because it's not extracted from an entire pig does it mean it's no longer classified as pig flesh.
Cars powered by fruit farts. Technology at its finest.
I'm sorry, but I am well aware that there is plenty of music that is greatly enhanced given better sampling and other quality improvements. I can recall plenty of songs that I've initially heard from Youtube in poor quality samples but purchased later and heard instruments that I could not recognize in the lower-quality version, or instruments producing sounds that never ends up being experienced in the lower-quality version. Though there is in fact times where I want lower-sampled versions compared to their higher-quality alternatives. Prime examples are soundtracks from video games from past consoles (NES, SNES, Genesis). Adjusting the sampling rate has a drastic effect on the sound produced, and my preference stands on the weaker end. Regardless, quality plays a big role in the presentation of music, so don't act like it does not alter anything to a listener's perspective.
The quality of the track will most likely not make or break a music piece, but it does have the potential to improve or degrade the listening experience. Some individuals are passionate enough to try an achieve as much as they can to reduce anything that may otherwise impede on the presentation of the audio so they may garner as much audible bliss as they may receive from it. I agree some go to unnecessary extremes well beyond rational thought. But for the most part, the pursuit itself should not be judged negatively. As an example, I personally listen through a music piece several times, and I will often adjust my perception of it to enjoy it in a new venue. Sometimes I will focus on the lyrics; sometimes I will focus on the artistic prowess of the instrumentation; most often I want to simply indulge in the aesthetics of the audio. But the fact remains that either way I listen to it, I am enjoying it. Call me an audiophile in a derogatory sense, but my pursuit has always been to cherish and appreciate music and enjoy it to the best capacity I can.
I know him most for a giant death ray entitled with his name.
Half of it is just going to be dicks.
That would be too obvious and I'm sure they have regulations that would stop that short. Instead, you will have people posting by purchasing larger ranges of pixels and upload various images/colors to construct a fitting representation of said genitalia.
link
An excuse to build my very own hobbit house!
I talked with the researchers involved with Folding@Home, and they told me that indeed, processing power is at least partly used to research Tau protein misfolding.
So, if you want to do something good for your future (since there is a good chance you'll be hit by Alzheimer's if you live long enough), I suggest contributing your CPU and graphics cards cycles to Folding@Home.
Can I instead use my graphics cards to mine bitcoins to fund said project?
There are plenty of individuals out there - including myself - that would go in a frenzy and would attempt to earn all the achievements, regardless if they're bad or not.
I think you're mixing up Spanish with Wingdings.
"We found em! Now let's just publicly release our information prior to the suspects being apprehended so that they can discover they've been found and cough up a small percentage of their illegally-garnered wealth to hide themselves from the officials and force the investigation to continue for years to come!"
The summary links to a blog commenting on the new public release. The most relevant blog is present on the MSDN here.
While Mary-Jo Foley's blog has a link to it, this saves the hassle of hopping a bit to get to the nitty gritty.
But more to the point, I didn't see much about what might be NEW with this file system, only what's OLD and being discarded.
Mind you, some basic feature cleanup never hurt anyone. But if that's the case, why not NTFS2 instead of a marketing buzzword?
The article hints in various areas that they are restricted by maintaining a high level of compatibility. ReFS is merely a transitional FS from NTFS, and as an unfortunate result it carries some of that burden with being compliant to a high compatibility standard. Part of me thinks this may be the "Vista" of file systems (much of what caused Vista to be awful was due to extreme efforts to maintain compatibility), but I will be critically optimistic about it, given the changes it advertises.
On a side note, the original MSDN blog confuses me on a couple things, namely their statement on deduplication. While they say the ReFS itself does not natively incorporate deduplication, but - like NTFS - will permit 3rd-party support of it, why is it that people have found new FSCTL ops for it in the Win8 header files? Maybe they dropped it? Curious.
While I agree Symantec products are awful bloatware that infect many OEM and the PCs of other less educated souls, I do enjoy their malware analysis blog. Being someone who's studying reverse engineering, kernel debugging, and advanced PC troubleshooting (investigating BSODs, hangs, etc.), I enjoy reading about the dissection of malware and their approach in doing so. Indeed, there are many malware analysis blogs out there that offer the same, but I can't see how someone wouldn't appreciate more, regardless of whoever it is that's providing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFiHaMdPPZE
I thought it was 'Gnomes Processing Underpants' and that we finally had that elusive missing step
1. Steal underpants 2. Process underpants 3. Profit
I knew Bitcoin mining smelled funny...
Finally. I think we've relied on hamsters-on-wheels for far too long.
While initially I figured deeming them "rogueware" would be nonsensical, I then realized their incapacity to perform their advertised functions makes it appropriate.
Hobby shop for stamp collectors.