I don't know. Why don't you take a few thousand really deep wiffs of it and let us know? Oh, yeh, you might have to take a few thousand really deep wiffs of bullshit to calibrate your bs detector as well. Have fun!
RAID is meant to increase throughput and reliability. Single drives did not have anywhere as much throughput as an array of drives on a good RAID controller. . But RAID controllers were designed expecting msec seek times, and SSDs have usec seek times. So RAID controllers need redesign for the faster seek times.
Actually, the Post office has a big problem, as they were selling stamps with the picture on it. No fair use rights there. The artist is in the right, unless the commission or contract he designed the memorial under said different. Rulings on sales of reproductions of artistic content have nothing to do with fair rights.
Another problem is the claim that there are vast numbers of eyes on every line of code. A baseless claim. What we need is for people who have done a code review to actually sign off that the did a code review. then we could start getting a feel for how many modules / projects actually have been reviewed, and by how many people. Also good would be what tools were run against the code, with results.
There are many assumptions in Linus statement, several hidden, and several just wrong. (I love linux). Code review works only if you have sufficient info, time, and training. So you need the supporting documentation for a piece of software to review it. The flow diagrams, what it is supposed to do, the design docs, the api docs, etc. Such docs could be released along with the code, or pointers to the docs. But currently that is not common practice.
Code review is a complex and painful task. So only people who have a lot of time on their hands, and strong motivation, take on reviewing others' code. Motivation currently tends to be either paid to do it, or a bug that is bugging you. Otherwise, you are unlikely to do code review. A larger number of reviewers does not automatically occur just because the code is available.
Also, most of the people with all the necessary skills, training, knowledge, and experience are actually busy writing or maintaining their own code, and do not have the free time, or insanity, to spend reviewing others' code.
Now we might actually have a chance of finding intelligent life in the universe! And if we can get them to come to Earth, we could even have intelligent life on Earth!
Um, if you are suggesting we relieve the pressure of the earth's core through a shaft, I think you are nuts. I know of movies about the earth splitting in half, releasing a new moon, etc, based on drilling such a shaft. Sounds like fun to me In reality, when we drill for oil, many times the drilling equipment is blown out of the hole by the pressure we hit. Warm oil is not very dangerous. Now if we hit pressurized molten rock, um, um, um, wait a minute, I am trying to picture that... Oh, yeh, we call that kind of thing a VOLCANO. You IDIOT!!!
Oh, sure. Big, fat, sweaty alien women are about as close to a real date as you're going to get, buddy. Better jump on that wagon before it leaves town.
Actually, hockey stars spend as much time as possible partying, picking up girls, carousing in bars, doing drugs, and drinking. I am certain of this, as I know one of the big hockey teams. So before becoming a big hockey star, if you spend a lot of time on the rink, you do get a pretty big payoff at success time. So let's see yu mock them now that you know the truth.
Part of MS registry problem is that they are single files. MS needs to have one for OS, one for MS apps, one for Standard apps, and one for legacy apps ( the current registry name works there). Changing to this separation would at least release most of the boot process from a corruption. Only having to revert to one part backup would keep life simpler. Having a transaction system for writing to registries would help roll back out of issues. Then there is the need to properly parse the registries.
For a moment there, I thought you were speaking lightly of Leeloo. Then I realized even if you were a geek living in your mother's basement, that would not be possible. Then I thought, if he were gay, maybe he is jealous...
It was nice to see how various products did on the simple tests. However, several serious mistakes were made in the test methodology.
First, 10 virus samples for the test cannot give a statistically meaningful result. At least 31 different samples are necessary, as people who have had testing statistics and quality control education would know.
Second, and even worse, the tests were not performed under real world conditions. No system has ever been shown to have only one infection in the real world. The testing should have included detection / removal on systems with all malware installed. This is what real world users see.
Third, the "cleaned" systems should have been retested to see if infection would repeat under supposedly "cleaned" conditions. If the registry entries blocked reinfection (I seriously doubt it), then that would be seen. This would not have been a valid complaint if they had not brought it up in their article. (courtroom trial rules)
Fourth, with the anti-malware product running and protection fully enabled, would any of the malware be blocked from installing, or even downloading? This would not be a valid complaint if they only chose products which have no preventative methods (firewall, sandbox operation). Products which do not ahve adequate protective behavior are worse than worthless to the public, as they would have the idea that they are safe when using the product. That is the whole purpose of these products, to make the user believe he is in some way safe. But he is seriously not safe.
Fifth, using only non-damaging malware samples is also unrealistic. Performance against damaging malware is very important, and was untested. Performance against one small, safe, variety of malware does not indicate anything about the anti-malware product's usefulness to the public.
Sheesh, I could probably go on for a while, but I give up. We have surpassed the three strikes rule quite a bit already. This post is just an advertisement for AV-Comparative. Did someone get paid for this post? They should have.
Ok, here is the easy definition of the common good . (and by the way, political science is not a science). The common good is doing the minimum necessary to help and protect each person. That would entail the most effort for those who are least able, and the least effort for those who are most able. Who are the least able? Those still in the womb, newborns, infants, small children, children, preteens, teens. The elderly, the sick, injured, and disabled. Widows / widowers with kids and orphans. What is the correct effort to perform? That which teaches and moves the unable toward the able state. Giving wellness care (true health care) to people. That entails a weekly instruction of pregnant women on diet, exercise, and vitamins. That means giving a textbook on wellness to everyone, and posting it and updates on the web, and putting a wellness class in the school curriculum. Putting out of work, welfare people to work or schooling which will lead them to work. Healing, housing, schooling, supporting, while they make progress towards needing less help and protection. How do you protect people? By decriminalizing those who endanger people. By decriminalizing I mean make good citizens out of the bad ones. How to do that? Arrest the criminals, slap tracking devices on them, have computer monitoring of the tracking devices, get them jobs and enforce the job, give them a debit card and require that they only use that debit card, or small change, for all purchases, put tracking device sensors on all bars and stores which sell alcohol so the baddies cannot purchase it, make them take antabuse and the new drugs which immunize against cocaine, morphine, etc. Get the bad guys into a good guy life style. There are actually programs which convert bad guys into good. Use them. Where do you get the money t do this stuff? Actually, this is not as expensive as some of the bs we have going on right now. Wellness care saves a ton of money over illness care and injury repair. And most of the hospitalizations are of people who drink / smoke / abuse drugs, or their family members. The correct way to handle that is to make the cigarette / alcohol manufacturers support separate insurance programs for their customers. That decreases the good guys insurance costs and makes the bad guys pay their costs. Speaking of making the bad guys pay, people who father a child and the abandon them, leaving the mother or grandparents to raise and support the child, are criminals, child neglect, child abandonment. The child has the right to two parents paying the costs of raising them. So any child who has only one parent has the right to their mother saying who the other parent is, and the other parent admitting it, and contracting to provide child support. If the other parent does not admit it, paternity testing is required to show who is the parent. Yes, some parents are dead or in prison. But that would cover most parents. Yes, some guys would end up with 10 or a hundred kids to support. But that is a separate problem. The government must make sure that these kids are fed, schooled, and insured, until they can find two parents to take up that burden. And so on and so forth. This can obviously be expanded into books. But it is not difficult, complex to figure out.
The list is already useless. They had Senator Kennedy on the no-fly list, for God's sake. Do you really think there is a terrorist named Kennedy? And the only people the list works on are the people who fly under their real naem. Do you think the bad guys are going to fly in under their real name? Are you actually saying that Osama bin Laden is going to use his real name to fly? How few brain cells do you have left?
Do you think actual terrorists fly under their real name? Yeh, I believe in Santa Claus, too. If the feds are as good as Homeland Security or the TSA, the terrorists have nothing to fear.
Yes, they come from all walks of life, at least in the lower elected jobs (state and local reps). But they all have one thing in common: they all have their own agenda, not the public's. They say during their race for election that they are for the people, and they say good sounding words about that, but actions speak far louder than words. And unfortunately, we see their actions only after they are elected, and then we find out what fools we were to trust many of them. What we want them to do in office is act for the common good. We all, and they all, have different perceptions of what the common good is. And we all prioritize the pieces of the common good differently. But what we find out all too often is, they act for their own good first, and if the common good happens to be the same, then we get the common good. But if the common good is the opposite of their personal good, then they trample the common good.
Figuring out what the common good is is actually easy, and prioritizing is almost as easy. But that is not going to happen anytime soon.
I once worked for a big corporation which had the rule that if you were obstructing progress, interfering with the plan, you could be fired. But that s not going to happen in government, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Why don't you take a few thousand really deep wiffs of it and let us know? Oh, yeh, you might have to take a few thousand really deep wiffs of bullshit to calibrate your bs detector as well. Have fun!
RAID is meant to increase throughput and reliability. Single drives did not have anywhere as much throughput as an array of drives on a good RAID controller. . But RAID controllers were designed expecting msec seek times, and SSDs have usec seek times. So RAID controllers need redesign for the faster seek times.
Actually, the Post office has a big problem, as they were selling stamps with the picture on it. No fair use rights there.
The artist is in the right, unless the commission or contract he designed the memorial under said different.
Rulings on sales of reproductions of artistic content have nothing to do with fair rights.
Hey. didn't you fall apart recently (nervous breakdown) when your mama said to get out of her basement?
Another problem is the claim that there are vast numbers of eyes on every line of code. A baseless claim. What we need is for people who have done a code review to actually sign off that the did a code review. then we could start getting a feel for how many modules / projects actually have been reviewed, and by how many people. Also good would be what tools were run against the code, with results.
There are many assumptions in Linus statement, several hidden, and several just wrong. (I love linux).
Code review works only if you have sufficient info, time, and training. So you need the supporting documentation for a piece of software to review it. The flow diagrams, what it is supposed to do, the design docs, the api docs, etc. Such docs could be released along with the code, or pointers to the docs. But currently that is not common practice.
Code review is a complex and painful task. So only people who have a lot of time on their hands, and strong motivation, take on reviewing others' code. Motivation currently tends to be either paid to do it, or a bug that is bugging you. Otherwise, you are unlikely to do code review. A larger number of reviewers does not automatically occur just because the code is available.
Also, most of the people with all the necessary skills, training, knowledge, and experience are actually busy writing or maintaining their own code, and do not have the free time, or insanity, to spend reviewing others' code.
It just ain't goin to happen. Get over it.
Now we might actually have a chance of finding intelligent life in the universe!
And if we can get them to come to Earth, we could even have intelligent life on Earth!
Shouldn't Obama be on the list? I mean, he did jump in front of a "bus" a few times.
Um, if you are suggesting we relieve the pressure of the earth's core through a shaft, I think you are nuts.
I know of movies about the earth splitting in half, releasing a new moon, etc, based on drilling such a shaft. Sounds like fun to me
In reality, when we drill for oil, many times the drilling equipment is blown out of the hole by the pressure we hit. Warm oil is not very dangerous. Now if we hit pressurized molten rock, um, um, um, wait a minute, I am trying to picture that... Oh, yeh, we call that kind of thing a VOLCANO. You IDIOT!!!
Oh, sure. Big, fat, sweaty alien women are about as close to a real date as you're going to get, buddy. Better jump on that wagon before it leaves town.
Um, making the front page of a gossip blog of ill repute is not necessarily the peak of one's life.
I, for one, welcome my silicon overlords.
And what's this sexism bs? Why not femic depression? Or Femalic?
Actually, hockey stars spend as much time as possible partying, picking up girls, carousing in bars, doing drugs, and drinking. I am certain of this, as I know one of the big hockey teams.
So before becoming a big hockey star, if you spend a lot of time on the rink, you do get a pretty big payoff at success time.
So let's see yu mock them now that you know the truth.
Part of MS registry problem is that they are single files. MS needs to have one for OS, one for MS apps, one for Standard apps, and one for legacy apps ( the current registry name works there). Changing to this separation would at least release most of the boot process from a corruption. Only having to revert to one part backup would keep life simpler. Having a transaction system for writing to registries would help roll back out of issues.
Then there is the need to properly parse the registries.
Wait a minute. when was the last time you used any kind of bath tub?
For a moment there, I thought you were speaking lightly of Leeloo. Then I realized even if you were a geek living in your mother's basement, that would not be possible. Then I thought, if he were gay, maybe he is jealous...
Nah. He's a geek. We would have found him there in a minute. After all, that is where he lived.
heh heh. he said he had trust in the mod system. heh heh heh.
It was nice to see how various products did on the simple tests. However, several serious mistakes were made in the test methodology.
First, 10 virus samples for the test cannot give a statistically meaningful result. At least 31 different samples are necessary, as people who have had testing statistics and quality control education would know.
Second, and even worse, the tests were not performed under real world conditions. No system has ever been shown to have only one infection in the real world. The testing should have included detection / removal on systems with all malware installed. This is what real world users see.
Third, the "cleaned" systems should have been retested to see if infection would repeat under supposedly "cleaned" conditions. If the registry entries blocked reinfection (I seriously doubt it), then that would be seen. This would not have been a valid complaint if they had not brought it up in their article. (courtroom trial rules)
Fourth, with the anti-malware product running and protection fully enabled, would any of the malware be blocked from installing, or even downloading? This would not be a valid complaint if they only chose products which have no preventative methods (firewall, sandbox operation). Products which do not ahve adequate protective behavior are worse than worthless to the public, as they would have the idea that they are safe when using the product. That is the whole purpose of these products, to make the user believe he is in some way safe. But he is seriously not safe.
Fifth, using only non-damaging malware samples is also unrealistic. Performance against damaging malware is very important, and was untested. Performance against one small, safe, variety of malware does not indicate anything about the anti-malware product's usefulness to the public.
Sheesh, I could probably go on for a while, but I give up. We have surpassed the three strikes rule quite a bit already. This post is just an advertisement for AV-Comparative. Did someone get paid for this post? They should have.
Ok, here is the easy definition of the common good . (and by the way, political science is not a science). The common good is doing the minimum necessary to help and protect each person. That would entail the most effort for those who are least able, and the least effort for those who are most able. Who are the least able? Those still in the womb, newborns, infants, small children, children, preteens, teens. The elderly, the sick, injured, and disabled. Widows / widowers with kids and orphans. What is the correct effort to perform? That which teaches and moves the unable toward the able state. Giving wellness care (true health care) to people. That entails a weekly instruction of pregnant women on diet, exercise, and vitamins. That means giving a textbook on wellness to everyone, and posting it and updates on the web, and putting a wellness class in the school curriculum. Putting out of work, welfare people to work or schooling which will lead them to work. Healing, housing, schooling, supporting, while they make progress towards needing less help and protection. How do you protect people? By decriminalizing those who endanger people. By decriminalizing I mean make good citizens out of the bad ones. How to do that? Arrest the criminals, slap tracking devices on them, have computer monitoring of the tracking devices, get them jobs and enforce the job, give them a debit card and require that they only use that debit card, or small change, for all purchases, put tracking device sensors on all bars and stores which sell alcohol so the baddies cannot purchase it, make them take antabuse and the new drugs which immunize against cocaine, morphine, etc. Get the bad guys into a good guy life style. There are actually programs which convert bad guys into good. Use them. Where do you get the money t do this stuff? Actually, this is not as expensive as some of the bs we have going on right now. Wellness care saves a ton of money over illness care and injury repair. And most of the hospitalizations are of people who drink / smoke / abuse drugs, or their family members. The correct way to handle that is to make the cigarette / alcohol manufacturers support separate insurance programs for their customers. That decreases the good guys insurance costs and makes the bad guys pay their costs. Speaking of making the bad guys pay, people who father a child and the abandon them, leaving the mother or grandparents to raise and support the child, are criminals, child neglect, child abandonment. The child has the right to two parents paying the costs of raising them. So any child who has only one parent has the right to their mother saying who the other parent is, and the other parent admitting it, and contracting to provide child support. If the other parent does not admit it, paternity testing is required to show who is the parent. Yes, some parents are dead or in prison. But that would cover most parents. Yes, some guys would end up with 10 or a hundred kids to support. But that is a separate problem. The government must make sure that these kids are fed, schooled, and insured, until they can find two parents to take up that burden. And so on and so forth. This can obviously be expanded into books. But it is not difficult, complex to figure out.
Change his name!
The list is already useless. They had Senator Kennedy on the no-fly list, for God's sake. Do you really think there is a terrorist named Kennedy? And the only people the list works on are the people who fly under their real naem. Do you think the bad guys are going to fly in under their real name? Are you actually saying that Osama bin Laden is going to use his real name to fly? How few brain cells do you have left?
The bad guys are not going to fly under their own names. Hello.
Do you think actual terrorists fly under their real name? Yeh, I believe in Santa Claus, too.
If the feds are as good as Homeland Security or the TSA, the terrorists have nothing to fear.
Yes, they come from all walks of life, at least in the lower elected jobs (state and local reps). But they all have one thing in common: they all have their own agenda, not the public's. They say during their race for election that they are for the people, and they say good sounding words about that, but actions speak far louder than words. And unfortunately, we see their actions only after they are elected, and then we find out what fools we were to trust many of them. What we want them to do in office is act for the common good. We all, and they all, have different perceptions of what the common good is. And we all prioritize the pieces of the common good differently. But what we find out all too often is, they act for their own good first, and if the common good happens to be the same, then we get the common good. But if the common good is the opposite of their personal good, then they trample the common good.
Figuring out what the common good is is actually easy, and prioritizing is almost as easy. But that is not going to happen anytime soon.
I once worked for a big corporation which had the rule that if you were obstructing progress, interfering with the plan, you could be fired. But that s not going to happen in government, either.