Remember to print in big, block letter. Standard fonts, nothing fancy. The bigger they are, the easier they will be for OCR to recognize. Use double spacing also. Use standard 7bit characters if you can, to avoid codepage problems in the future.
One option would be tape drivers (LTO etc), but considering the amount of data we are talking about, it would probably be prohibitively expensive.
The problem with any kind of encoding, for long time storage, is having a reading decide. Even barcode scanners might not be available 10 years from now.
Get one of those thin flash cards, save the data on it, and tape it to the printed paper.
I mean, c'mon. What's the point of having it ONLY on paper? Yes, this is the backup of the backup. So what? Add another layer and save you the trouble later. Or two layers. It is obviously not too much data, since you are considering backup it up on paper. So just for a few 5ers and get some low capacity flash cards, make lots of copies.
Is the department of redundancy department back ?
on
The Price of Amazon
·
· Score: 1
I mean, seriously? This is news? Extra! Extra! Companies that can sell cheaper makes the ones that can't close. Companies that sell big can force producers to adjust their prices. Companies change prices based on what customers are willing to pay. Extra! Extra!
Whoever wrote this, the moment he said "real price", he just won the moron of the year award.
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship...... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Your statement is not far from the truth. Notice that the USA is not a true democracy. There is no direct voting, and the votes of all citizens do not carry the same weight. Although I wouldn't go as far as calling it an autocracy, it is not so different than an aristocracy, since a part of the population has more political power than others. It is odd that a country that gave the world presidentialism, and whose constitution was one of the landmark of the modern state and the democratic state, could have one of the least democratic, democratic election processes...
You mean I should not using something that gives the definition for the specific context we are using the word in, but instead use something that gives several different possible meanings, for several different possible contexts, that might not even include the specific one ?
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
I see an eerie resemblance between this argument and that of morality/ethics with Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians....
We're beginning to have a schism between fundamentalist constitutionalists and catholic (lower-"c") traditionalists in the US....
Thank you. That is exactly the question of legitimacy. In pre-modern times, be it monarchy or theocracy, the source of legitimacy was god. Directly. The kind if the appointed representative of god. In modern times, we have republics, where the people are the legitimate source of the constituent power (the power that CREATES the constitution). But we also have theocratic and quasi-theocratic states, where there is a power behind that, so the bible is the source of the constituent power. And here is the interesting part of a quasi-theocratic state (which some are trying to turn the USA into): the true constituent power has no limits or bounds except international treaties regarding human rights. That it. If the constituent power is bound by the bible or religion, it is not a true source of legitimacy, that moves back in the chain and is now no longer the people, but the bible/god/whatever.
When that happens, you pretty much destroyed the whole idea of a republic, and turns back into a quasi-theocracy, or a theocracy disguised as if it were a republic. Really, really bad idea.
Do you understand that you don't get to make up definitions of words?
Yup. Which is why I'm questioning his use of the word "legitimacy". I welcome anyone who doesn't agree to read books on "Theory of State" and "General Theory of State".
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
No, you have your facts backwards. The people gave the constitution legitimacy. And only the people can give legitimacy. Only the original source of the constituent power can give legitimacy. Not the product of that constituent power. The constitution gives legality.
If an elected president appoints a congress representative, is that representative legitimate? No. Legitimacy is not inherited. If the elected president makes a decision that is within his constitutional powers, it is a legitimate decision. Pay attention here: I'm talking about making the decision, not the decision itself. The ability to make the decision is what defined if it is legitimate. If the decision itself (the case here) is against the constitution, the decision is legitimate and ILLEGAL. (And overall an asshat decision, but that is besides the point).
Be careful with this chain of causality you are trying to establish there. Because, otherwise, you might end up with something like this: People ratified the constitution; constitution establishes the election of president; president was elected; president disbanded the congress and replaced all representatives with appointees. And since it is all in the chain, it is all legitimate. So no, the making of a decision that is within his legitimate powers to make is legitimate. If that decision contradicts the constitution, it is ILLEGAL.
Remember Nixon? What he did was illegal, not illegitimate.
Not really. US government authority is granted by the Constitution. Outside those bounds there is no authority at all. Therefore any claims of authority are illegitimate.
What a stupid nitpick.
You obviously doesn't know what legitimacy means, since you keep making arguments about legality.
Legality is given by the constitution. The constitution is the base and source of the legal system. Legitimacy is given by the people (thus = elected representative) in a democratic republic (like the USA).
Maybe it is time you all take responsibility by the people you elected. Oh, you didn't vote on him? Damn, democracy is a bitch when people don't agree with you, isn't it?
There's laws (in theory at least) in the US to protect whistle blowers, even those who release information the way he did. While we can argue back and forth over whether he'll get a fair trial, he is entitled to his day in court. From what I've read of it, the information gathering being done is against the US constitution, and he should be exonerated.
So why, then, did he choose to go into exile rather than accept the consequences and justify his actions in court? And what did he think he had to gain by going to Julian Assange? These are the questions people need to be asking about this situation...
I'm sorry, but your arguments sounds a lot like the ones we hear against anonymity, and in favor or letting the government spy on its people.
The reason he went into exile is simple: he doesn't trust the government. And rightly so. Maybe he doesn't want to be a martyr?
Ha! You wish it was illegitimate authority. Unfortunately, those are your elected representatives. Totally legitimate. Oh, right, that is sad, not funny:(
No one question there would be a backslash, but the parent posted said it would face ENORMOUS legal problems. Which certainly would not be the case. There are ways to protect against it, even in Europe.
NO it cant. Sony would face ENORMOUS legal problems changing the discs from physical licenses to not in mid-cycle.
Make sure you read the license on all those discs, then, and also on the console. While you do that, be certain to have a paper bag handy for when you start throwing up.
With the amount of money MS can throw behind it, it is never too late. See what they are doing (attempting? I don't have current numbers) on the smartphone market...
Why is there money to be made by making potential customers more angry at you? Sony got smacked throughout the PS3 because they were king of the hill. Maybe they as a group have actually learned that being smug ass-holes to their customers does not convert to higher sales. They LEARN, well one would hope.
Personally, I won't even consider a console this gen unless it works as an amazing media screener ala xbmc without the crap storm which is DLNA, supports simple 'open' marketplaces that actually support indy dev's to succeed. I'm not holding my breath though.
There is money to be make despite the customers getting angry. Restricting used games and resale is an example. Remember a company doesn't make decisions. People make decisions. And those people make money based on perceptions. How happy the board is with you, how happy the stock holders are with you. If you tell the stock holders "this will stop people from buying used games, if they want to play they will have to buy from us, and us only", you are likely to get a raise (WARNING FOR PEDANTIC READERS: this is an exaggeration! Things are more subtle than this. This is an illustration to show a point).
You (and me) are a very small part of the market. The bulk of their customers won't create enough of a ripple to matter. See the whole PS3/Linux debacle, as an example.
The real problem is, it can change any time. PS4 can become more stringent, and XBox One could become less (well, in theory).
I'm not sure I trust Sony not to be an asshole regarding DRM. It doesn't have that good a track record. It is a good bet the moment the marketing hype dies down, and the stock holders start pressing, they will tighten their DRM.
But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
No, it doesn't. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, without having to attribute it to a god, faeries, gnomes or the flying spaghetti monster.
"I don't know, so there must be a god" is without any fundament, and leads to what is known as "god of the gaps".
(Also, whoever modded parent "flamebait", you are being unfair. He is stating his views in a very polite way, and obviously ready to discuss the subject. Praise him for it, since it is so rare among religious people.)
When the Prius first got popular the same thing was said about it. Was soon proved false.
Yes and no. If you compare it to a regular car running on USA Gas, then yes, without a doubt. However, if you compare it to a car running on, say, Brazilian ethanol, the studies are still inconclusive.
My point is that most studies are valid under a given set of conditions, and we need to take those into account. If we make a case for the Tesla S polluting more, shouldn't we tackle the issue that energy production needs to pollute less? Alternative energy generation, better battery technology, those are the things we should focus on. So, if they are wrong about how much the Tesla S pollutes, we (the planet) win. And if they are right, they are still wrong, because their proposed solution, which is pretty much turning back time, is wrong.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj
on
ReactOS 0.3.15 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The problem is with the cost of a context swap.
The code that managed context swapping is part of the scheduler, at least on Linux. Yes, it can be costly, which is why it needs to be implemented correctly, and why you keep getting alternative schedulers (not as often as you once did, it was crazy back in early 2.0). There is classic problem with Intel-HT and Postgresql that caused context swapping for database I/O to be extracostly, as you probably recall. And it can be done correctly, as was proven in this case, and then again for Oracle.
It is absolutely possible to have high performance userspace graphics, as was proven with some of the more up-to-date drivers. I think it was ATI that first did it, by the way. The trick is to keep as much as possible in userspace, but that requires a change in mentality for developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember to print in big, block letter. Standard fonts, nothing fancy. The bigger they are, the easier they will be for OCR to recognize. Use double spacing also. Use standard 7bit characters if you can, to avoid codepage problems in the future.
Forget printed encoding. They are not efficient.
One option would be tape drivers (LTO etc), but considering the amount of data we are talking about, it would probably be prohibitively expensive.
The problem with any kind of encoding, for long time storage, is having a reading decide. Even barcode scanners might not be available 10 years from now.
Get one of those thin flash cards, save the data on it, and tape it to the printed paper.
I mean, c'mon. What's the point of having it ONLY on paper? Yes, this is the backup of the backup. So what? Add another layer and save you the trouble later. Or two layers. It is obviously not too much data, since you are considering backup it up on paper. So just for a few 5ers and get some low capacity flash cards, make lots of copies.
I mean, seriously? This is news?
Extra! Extra! Companies that can sell cheaper makes the ones that can't close. Companies that sell big can force producers to adjust their prices. Companies change prices based on what customers are willing to pay. Extra! Extra!
Whoever wrote this, the moment he said "real price", he just won the moron of the year award.
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Your statement is not far from the truth. Notice that the USA is not a true democracy. There is no direct voting, and the votes of all citizens do not carry the same weight. Although I wouldn't go as far as calling it an autocracy, it is not so different than an aristocracy, since a part of the population has more political power than others. It is odd that a country that gave the world presidentialism, and whose constitution was one of the landmark of the modern state and the democratic state, could have one of the least democratic, democratic election processes...
But this is a totally different discussion.
..anything but a dictionary, right?
You mean I should not using something that gives the definition for the specific context we are using the word in, but instead use something that gives several different possible meanings, for several different possible contexts, that might not even include the specific one ?
*shocked*
Legitimacy is given by the people
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
I see an eerie resemblance between this argument and that of morality/ethics with Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians....
s/People/God/g
s/Consitution/Bible/g
s/Elect/Inspire/g
We're beginning to have a schism between fundamentalist constitutionalists and catholic (lower-"c") traditionalists in the US....
Thank you. That is exactly the question of legitimacy.
In pre-modern times, be it monarchy or theocracy, the source of legitimacy was god. Directly. The kind if the appointed representative of god.
In modern times, we have republics, where the people are the legitimate source of the constituent power (the power that CREATES the constitution). But we also have theocratic and quasi-theocratic states, where there is a power behind that, so the bible is the source of the constituent power.
And here is the interesting part of a quasi-theocratic state (which some are trying to turn the USA into): the true constituent power has no limits or bounds except international treaties regarding human rights. That it. If the constituent power is bound by the bible or religion, it is not a true source of legitimacy, that moves back in the chain and is now no longer the people, but the bible/god/whatever.
When that happens, you pretty much destroyed the whole idea of a republic, and turns back into a quasi-theocracy, or a theocracy disguised as if it were a republic. Really, really bad idea.
Do you understand that you don't get to make up definitions of words?
Yup. Which is why I'm questioning his use of the word "legitimacy".
I welcome anyone who doesn't agree to read books on "Theory of State" and "General Theory of State".
Legitimacy is given by the people
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
No, you have your facts backwards. The people gave the constitution legitimacy. And only the people can give legitimacy. Only the original source of the constituent power can give legitimacy. Not the product of that constituent power. The constitution gives legality.
If an elected president appoints a congress representative, is that representative legitimate? No. Legitimacy is not inherited.
If the elected president makes a decision that is within his constitutional powers, it is a legitimate decision. Pay attention here: I'm talking about making the decision, not the decision itself. The ability to make the decision is what defined if it is legitimate. If the decision itself (the case here) is against the constitution, the decision is legitimate and ILLEGAL. (And overall an asshat decision, but that is besides the point).
Be careful with this chain of causality you are trying to establish there. Because, otherwise, you might end up with something like this:
People ratified the constitution; constitution establishes the election of president; president was elected; president disbanded the congress and replaced all representatives with appointees. And since it is all in the chain, it is all legitimate. So no, the making of a decision that is within his legitimate powers to make is legitimate. If that decision contradicts the constitution, it is ILLEGAL.
Remember Nixon? What he did was illegal, not illegitimate.
Not really. US government authority is granted by the Constitution. Outside those bounds there is no authority at all. Therefore any claims of authority are illegitimate.
What a stupid nitpick.
You obviously doesn't know what legitimacy means, since you keep making arguments about legality.
Legality is given by the constitution. The constitution is the base and source of the legal system.
Legitimacy is given by the people (thus = elected representative) in a democratic republic (like the USA).
Maybe it is time you all take responsibility by the people you elected. Oh, you didn't vote on him? Damn, democracy is a bitch when people don't agree with you, isn't it?
If it's not specifically authorized in the Constitution, it's not legitimate authority.
No. That is ILLEGAL, not illegitimate. Those are two completely different things.
There's laws (in theory at least) in the US to protect whistle blowers, even those who release information the way he did. While we can argue back and forth over whether he'll get a fair trial, he is entitled to his day in court. From what I've read of it, the information gathering being done is against the US constitution, and he should be exonerated.
So why, then, did he choose to go into exile rather than accept the consequences and justify his actions in court? And what did he think he had to gain by going to Julian Assange? These are the questions people need to be asking about this situation...
I'm sorry, but your arguments sounds a lot like the ones we hear against anonymity, and in favor or letting the government spy on its people.
The reason he went into exile is simple: he doesn't trust the government. And rightly so.
Maybe he doesn't want to be a martyr?
illegitimate authority
Ha! You wish it was illegitimate authority. Unfortunately, those are your elected representatives. Totally legitimate. :(
Oh, right, that is sad, not funny
including the majestic moose.
A møøse bit my sister once....
I wonder when some church is going to claim their did it.
And another will claim these people are no longer human.
No one question there would be a backslash, but the parent posted said it would face ENORMOUS legal problems. Which certainly would not be the case. There are ways to protect against it, even in Europe.
NO it cant. Sony would face ENORMOUS legal problems changing the discs from physical licenses to not in mid-cycle.
Make sure you read the license on all those discs, then, and also on the console. While you do that, be certain to have a paper bag handy for when you start throwing up.
it'll probably be too late for the XBone.
With the amount of money MS can throw behind it, it is never too late. See what they are doing (attempting? I don't have current numbers) on the smartphone market...
Why is there money to be made by making potential customers more angry at you? Sony got smacked throughout the PS3 because they were king of the hill. Maybe they as a group have actually learned that being smug ass-holes to their customers does not convert to higher sales. They LEARN, well one would hope.
Personally, I won't even consider a console this gen unless it works as an amazing media screener ala xbmc without the crap storm which is DLNA, supports simple 'open' marketplaces that actually support indy dev's to succeed. I'm not holding my breath though.
There is money to be make despite the customers getting angry. Restricting used games and resale is an example. Remember a company doesn't make decisions. People make decisions. And those people make money based on perceptions. How happy the board is with you, how happy the stock holders are with you. If you tell the stock holders "this will stop people from buying used games, if they want to play they will have to buy from us, and us only", you are likely to get a raise (WARNING FOR PEDANTIC READERS: this is an exaggeration! Things are more subtle than this. This is an illustration to show a point).
You (and me) are a very small part of the market. The bulk of their customers won't create enough of a ripple to matter. See the whole PS3/Linux debacle, as an example.
The real problem is, it can change any time. PS4 can become more stringent, and XBox One could become less (well, in theory).
I'm not sure I trust Sony not to be an asshole regarding DRM. It doesn't have that good a track record. It is a good bet the moment the marketing hype dies down, and the stock holders start pressing, they will tighten their DRM.
But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
No, it doesn't. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, without having to attribute it to a god, faeries, gnomes or the flying spaghetti monster.
"I don't know, so there must be a god" is without any fundament, and leads to what is known as "god of the gaps".
(Also, whoever modded parent "flamebait", you are being unfair. He is stating his views in a very polite way, and obviously ready to discuss the subject. Praise him for it, since it is so rare among religious people.)
Hitchhiker's humor? Hum? Hum?
Please turn back your geek card at the door, on your way out.
Marriages Spawned From Online Dating As Satisfying As From Traditional Dating: NOT AT ALL.
When the Prius first got popular the same thing was said about it. Was soon proved false.
Yes and no. If you compare it to a regular car running on USA Gas, then yes, without a doubt. However, if you compare it to a car running on, say, Brazilian ethanol, the studies are still inconclusive.
My point is that most studies are valid under a given set of conditions, and we need to take those into account. If we make a case for the Tesla S polluting more, shouldn't we tackle the issue that energy production needs to pollute less? Alternative energy generation, better battery technology, those are the things we should focus on. So, if they are wrong about how much the Tesla S pollutes, we (the planet) win. And if they are right, they are still wrong, because their proposed solution, which is pretty much turning back time, is wrong.
The code that managed context swapping is part of the scheduler, at least on Linux. Yes, it can be costly, which is why it needs to be implemented correctly, and why you keep getting alternative schedulers (not as often as you once did, it was crazy back in early 2.0). There is classic problem with Intel-HT and Postgresql that caused context swapping for database I/O to be extracostly, as you probably recall. And it can be done correctly, as was proven in this case, and then again for Oracle.
It is absolutely possible to have high performance userspace graphics, as was proven with some of the more up-to-date drivers. I think it was ATI that first did it, by the way. The trick is to keep as much as possible in userspace, but that requires a change in mentality for developers.