How often do you edit multiple document without closing the word-processor in-between or loading up other application?
Because the user that logs in, runs Word, Excel, etc. and then doesn't close any of them until they shut down is a rare beast.
Depends on the OS, actually.
Windows is Application-oriented, so you work on a document in an application, then when you're done with the document, you close the application more so than closing the document.
MacOS (and OS X) however are document-oriented - you work on a document in an application, then when you're done, you close the document itself, which may or may not close the application.
So on OS X, it's entirely possible that your situation happens, and if you have a lot of RAM, it can be beneficial because you can double-click a document and have it open without waiting for the application to start up - it just tells the application to open the document immediately.
Which model is better? Debatable - there are pluses and minuses to both - OS X works great if you work in the same applications all day every day so the apps stay open, while Windows means you reclaim idle memory back.
Cheat: "To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation."
He is specifically trying to find a way around the rules that does not violate the letter of the law. It is ipso facto not cheating.
It's a novel and creative approach, and shows both his personal initiative and ability to think outside the box. I would offer him a post myself.
And given most FoI requests get redactions, is it really cheating at all?
I mean, he requests his tests. But what he gets back could be the test itself, with the questions and (for multiple guess) answers redacted.
That seems perfectly legitimate - he had his request fulfilled (and I'm sure if it was after the exams they'd release the full exam without redactions).
Or the appropriate body asks for an extension and releases the papers after the exams are over. Most FoI laws have something for that as well (e.g., the paper doesn't currently exist right now, but it will in a couple of weeks...).
Of course, full irony happens if they release him his exam papers after he's taken them...
What's more : File Explorer in Windows XP (or old IE) behaves very conveniently, you feed it "ftp://192.168.0.1" and it works like a regular file manager window, AND you can access the ftp at least download-only from every web browser in the house. So it is very convenient, very easy to set up and works all the time, and in other words rewarding to the user.
It works still in Windows 8.1.
It's actually provided by a service called "WebClient" that's basically a userspace filesystem handler for Windows. It's handy if you need an FTP client in a pinch. I think it handles WebDAV and other common disk-like protocols as well.
All three Apple users who know these steps have probably already done so. The other several hundred million are fucked, and Apple has now publicly taken a stance that they plan to hang those millions out to dry.
Yeah. Because it's SOOO hard to use Firefox, or Chrome, instead of Safari.
That's really how you do it - if it means that much to you, then you can always use browsers that do not use the OS X security store.
Like Chrome and Firefox. They run great on OS X.
Of course, a big problem is that Apple sells a lot of product in China, so CNNIC is pretty much required otherwise no Chinese user will be able to do anything.
I mean, what about Android? Is CNNIC going to be removed from it?
Standards bodies usually try to avoid patents but this is often not practical because there are so many patents and the best solution is often patented.
No they don't.
A standards body works like this - industry wants to come up with a new standard for some reason - perhaps faster part, new technology whatever. So the standards body convenes a group of people from industry who then argue out the merits and the specifications of the new technology standard. Along the way, patents get hashed out - and a lot of politicking goes on in getting your patent in the standard.
When it comes to patents and standards, you have two options - you could not offer the patent for licensing and have the standards body work around it, or you can have it become part of the standard, with the caveat that you must license to anyone and everyone as FRAND terms.
Depending on the patent, one way may be better than the other, but in general, it's usually nicer to have people paying you so you make it FRAND. Which means at times there's a lot of back scratching to get your patent in the standard.
Most standards are patented. Ethernet, WiFi, etc., they usually all have some form of license fee to be paid.
Slight correction - you get roads to drive and walk down without having to stop every quarter mile (or kilometer) to pay a toll.
In the olden days, there were no such things as "public roads" - they were all private and they demanded a toll to travel on them. London is a particular fascinating example because it was impossible to go anywhere within London without paying money to someone (or usually, multiple someones).
The fact that government stepped in and bought up the private roads and made them public roads is a recent invention.
Second, and this is the most important: Electrician work. PV panels, wiring to proper code, not getting high voltage across the nipples, getting power from the PV panels to the inverter or the battery charge controller (depending on if the person wants an on grid or off grid setup.)
You missed wiring up the smart inverter. Some places demand them where the solar arrays are not blindly fed into the grid, but intelligently provide the necessary power to the grid, which requires an inverter to either respond to control commands or to detect how things are.
Basically, the inverter has to determine if the voltage and current are not in sync (there is a reactance in the line and it needs to provide the necessary opposite reactance in its power), when there is too much demand (which doesn't lower the grid voltage, but rather slows down the frequency, and thus the inverter needs to basically feed all the power to the grid), as well as detecting when there's insufficient load on the grid and to stop feeding power in.
Increasingly, these micro-generation sites are used to help do a lot of local regulation of the grid because they can provide the necessary compensation and power and react far faster than other forms of generation.
And no, it's not even a "smart grid" yet (smart grids actively manage power flows amongst local generation, power plants, distribution equipment, local storage (e.g., batteries), loads, and they know exactly what all the equipment is capable of using or generating.
Perhaps this is the TRUE reason why Microsoft bought Minecraft... they realized some Minecraft-happy devs on the Windows team has now littered the Windows source code with Minecraft remarks that they'd get sued. So it was cheaper to buy Minecraft than fix the source code.
That is the sort of Job description that's destined to fail and I would settle for some software that tracks domains, SSL certs etc and notifies (with an off switch when I want something to die) me when things need to be renewed. If you rely on the upstream provider, you end up renewing too much.
Perhaps it's time that SSL libraries provided warnings should the date of expiry come close - say 6 months. Then the SSL library will return a warning along the lines of "The target's SSL certificate will expire in less than 6 months (5 months 30 days 21 hours...)". If users started getting messages about it they'd bring up a storm to get those certs renewed. And I think 6 months is probably plenty of time to account for someone in charge to notice and start a bureaucratic process to get it renewed.
And if browsers displayed it, well, users will report their browsers are displaying some yellow gobbledegook about the website.
"Hey, you TrueCrypt people, making a safe, un-crackable encryption system? You are going to put in a back door to let us, the NSA in - and you are NOT going to tell anyone about our order or you will go to jail."
The order the NSA gave was legal. The true crypt devs are law abiding people. But they weren't going to obey the NSA. So the True Crypt Devs said "Screw that shit, we shut down."
And how do you propose the Truecrypt devs do that?
Remember, TrueCrypt is open-source. Anyone can go and diff the sources between versions. Just like the auditors went and took the source and compared it with the binaries.
So you're going to tell me the TrueCrypt devs could somehow insert an NSA backdoor without telling anyone? Even the NSA isn't THAT stupid - people will compare the source vs. binaries, and people will diff the source between revisions.
There is no way to hide a change in TrueCrypt. They could simply not tell anyone about the NSA order, but the source code will have the change clear as day in it. Or if it doesn't, and the binaries do, there's nothing to stop anyone from compiling the source code and having a NSA-free version.
In this case, complying with the NSA would be far better because it'll reveal the true intentions. And no, they can rewrite the repository history all they want, someone will still have a copy of the old source code, and you can diff it against the current. Unless you believe the NSA has special hard drive rewriting magic that'll seek out every source code copy and replace it with the altered version. Across all formats, filesystems, RAID, CD/DVD/Blu-Ray (even pressed), etc.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument.
The only real possibility is there is an NSA backdoor already in the code that's been there a LONG time and buried way back in diffs long forgotten. Except the audit came back clean, which means it has to be hidden very well, and probably there since day 1.
As much as I'm a fan of conspiracy theories, this one is way too easy to disprove.
Remember, we know the last "good" version of TrueCrypt - the source code produced the binaries - the audit has proven that, and the audit has a copy of those verified source and binaries. And the audit can easily re-verify that fact. Sure you can do the whole "what about the compiler doing it" which is probably true for Microsoft and Apple, but Linux is more complex (it would have to be hidden in GCC for a long while now). And it's still not invulnerable to looking at the assembly code (you can compile it debug, optimizations off if you want to make it even easier to trace). If the compiler fails to introduce the hole at any point, it'll be noticed.
The source code diffs would easily show questionable changes as well.
There is no where the NSA could hide this, except at the very beginning of time. And perhaps it's why the TrueCrypt devs quit because the audit would reveal it.
In which case, the clean bill of heath for the audit is now questionable.
I'm curious which budget do you accuse them of being "cheap" with in this instance......the salary budget to pay for reasonably competent pilots, or the medical/psych budget to screen reasonably competent pilots at regular intervals?
It would have perhaps helped if they did not completely ignore the warning signs of depression with this particular pilot. Yet again, likely budget constraints, but perhaps not the ones most obvious.
Hint: Most pilots pay for their medicals out of their own pocket.
And pilots really are paid piss-poor - after spending $50,000 getting your ATPL certificates and required hours to even go for an airliner, you get greeted with a whopping $20K/year job and shit routes. At a regional airline, since the big guys traditionally don't hire fresh new guys until they had a few thousand hours under their belt.
Now, you can ask who are these crazy people who basically will spend 3/4s of a month away from their families for shit pay? Well, they're amongst the most dedicated pilots around - no one really does it out of necessity (I'm sure a McJob paying minimum wage would net you more, and you don't have flying school debt), so there's also an element of "don't ground me" involved as well. And given the really cyclical nature, you want to avoid any excuse to have your company lay you off.
Of course, it's not all bleak - after a few years In the regionals, the pay does perk up some, Get left seat (captain) in a regional and you're looking at $50-70K, though most people jump to the airlines because even though you start at the bottom (typically - though airline backed regionals sometimes have seniority transfer), after a decade or so you can start getting paid in the 6 figures.
But yeah, next time you're flying domestic, even with the airlines, the guy up front who is responsible for your safe arrival probably makes less than most of the/. crowd. (And no, when they're stopping over at a remote destination, they usually have to pay for their hotel, or sleep at the corporate office at the airport. At bigger hubs, a few pilots would often get together to pay for an apartment (lovingly called a "crash pad") to at least save on hotel bills and get a bit more peace and quiet away from the airport. It may only be a single room apartment where 3-4 (out of maybe 10 or so) will stay every night - the lucky one gets the bed, the next the sofa, everyone else lays a mattress on the floor.
The 6502 was years before the 6802 or Z80. The 6800 was designed by the same people. After they designed the 6800, they realised that processing strings on a 6800 was hell's own job cos it only had one pointer (although it was 16 bit). The 6502 had two 8 bit pointers and could therefore do a string move or compare quite painlessly and any fool could write a Basic interpreter for it in a couple of weeks.
You have it reversed - the 6800 predated the 6500.
The 6800 was done by Motorola, but those designers were unhappy with the way Motorola was marketing it (expensive processor), so they split off from Motorola and created MOS. They designed (cleanly) the 6500, which was designed to be super cheap ($25), and not only binary compatible, but pin compatible with the 6800. You could literally drop the 6500 into a 6800 socket and it would work just fine (being designed by the same guys helped).
Motorola got pissed at this, and threatened MOS, so they simply created a new processor which was similar to the 6500, but not pin compatible, but close enough. They called it the 6502.
Its low price helped significantly, but also that at every trade show, MOS would have them for sale. Bring $20-25, and they'll sell you a 6502 and all the databooks and manuals you needed to hook it up. Motorola and everyone else required you to go through distributors to obtain that material, and it was also over $100 (I think the 6800 was $200 or so) to boot.
Basically MOS realized there was a home hobbyist market, and they sold processors at every trade show they attended to interested folks.
Clang/LLVM receives finance and contribution (and therefore an element of control) from Apple. Its also BSD licensed. These are not bad things at all, but its great that GCC, which GNU licensed, is an alternative.
Corporations guide the development of GPL licensed projects too. Take Linux for example, the main contributors are corporate sponsored/subsidized/etc so therefore the work is directed by corporate needs as well.
Plus there are indirect effects too. As a corporate sponsored project like Clang/LLVM becomes highly competitive or surpasses a project like GCC then a fire gets lit under GCC to make a little progress, and possibly to add comparable features that were corporate sponsored in Clang/LLVM. So corps get to indirectly influence GCC as it strives to be competitive.
Correct, however, the main reason most corps went Clang/LLVM is because of GPLv3. When it was GPLv2, it was well understood and most places tolerated it and used it quite informally inside their workflow processes.
However, GPLv3 did startle them, and they got worried, big time. It's incompatibility with v2-only code meant that most corporations had to implement formal processes for integrating open-source code (despite license - doesn't matter if it's MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL(v2/v2+/v3/v3+), etc) within their business. It applies regardless of if the code is for external customers, or internal tools - all of a sudden there's a big clampdown on making sure the right code gets used.
And I've seen new policies that basically state "other than these preapproved projects with these licenses, no further GPL-licensed code is allowed within the company without legal approval and justification".
GPLv3 basically scared a lot of companies into shaping up, and they basically started running away from the GPL (except when it benefits them - i.e., they release code). So they migrated to Clang/LLVM to avoid the issues.
Apple was heavily involved early on in order to get Clang and LLVM to a state where it was usable - they saw the GPL writing on the wall and needed to migrate away from GCC, which is why they actually started making strides somewhere along the OS X 10.4 era, with 10.5 having a rudimentary compiler available but not default. I think it took to 10.8 or so before it was formally switched over, and Apple's last commit to GCC involved Grand Central Dispatch support and blocks.
Er... VP9 is BSD license. I'd hardly call that proprietary. Sure, they may be the only ones using it yet. But I don't see that staying the case for long if it's actually a better format.
Compared to h.264, VP9 is MORE efficient. Remember, VP9 was actually a contender for "next gen" codecs - i.e., it was a contender for h.265 which is required to get 4K content without taking 4 times as much space.
VP8 was the competitor to h.264, and it wasn't that great at it - in practically all metrics, h.264 beat VP8 handily.
VP9 compared to h.265 was far more mixed, and it's possible that VP9 might actually make it as the next-gen codec given the troubles h.265 is having right now w.r.t. patent licensing.
VP9 compared to h.264 is no contest - it is far more efficient - it's just like comparing h.265 with h.264 - h.265 is far more efficient and will get lower bitrates for the same quality.
Of course, the primary problem is no one can hardware accelerate VP9 right now, so it's all CPU decoded. (h.265 decoders are *just* starting to emerge). So 720p decoding in CPU is probably achievable, but 1080p or 4K... not so much.
Aluminium is highly reactive but what stops it burning is that it very rapidly forms an inert, oxide layer in air which, unlike iron that has rust, remains strongly attached to the metal. However under the right conditions you can overcome this and then aluminium burns which is clearly not the case for steel.
And you know what can do it? Lithium. It's why there's a restriction on lithium batteries sent via airmail - lithium eats at the aluminum oxide and basically destroys it since the exposed aluminum forms new aluminum oxide, which is reacted with the lithium and thus the aluminum effectively dissolves.
I think gallium also has a similar effect, but is even more insidious - if you put gallium on aluminum, the gallium atoms migrate into the aluminum bulk, which greatly weakens it, and even worse, you can't really see anything happening. an impressive demonstration involves your typical soda can and a blob of gallium. AFter a few minutes, the pop-top releases the entire lid, if not completely popping on its own.
There might possibly be no other command in the history of software development that has saved more man-hours than this gem.
Except when you forget the --rebase and now have hours of work fixing your tree.
Especially if you provide your work as a bunch of patches against an official (but read-only) repo (because said repo is like AOSP where it's easily 30+GB).
git's ability to generate working patches that apply cleanly breaks if you branched somewhere along the line, then merged. You either should pull the branch with rebase, or a summary of changes (where git collapses the branch into one big commit, but only by diffing the final tree of the branch with the head so you don't get duplicates).
If you remember, it's great. If you forget... well lets just say I had to write an impressive script to take the output of "git format-patch" and transform it so "git am" can apply it all cleanly (and correctly).
In fact, in most any hostage scenario I'd expect the perpetrators to want the staff to confirm their story - the whole point is to extract concessions, is it not? Ditto for a "suicide by cop" scenario. I'm having a hard time coming up with any scenario where the perpetrators would hole up in a public building and NOT want police and media attention.
I dunno, let's say...
Robbing a bank? You take people hostage so they don't act unpredictably until you get your cash. Then you run away, letting everyone go. You certainly don't want the police there to crash your robbery.
Grabbing data? You want to get the data so you hold the office hostage, copy the data off, then leave. (Though usually less public buildings and more privately owned offices).
There are plenty of circumstances where you want to get at stuff and don't intend the police to be around...
I'm amazed at how cheap places can be with monitors. In my opinion, anyone doing any technical based work on a computer should have 2x 23" Full HD monitors (or better). Even 27" monitors can be had for less than $200. I struggled with my boss getting a second monitor, and mini-displayport adapter to hook it up to my laptop. Not even a workstation replacement laptop, just a thinkpad T440. He doesn't understand why I need one when he doesn't use a second monitor.
I work in engineering, not programming or IT, but to be able to have a CAD screen open on one screen, and reference material (PDF or web) open in the other, or having reference material and a spreadsheet open is great. Even our planners stopped using scrap paper once they had two screens because they could have both applications they needed up at once.
I've never seen anyone with two screens regret getting them.
Doesn't have to be two monitors - can be a single one with lots of pixels.
But yeah, it can be remarkably how cheap companies can be when it comes to basic equipment - while it was great when everyone went from single to dual monitors back in the day, it's a bit tired when we're still using the same old 17" for 10+ years running at 1280x1024. Yeah, dual's are great, but it would be nice to go up a bit - even 24" 1080p duals are a godsend.
Over the past couple of years there have been a bunch of "underground" monitor upgrades, because project work suddenly required that we do stuff on 1080p and HDMI, so a bunch of HDMI monitors were ordered for that work, and retained. Eventually the entire engineering team was doing something that required them so another round of monitors, and eventually even more monitors were ordered so everyone has a 1080p monitor on their desk, 24-27", and their choice of using it. (And naturally, once they hooked it to their PCs, they got another monitor...).
I sorta jumped the gun on that - my project first required me to have a better video card in my PC which then ended up with a nice 28" 4K. (I still have a 1080p monitor for project work).
Our IT guy basically noticed people were needing better equipment and has decided to actually buy a bunch of upgrades piecemeal on a "squeaky wheel" basis.
I say, don't quite miss the dual monitors as much, and love the fact I can actually have PDFs, and all my code windows usefully tiled on one screen, and see the output of the serial debuggers and other things at the same time.
At one time, we used to actually count the cost of each and every machine instruction executed and of each and every byte used. That's how a computer less powerful than your calculator was able to land the Apollo Lunar Module.
That was when everyone had to account for every clock cycle - when computers were expensive, and humans cheap. Nowadays, humans are expensive and computers are cheap.
Anyhow, it's also the main reason why emulation is hard - the slower the CPU, the harder it becomes. in fact, if you're going to tell me you're going to emulate a "simple" system, I will disregard it if you simply execute opcodes one at a time - because the real trickery happens in the cycle counts.
Cycle-accurate emulators solve basically every compatibility problem inherent with emulators. You'll see this in older emulators that often have "game specific fixes" because guess what? The game actually relied on cycle counting and expects results to be there precisely when it executes.
It's no longer enough that you emulate a 1MHz processor - you have to emulate it exactly with its behavior on every one of those million cycles every second. Even bus behavior because cycle-stealing is common and a lot of things depend on the fact that the CPU might have the bus idle for that part of the clock.
Of course, this also means it takes a beefy computer to emulate the older consoles, but that's perfectly fine. I believe bsnes is cycle-accurate for the SNES, and it takes a really powerful computer. For that, though, you get extremely accurate emulation and no game needs "fixes" to run properly because the timings are correct.
The need for cycle accuracy started dropping somewhere around the PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast era where the CPUs started becoming more powerful.
The moral of the story is that you get what you measure.
And most measurements do not actually quantify what you want to quantify - they are merely proxies for what you're measuring.
Anyone who's done the "SMART" (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results, Time) style of objectives will eventually figure out how to game the system. Because it tracks items that are concrete, you end up using concrete measurements for abstract things.
I mean, take for example you want to write compelling content for your blog, website, whatever. Well, "compelling" is not measurable, so you have to come up with a proxy. Perhaps "views"? In which case it gets rewritten to write at least 3 articles that achieve 1000 views in the next 3 months. It's specific, measurable, achievable, the results are clear, and a clear time. But it only measures by proxy, because view count is only a proxy. Perhaps you took a funny photo that went viral - is that compelling content or just a passing interest?
So in the end, what happens is you get what you measure. If you measure grades, you'll find the class will get the grades you require. But that isn't a proxy for learning.
They would be going outside, having fun or doing whatever they like... because they are kids and summer should be theirs
Doesn't mean you shouldn't avail yourself to non-traditional learning opportunities. Yes, outside is extremely important, but just as you exercise their muscles, so should you exercise their minds.
Basically they can go outside to play, and learn at the same time - creativity (have them try to create a game while they play), sports (if they desire), engineering (try building a treehouse), and so on. Even basic skills like socializing, cooperation and sharing can be taught, learned and experienced. Hell, I'm sure you saw all the YouTube videos of "what happens if we do this...?" - that's a form of learning. You might want to supervise some of the more risky ones (like doing a vertical loop), or if the structural integrity is lacking, but experimentation is learning.
Basically you don't want them to basically veg out in front of the TV the entire summer - whether it be watching TV or movies or Netflix, or playing video games 24/7.
"Learning" is not an evil word. It doesn't have to be formalized into mere instruction. Learning can take place anywhere and anytime. Take your kids to the mall, it's a perfect place to learn basic arithmetic (how much is the stuff they want cost? How much is sales tax? How can you tell if you have enough money by estimating the total cost ans sales tax?) without it being a dull math lesson. A vacation to Europe can be turned into a fascinating history lesson.
Heck, learning can be skills based too - taking up cooking, welding, metalworking, woodworking, etc.
Hell, even building something with an Arduino, or playing around with a Raspberry Pi counts.
It's so easy to learn, and there are plenty of activities (even simple "playing outside") where learning can happen. As a parent, all you need to do is encourage it. And also balance - it's completely normal to veg out and play video games as well - but only to end a day of exercising the body and the mind. And the lesson for that is balance - mindless entertainment is fine in balance with the many educational opportunities.
Despite the outcry of many, I find this yearâ(TM)s April 1st theme enjoyable. Black Hole is one of those films that is bad on many levels and yet still an enjoyable viewing experience. Perhaps it is just the strange repetitive Yah-Yah-Yah-Yaaaaah-da-da-da background music that makes it so borderline creepy and memorable -- very un-Disney like.
It gets all weird and religiously allegorical at the end while at the same time paying an homage to 2001 a Space Odysseyâ(TM)s final scenes. I usually just quit insisting the ending make any kind of scientific sense and just accept it as a Deus Ex Machina.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised that it apparently it must be considered essential for nerd viewing (else it wouldnâ(TM)t be skewered in this year's collection). Still hoping for a clever Blade Runner entry.
I like it too. I can honestly say I haven't watched or read 30% of the movies or books that were presented, so it gives me something to add to the list of things to do.
it's probably one of the least "junk" april 1 themes played out - as in having useful value after april 1. I mean, I've heard about it, but I never actually watched the movie, read the book or other activity, and I have to admit, these capsule summaries certainly pique my curiosity.
Then again, I guess/. is against anything cultural. Even nerd/geek culture..
The thing that many people seem not to realize is that, with legitimate and really important requests, you can get all signoffs in quite a short notice. The reason why most things take a while to authorize, is because everybody does it on their time and they have many to check. I already said it in a an other comment, but diverging from procedure is never a good idea, especially when something has to be done quick.
Even with urgent requests, approvals can come by right quick.
The thing is, if the CEO or whatever needs something urgently, they know the process and they can make sure to pressure everyone else involved in the approval process to actually process that one approval ASAP.
I've seen it done in well under an hour from request to final submission - the CEO just makes sure everyone is lined up to approve it. And this is in a serial approval process - you have something that needs approvals, and it goes up the chain - no one can sign out of turn.
Normal approvals generally take a week or so, because everyone does it at their leisure. But in emergency situations, you can be sped up significantly.
2GB? You gotta be kidding. Windows crawls with 2GB. It might be okay for 6 months or so, but if you do anything or install anything real, you'll go crazy waiting for the hard-drive.
Well geez, I paid $100, bought an HP Stream 7 and it only has 1GB of RAM. And it's plenty speedy.
In fact, for Windows 8.1 and Atom, it's surprisingly fast.
The only thing is, for $100, the Stream 7 can run like crap and I'd still like it - it's a $100 friggin' PC running full Windows. Heck, I have Steam running on it!
This thing though is $500. A bit pricey for a Atom based tablet, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the OS, actually.
Windows is Application-oriented, so you work on a document in an application, then when you're done with the document, you close the application more so than closing the document.
MacOS (and OS X) however are document-oriented - you work on a document in an application, then when you're done, you close the document itself, which may or may not close the application.
So on OS X, it's entirely possible that your situation happens, and if you have a lot of RAM, it can be beneficial because you can double-click a document and have it open without waiting for the application to start up - it just tells the application to open the document immediately.
Which model is better? Debatable - there are pluses and minuses to both - OS X works great if you work in the same applications all day every day so the apps stay open, while Windows means you reclaim idle memory back.
And given most FoI requests get redactions, is it really cheating at all?
I mean, he requests his tests. But what he gets back could be the test itself, with the questions and (for multiple guess) answers redacted.
That seems perfectly legitimate - he had his request fulfilled (and I'm sure if it was after the exams they'd release the full exam without redactions).
Or the appropriate body asks for an extension and releases the papers after the exams are over. Most FoI laws have something for that as well (e.g., the paper doesn't currently exist right now, but it will in a couple of weeks...).
Of course, full irony happens if they release him his exam papers after he's taken them...
It works still in Windows 8.1.
It's actually provided by a service called "WebClient" that's basically a userspace filesystem handler for Windows. It's handy if you need an FTP client in a pinch. I think it handles WebDAV and other common disk-like protocols as well.
Yeah. Because it's SOOO hard to use Firefox, or Chrome, instead of Safari.
That's really how you do it - if it means that much to you, then you can always use browsers that do not use the OS X security store.
Like Chrome and Firefox. They run great on OS X.
Of course, a big problem is that Apple sells a lot of product in China, so CNNIC is pretty much required otherwise no Chinese user will be able to do anything.
I mean, what about Android? Is CNNIC going to be removed from it?
No they don't.
A standards body works like this - industry wants to come up with a new standard for some reason - perhaps faster part, new technology whatever. So the standards body convenes a group of people from industry who then argue out the merits and the specifications of the new technology standard. Along the way, patents get hashed out - and a lot of politicking goes on in getting your patent in the standard.
When it comes to patents and standards, you have two options - you could not offer the patent for licensing and have the standards body work around it, or you can have it become part of the standard, with the caveat that you must license to anyone and everyone as FRAND terms.
Depending on the patent, one way may be better than the other, but in general, it's usually nicer to have people paying you so you make it FRAND. Which means at times there's a lot of back scratching to get your patent in the standard.
Most standards are patented. Ethernet, WiFi, etc., they usually all have some form of license fee to be paid.
California has plenty of water - they're not a landlocked state. They've got access to the largest ocean in the world for water.
Of course, the problem is it isn't USABLE for a lot of things.
The earth's surface is 2/3rds water. Unfortunately, freshwater makes up under 1% of that.
Slight correction - you get roads to drive and walk down without having to stop every quarter mile (or kilometer) to pay a toll.
In the olden days, there were no such things as "public roads" - they were all private and they demanded a toll to travel on them. London is a particular fascinating example because it was impossible to go anywhere within London without paying money to someone (or usually, multiple someones).
The fact that government stepped in and bought up the private roads and made them public roads is a recent invention.
You missed wiring up the smart inverter. Some places demand them where the solar arrays are not blindly fed into the grid, but intelligently provide the necessary power to the grid, which requires an inverter to either respond to control commands or to detect how things are.
Basically, the inverter has to determine if the voltage and current are not in sync (there is a reactance in the line and it needs to provide the necessary opposite reactance in its power), when there is too much demand (which doesn't lower the grid voltage, but rather slows down the frequency, and thus the inverter needs to basically feed all the power to the grid), as well as detecting when there's insufficient load on the grid and to stop feeding power in.
Increasingly, these micro-generation sites are used to help do a lot of local regulation of the grid because they can provide the necessary compensation and power and react far faster than other forms of generation.
And no, it's not even a "smart grid" yet (smart grids actively manage power flows amongst local generation, power plants, distribution equipment, local storage (e.g., batteries), loads, and they know exactly what all the equipment is capable of using or generating.
Perhaps this is the TRUE reason why Microsoft bought Minecraft... they realized some Minecraft-happy devs on the Windows team has now littered the Windows source code with Minecraft remarks that they'd get sued. So it was cheaper to buy Minecraft than fix the source code.
Perhaps it's time that SSL libraries provided warnings should the date of expiry come close - say 6 months. Then the SSL library will return a warning along the lines of "The target's SSL certificate will expire in less than 6 months (5 months 30 days 21 hours ...)". If users started getting messages about it they'd bring up a storm to get those certs renewed. And I think 6 months is probably plenty of time to account for someone in charge to notice and start a bureaucratic process to get it renewed.
And if browsers displayed it, well, users will report their browsers are displaying some yellow gobbledegook about the website.
And how do you propose the Truecrypt devs do that?
Remember, TrueCrypt is open-source. Anyone can go and diff the sources between versions. Just like the auditors went and took the source and compared it with the binaries.
So you're going to tell me the TrueCrypt devs could somehow insert an NSA backdoor without telling anyone? Even the NSA isn't THAT stupid - people will compare the source vs. binaries, and people will diff the source between revisions.
There is no way to hide a change in TrueCrypt. They could simply not tell anyone about the NSA order, but the source code will have the change clear as day in it. Or if it doesn't, and the binaries do, there's nothing to stop anyone from compiling the source code and having a NSA-free version.
In this case, complying with the NSA would be far better because it'll reveal the true intentions. And no, they can rewrite the repository history all they want, someone will still have a copy of the old source code, and you can diff it against the current. Unless you believe the NSA has special hard drive rewriting magic that'll seek out every source code copy and replace it with the altered version. Across all formats, filesystems, RAID, CD/DVD/Blu-Ray (even pressed), etc.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument.
The only real possibility is there is an NSA backdoor already in the code that's been there a LONG time and buried way back in diffs long forgotten. Except the audit came back clean, which means it has to be hidden very well, and probably there since day 1.
As much as I'm a fan of conspiracy theories, this one is way too easy to disprove.
Remember, we know the last "good" version of TrueCrypt - the source code produced the binaries - the audit has proven that, and the audit has a copy of those verified source and binaries. And the audit can easily re-verify that fact. Sure you can do the whole "what about the compiler doing it" which is probably true for Microsoft and Apple, but Linux is more complex (it would have to be hidden in GCC for a long while now). And it's still not invulnerable to looking at the assembly code (you can compile it debug, optimizations off if you want to make it even easier to trace). If the compiler fails to introduce the hole at any point, it'll be noticed.
The source code diffs would easily show questionable changes as well.
There is no where the NSA could hide this, except at the very beginning of time. And perhaps it's why the TrueCrypt devs quit because the audit would reveal it.
In which case, the clean bill of heath for the audit is now questionable.
Hint: Most pilots pay for their medicals out of their own pocket.
And pilots really are paid piss-poor - after spending $50,000 getting your ATPL certificates and required hours to even go for an airliner, you get greeted with a whopping $20K/year job and shit routes. At a regional airline, since the big guys traditionally don't hire fresh new guys until they had a few thousand hours under their belt.
Now, you can ask who are these crazy people who basically will spend 3/4s of a month away from their families for shit pay? Well, they're amongst the most dedicated pilots around - no one really does it out of necessity (I'm sure a McJob paying minimum wage would net you more, and you don't have flying school debt), so there's also an element of "don't ground me" involved as well. And given the really cyclical nature, you want to avoid any excuse to have your company lay you off.
Of course, it's not all bleak - after a few years In the regionals, the pay does perk up some, Get left seat (captain) in a regional and you're looking at $50-70K, though most people jump to the airlines because even though you start at the bottom (typically - though airline backed regionals sometimes have seniority transfer), after a decade or so you can start getting paid in the 6 figures.
But yeah, next time you're flying domestic, even with the airlines, the guy up front who is responsible for your safe arrival probably makes less than most of the /. crowd. (And no, when they're stopping over at a remote destination, they usually have to pay for their hotel, or sleep at the corporate office at the airport. At bigger hubs, a few pilots would often get together to pay for an apartment (lovingly called a "crash pad") to at least save on hotel bills and get a bit more peace and quiet away from the airport. It may only be a single room apartment where 3-4 (out of maybe 10 or so) will stay every night - the lucky one gets the bed, the next the sofa, everyone else lays a mattress on the floor.
You have it reversed - the 6800 predated the 6500.
The 6800 was done by Motorola, but those designers were unhappy with the way Motorola was marketing it (expensive processor), so they split off from Motorola and created MOS. They designed (cleanly) the 6500, which was designed to be super cheap ($25), and not only binary compatible, but pin compatible with the 6800. You could literally drop the 6500 into a 6800 socket and it would work just fine (being designed by the same guys helped).
Motorola got pissed at this, and threatened MOS, so they simply created a new processor which was similar to the 6500, but not pin compatible, but close enough. They called it the 6502.
Its low price helped significantly, but also that at every trade show, MOS would have them for sale. Bring $20-25, and they'll sell you a 6502 and all the databooks and manuals you needed to hook it up. Motorola and everyone else required you to go through distributors to obtain that material, and it was also over $100 (I think the 6800 was $200 or so) to boot.
Basically MOS realized there was a home hobbyist market, and they sold processors at every trade show they attended to interested folks.
Correct, however, the main reason most corps went Clang/LLVM is because of GPLv3. When it was GPLv2, it was well understood and most places tolerated it and used it quite informally inside their workflow processes.
However, GPLv3 did startle them, and they got worried, big time. It's incompatibility with v2-only code meant that most corporations had to implement formal processes for integrating open-source code (despite license - doesn't matter if it's MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL(v2/v2+/v3/v3+), etc) within their business. It applies regardless of if the code is for external customers, or internal tools - all of a sudden there's a big clampdown on making sure the right code gets used.
And I've seen new policies that basically state "other than these preapproved projects with these licenses, no further GPL-licensed code is allowed within the company without legal approval and justification".
GPLv3 basically scared a lot of companies into shaping up, and they basically started running away from the GPL (except when it benefits them - i.e., they release code). So they migrated to Clang/LLVM to avoid the issues.
Apple was heavily involved early on in order to get Clang and LLVM to a state where it was usable - they saw the GPL writing on the wall and needed to migrate away from GCC, which is why they actually started making strides somewhere along the OS X 10.4 era, with 10.5 having a rudimentary compiler available but not default. I think it took to 10.8 or so before it was formally switched over, and Apple's last commit to GCC involved Grand Central Dispatch support and blocks.
Compared to h.264, VP9 is MORE efficient. Remember, VP9 was actually a contender for "next gen" codecs - i.e., it was a contender for h.265 which is required to get 4K content without taking 4 times as much space.
VP8 was the competitor to h.264, and it wasn't that great at it - in practically all metrics, h.264 beat VP8 handily.
VP9 compared to h.265 was far more mixed, and it's possible that VP9 might actually make it as the next-gen codec given the troubles h.265 is having right now w.r.t. patent licensing.
VP9 compared to h.264 is no contest - it is far more efficient - it's just like comparing h.265 with h.264 - h.265 is far more efficient and will get lower bitrates for the same quality.
Of course, the primary problem is no one can hardware accelerate VP9 right now, so it's all CPU decoded. (h.265 decoders are *just* starting to emerge). So 720p decoding in CPU is probably achievable, but 1080p or 4K... not so much.
And you know what can do it? Lithium. It's why there's a restriction on lithium batteries sent via airmail - lithium eats at the aluminum oxide and basically destroys it since the exposed aluminum forms new aluminum oxide, which is reacted with the lithium and thus the aluminum effectively dissolves.
I think gallium also has a similar effect, but is even more insidious - if you put gallium on aluminum, the gallium atoms migrate into the aluminum bulk, which greatly weakens it, and even worse, you can't really see anything happening. an impressive demonstration involves your typical soda can and a blob of gallium. AFter a few minutes, the pop-top releases the entire lid, if not completely popping on its own.
Except when you forget the --rebase and now have hours of work fixing your tree.
Especially if you provide your work as a bunch of patches against an official (but read-only) repo (because said repo is like AOSP where it's easily 30+GB).
git's ability to generate working patches that apply cleanly breaks if you branched somewhere along the line, then merged. You either should pull the branch with rebase, or a summary of changes (where git collapses the branch into one big commit, but only by diffing the final tree of the branch with the head so you don't get duplicates).
If you remember, it's great. If you forget... well lets just say I had to write an impressive script to take the output of "git format-patch" and transform it so "git am" can apply it all cleanly (and correctly).
I dunno, let's say...
Robbing a bank? You take people hostage so they don't act unpredictably until you get your cash. Then you run away, letting everyone go. You certainly don't want the police there to crash your robbery.
Grabbing data? You want to get the data so you hold the office hostage, copy the data off, then leave. (Though usually less public buildings and more privately owned offices).
There are plenty of circumstances where you want to get at stuff and don't intend the police to be around...
Doesn't have to be two monitors - can be a single one with lots of pixels.
But yeah, it can be remarkably how cheap companies can be when it comes to basic equipment - while it was great when everyone went from single to dual monitors back in the day, it's a bit tired when we're still using the same old 17" for 10+ years running at 1280x1024. Yeah, dual's are great, but it would be nice to go up a bit - even 24" 1080p duals are a godsend.
Over the past couple of years there have been a bunch of "underground" monitor upgrades, because project work suddenly required that we do stuff on 1080p and HDMI, so a bunch of HDMI monitors were ordered for that work, and retained. Eventually the entire engineering team was doing something that required them so another round of monitors, and eventually even more monitors were ordered so everyone has a 1080p monitor on their desk, 24-27", and their choice of using it. (And naturally, once they hooked it to their PCs, they got another monitor...).
I sorta jumped the gun on that - my project first required me to have a better video card in my PC which then ended up with a nice 28" 4K. (I still have a 1080p monitor for project work).
Our IT guy basically noticed people were needing better equipment and has decided to actually buy a bunch of upgrades piecemeal on a "squeaky wheel" basis.
I say, don't quite miss the dual monitors as much, and love the fact I can actually have PDFs, and all my code windows usefully tiled on one screen, and see the output of the serial debuggers and other things at the same time.
That was when everyone had to account for every clock cycle - when computers were expensive, and humans cheap. Nowadays, humans are expensive and computers are cheap.
Anyhow, it's also the main reason why emulation is hard - the slower the CPU, the harder it becomes. in fact, if you're going to tell me you're going to emulate a "simple" system, I will disregard it if you simply execute opcodes one at a time - because the real trickery happens in the cycle counts.
Cycle-accurate emulators solve basically every compatibility problem inherent with emulators. You'll see this in older emulators that often have "game specific fixes" because guess what? The game actually relied on cycle counting and expects results to be there precisely when it executes.
It's no longer enough that you emulate a 1MHz processor - you have to emulate it exactly with its behavior on every one of those million cycles every second. Even bus behavior because cycle-stealing is common and a lot of things depend on the fact that the CPU might have the bus idle for that part of the clock.
Of course, this also means it takes a beefy computer to emulate the older consoles, but that's perfectly fine. I believe bsnes is cycle-accurate for the SNES, and it takes a really powerful computer. For that, though, you get extremely accurate emulation and no game needs "fixes" to run properly because the timings are correct.
The need for cycle accuracy started dropping somewhere around the PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast era where the CPUs started becoming more powerful.
The moral of the story is that you get what you measure.
And most measurements do not actually quantify what you want to quantify - they are merely proxies for what you're measuring.
Anyone who's done the "SMART" (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results, Time) style of objectives will eventually figure out how to game the system. Because it tracks items that are concrete, you end up using concrete measurements for abstract things.
I mean, take for example you want to write compelling content for your blog, website, whatever. Well, "compelling" is not measurable, so you have to come up with a proxy. Perhaps "views"? In which case it gets rewritten to write at least 3 articles that achieve 1000 views in the next 3 months. It's specific, measurable, achievable, the results are clear, and a clear time. But it only measures by proxy, because view count is only a proxy. Perhaps you took a funny photo that went viral - is that compelling content or just a passing interest?
So in the end, what happens is you get what you measure. If you measure grades, you'll find the class will get the grades you require. But that isn't a proxy for learning.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't avail yourself to non-traditional learning opportunities. Yes, outside is extremely important, but just as you exercise their muscles, so should you exercise their minds.
Basically they can go outside to play, and learn at the same time - creativity (have them try to create a game while they play), sports (if they desire), engineering (try building a treehouse), and so on. Even basic skills like socializing, cooperation and sharing can be taught, learned and experienced. Hell, I'm sure you saw all the YouTube videos of "what happens if we do this...?" - that's a form of learning. You might want to supervise some of the more risky ones (like doing a vertical loop), or if the structural integrity is lacking, but experimentation is learning.
Basically you don't want them to basically veg out in front of the TV the entire summer - whether it be watching TV or movies or Netflix, or playing video games 24/7.
"Learning" is not an evil word. It doesn't have to be formalized into mere instruction. Learning can take place anywhere and anytime. Take your kids to the mall, it's a perfect place to learn basic arithmetic (how much is the stuff they want cost? How much is sales tax? How can you tell if you have enough money by estimating the total cost ans sales tax?) without it being a dull math lesson. A vacation to Europe can be turned into a fascinating history lesson.
Heck, learning can be skills based too - taking up cooking, welding, metalworking, woodworking, etc.
Hell, even building something with an Arduino, or playing around with a Raspberry Pi counts.
It's so easy to learn, and there are plenty of activities (even simple "playing outside") where learning can happen. As a parent, all you need to do is encourage it. And also balance - it's completely normal to veg out and play video games as well - but only to end a day of exercising the body and the mind. And the lesson for that is balance - mindless entertainment is fine in balance with the many educational opportunities.
I like it too. I can honestly say I haven't watched or read 30% of the movies or books that were presented, so it gives me something to add to the list of things to do.
it's probably one of the least "junk" april 1 themes played out - as in having useful value after april 1. I mean, I've heard about it, but I never actually watched the movie, read the book or other activity, and I have to admit, these capsule summaries certainly pique my curiosity.
Then again, I guess /. is against anything cultural. Even nerd/geek culture..
Even with urgent requests, approvals can come by right quick.
The thing is, if the CEO or whatever needs something urgently, they know the process and they can make sure to pressure everyone else involved in the approval process to actually process that one approval ASAP.
I've seen it done in well under an hour from request to final submission - the CEO just makes sure everyone is lined up to approve it. And this is in a serial approval process - you have something that needs approvals, and it goes up the chain - no one can sign out of turn.
Normal approvals generally take a week or so, because everyone does it at their leisure. But in emergency situations, you can be sped up significantly.
Well geez, I paid $100, bought an HP Stream 7 and it only has 1GB of RAM. And it's plenty speedy.
In fact, for Windows 8.1 and Atom, it's surprisingly fast.
The only thing is, for $100, the Stream 7 can run like crap and I'd still like it - it's a $100 friggin' PC running full Windows. Heck, I have Steam running on it!
This thing though is $500. A bit pricey for a Atom based tablet, I think.