The PCI-e cards aren't any more "custom" than the SATA drives.
You don't have to write driver software for all of the individual platforms you might support if you pick SATA. So, yes, in that sense SATA is less "custom" than the PCIe interface, because the PCIe approach requires quite literally so much more customization work.
Promises, promises. I like FusionIO, I have 8 of the cards. But they have been promising this fix in a few quarters since they released the cards, man.
Most everyone accepts that the phone book puts their name and address in the white pages, but most everyone does not expect to be personally singled out and harassed because of it.
If you think you can post even one name and address with a suggestion to rob them,... well, the mind staggers. Such an act could cost you YOUR HOUSE. It is both a) criminal harassment, and b) incitement. Since the act is a CRIME, it is actionable per se.
Since you already know it, and are obviously feeling brave, what I meant was conditionally. I'll happily send you the attorney letterhead explaining the matter to you, if and only if I am correct, if and only if you pay for it.
But really. Don't you think you should do some elementary legal research on your own. I HAVE-- hint hint.
That's like saying if you posted your address on the internet once and I posted a message saying "PLEASE KILL THE OWNER OF THIS HOME" that it's not harassment. Don't be silly.
I actually have an attorney. If there is some fashion whereby you can trustably prove to me the ability to remit to me the attorney hours for consult to determine what I already know to be true, go ahead.
As it is, if you think you are right, go ahead and start a web site like the quoted right here domestically in the U.S. Prepare for bankruptcy, and quite possibly JAIL.
Yes, because if I found your address and started a web site with your address prominently posted along with the request to "PLEASE KILL YOU," we know you would be okay with that, and think that having any legal recourse in such a case is just proof that we are a society of sissies.
This is not "making it easier to find information," as you said. This is a case of public invitation to do the aggregated parties harm. If you think you can get away with this under the banner of information aggregation, god help you. You will quickly finding yourself requiring civil litigation representation, and will be lucky if you don't encounter a criminal complaint.
This conversation is stupid. Don't believe me, ask someone who practices law.
Singling out a bunch of folks and posting about them at a place is not an action where the parties doing it need to think about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
You're pretty funny. This is a case of obvious harassment. I rather suspect the courts in YOUR country are likely to agree with me, your jingoism aside.
Would you really be willing to go in front of a judge to argue that the information that you posted for the entire world to see was relayed by this site to, well, the entire world?
You mean don't deliberately harass others and cause them emotional distress? Yeah, I'm with you on that. While there is plenty wrong with the American system, this isn't one of the broken parts.
In the US, you would certainly get damages from the emotional trauma of having yourself illuminated in this way. I'm surprised it is not like that in the Netherlands, as it is pretty clear to me that the unwilling targets of such a scheme are going to experience a great deal of emotional unrest. That's damage.
You wouldn't need an actual robbery here for this to be actionable. It's actionable in and of itself.
It's actionable in the US, even without the robbery. If my house were up there, and they were HQ'd in the US (they are not), I'd sue them immediately. This would be worth a good six figures.
Which country are they in? I can scarcely believe that encouraging people to rob a specific person's house isn't actionable in every first world country.
The "singular they" article clearly states that it indicates indeterminacy "either in regard to number, or, controversially, regarding gender."
Controversially over in the ivory towers where the old beards and ninnies haven't caught up with the speaking public? Perhaps. Meanwhile, the sea of humanity moves on. Not to worry, the next generation of beards and ninnies will catch up.:-P
By the way, you were pontificating yourself in your original post...
NOT. Follow the thread back a couple of posts. You'll see I was responding to someone else's "correction" (maybe, perhaps they were being deliberately funny) of a previous post of mine. I'll give you a get out of jail free card and pretend I believe you didn't know this. They were wrong to correct me, and my observation that this English parlance allows for this was a dead-center-of-the-bullseye correct one.
Slashdot is not the National Review; an attempt to "correct" perfectly legitimate idiom of the language is just prissy.
In sum, while almost all usage guides agree that the practice is common in colloquial English...
Which is to say, all of your guides acknowledge that this is the way that English speakers actually speak. The half hearted admission that it is "becoming" more common place is, in my opinion, pretty disconnected with the reality of it being entirely common place.
The irony of these style guides is that they historically came into existence primarily as a tool to train middle class workers how to sound like upper class. They have largely outgrown their utility.
These days, if you want to know what words to use, you might be better served asking a linguist instead of pointing a grammar nanny finger through a book written by a stodgy academe out of touch with the actually speakers of the language that he is pretending to be an authority of.
Did it hurt your head that I ended my sentence with a preposition? *chortle chortle*
While I shall assume you are attempting to be humorous, the parlance of the English language allows the use of "their" for the singular gender-neutral possessive.
IIRC, airline regulations require that a passenger be in THEIR seat. If you're sitting next to a morbidly obese person, and they annoy you, just ask them to stay in their space. If they cannot, and it bothers you a lot, call a stewardess and explain that you understand your rights, and wish her to enforce them. At this point, the person who cannot remain in their seat will either be assigned a new one or forced to deplane. If you're fat, and upset by this--suck it up. You did not pay for the space the other passenger is in. THEY did.
This is going to be quite hard for you to accept: your claim is overly strong.
Science hasn't discovered what you claim ("that you can't transmit information faster than light"). Rather, doing so is inconsistent with current theory, and every bit of empirical observation we have to date. These positions are very different. One position is close-minded. The other is not.
By the way, I have NOT seen Avatar (and have no real interest in doing so) so if my following scenario is in any way close to what they were doing in that movie -- I'm basing this on the trailers I've scene -- please no smartass comments to that point, thank you
Dude. This site is "news for nerds," and you just got de-qual'ed.
Slashdot Mirror
The PCI-e cards aren't any more "custom" than the SATA drives.
You don't have to write driver software for all of the individual platforms you might support if you pick SATA. So, yes, in that sense SATA is less "custom" than the PCIe interface, because the PCIe approach requires quite literally so much more customization work.
C//
Promises, promises. I like FusionIO, I have 8 of the cards. But they have been promising this fix in a few quarters since they released the cards, man.
C//
Maybe you were testing table insertions in SQLer plus?
Most everyone accepts that the phone book puts their name and address in the white pages, but most everyone does not expect to be personally singled out and harassed because of it.
C//
"Please Rob Me" is not a good introduction to your manner of discussing the matter, don't you think?
C//
If you think you can post even one name and address with a suggestion to rob them, ... well, the mind staggers. Such an act could cost you YOUR HOUSE. It is both a) criminal harassment, and b) incitement. Since the act is a CRIME, it is actionable per se.
Since you already know it, and are obviously feeling brave, what I meant was conditionally. I'll happily send you the attorney letterhead explaining the matter to you, if and only if I am correct, if and only if you pay for it.
But really. Don't you think you should do some elementary legal research on your own. I HAVE-- hint hint.
C//
That's like saying if you posted your address on the internet once and I posted a message saying "PLEASE KILL THE OWNER OF THIS HOME" that it's not harassment. Don't be silly.
I actually have an attorney. If there is some fashion whereby you can trustably prove to me the ability to remit to me the attorney hours for consult to determine what I already know to be true, go ahead.
As it is, if you think you are right, go ahead and start a web site like the quoted right here domestically in the U.S. Prepare for bankruptcy, and quite possibly JAIL.
C//
Yes, because if I found your address and started a web site with your address prominently posted along with the request to "PLEASE KILL YOU," we know you would be okay with that, and think that having any legal recourse in such a case is just proof that we are a society of sissies.
*chortle*
C//
This is not "making it easier to find information," as you said. This is a case of public invitation to do the aggregated parties harm. If you think you can get away with this under the banner of information aggregation, god help you. You will quickly finding yourself requiring civil litigation representation, and will be lucky if you don't encounter a criminal complaint.
This conversation is stupid. Don't believe me, ask someone who practices law.
C//
I hope you don't act on your beliefs in a fashion similar to the website in question. You'll be requiring an attorney quickly.
Hint: I am not wrong.
C//
Singling out a bunch of folks and posting about them at a place is not an action where the parties doing it need to think about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
You're pretty funny. This is a case of obvious harassment. I rather suspect the courts in YOUR country are likely to agree with me, your jingoism aside.
C//
Would you really be willing to go in front of a judge to argue that the information that you posted for the entire world to see was relayed by this site to, well, the entire world?
Yes. The case is a slam dunk.
C//
You mean don't deliberately harass others and cause them emotional distress? Yeah, I'm with you on that. While there is plenty wrong with the American system, this isn't one of the broken parts.
C//
In the US, you would certainly get damages from the emotional trauma of having yourself illuminated in this way. I'm surprised it is not like that in the Netherlands, as it is pretty clear to me that the unwilling targets of such a scheme are going to experience a great deal of emotional unrest. That's damage.
You wouldn't need an actual robbery here for this to be actionable. It's actionable in and of itself.
C//
I know you're just kidding, but did you know that's illegal?
It's actionable in the US, even without the robbery. If my house were up there, and they were HQ'd in the US (they are not), I'd sue them immediately. This would be worth a good six figures.
Which country are they in? I can scarcely believe that encouraging people to rob a specific person's house isn't actionable in every first world country.
The "singular they" article clearly states that it indicates indeterminacy "either in regard to number, or, controversially, regarding gender."
Controversially over in the ivory towers where the old beards and ninnies haven't caught up with the speaking public? Perhaps. Meanwhile, the sea of humanity moves on. Not to worry, the next generation of beards and ninnies will catch up. :-P
By the way, you were pontificating yourself in your original post...
NOT. Follow the thread back a couple of posts. You'll see I was responding to someone else's "correction" (maybe, perhaps they were being deliberately funny) of a previous post of mine. I'll give you a get out of jail free card and pretend I believe you didn't know this. They were wrong to correct me, and my observation that this English parlance allows for this was a dead-center-of-the-bullseye correct one.
Slashdot is not the National Review; an attempt to "correct" perfectly legitimate idiom of the language is just prissy.
C//
In sum, while almost all usage guides agree that the practice is common in colloquial English...
Which is to say, all of your guides acknowledge that this is the way that English speakers actually speak. The half hearted admission that it is "becoming" more common place is, in my opinion, pretty disconnected with the reality of it being entirely common place.
The irony of these style guides is that they historically came into existence primarily as a tool to train middle class workers how to sound like upper class. They have largely outgrown their utility.
These days, if you want to know what words to use, you might be better served asking a linguist instead of pointing a grammar nanny finger through a book written by a stodgy academe out of touch with the actually speakers of the language that he is pretending to be an authority of.
Did it hurt your head that I ended my sentence with a preposition? *chortle chortle*
C//
While I shall assume you are attempting to be humorous, the parlance of the English language allows the use of "their" for the singular gender-neutral possessive.
IIRC, airline regulations require that a passenger be in THEIR seat. If you're sitting next to a morbidly obese person, and they annoy you, just ask them to stay in their space. If they cannot, and it bothers you a lot, call a stewardess and explain that you understand your rights, and wish her to enforce them. At this point, the person who cannot remain in their seat will either be assigned a new one or forced to deplane. If you're fat, and upset by this--suck it up. You did not pay for the space the other passenger is in. THEY did.
C//
This is going to be quite hard for you to accept: your claim is overly strong.
Science hasn't discovered what you claim ("that you can't transmit information faster than light"). Rather, doing so is inconsistent with current theory, and every bit of empirical observation we have to date. These positions are very different. One position is close-minded. The other is not.
C//
By the way, I have NOT seen Avatar (and have no real interest in doing so) so if my following scenario is in any way close to what they were doing in that movie -- I'm basing this on the trailers I've scene -- please no smartass comments to that point, thank you
Dude. This site is "news for nerds," and you just got de-qual'ed.
Mod -Infinity, Not a Nerd, Banned from Slashdot