You can have rsync only send updated blocks. Or you could simply use a COW file system mounted by iSCSI on your windows servers, if you prefer simplicity to features.
There's always been riders tucked into bills, but the legislative process has broken down so badly that the only way anything gets done is if it is tacked onto a appropriation bill, which is the one kind of bill Congress absolutely has to pass or everything falls apart.
The way Congress is supposed to control spending is that there are three steps: (1) a budget, which is a comprehensive spending and revenue plan; (2) authorization bills, which are detailed spending plans, and (3) appropriation bills, which actually release money so the government could run. You might not like the result, but the system ensures that result was at least something that was planned and debated.
Then you had the Tea Party caucus people come in, with the mission of shaking the place up. The one thing they managed to break was the system that ensured spending was under control. For several years Congress was spending money without a budget. Think about that for a moment. Then a law was passed saying nobody gets paid if there's no budget, so Congress did the obvious smarmy thing: they started passing budgets which they ignore when it suits them.
Appropriations bills are supposed to be a formality, the last step in a carefully controlled process. Instead they've become bloated contraptions full of unauthorized and un-budgeted spending and unpopular shit. Congress has become a legislative one-trick pony: pass this shit or the government shuts down.
What I can't understand is why these high profile ransomware attacks haven't prompted a rush to adopt copy-on-write filesystems. It's not like ZFS is exactly new.
I understand that because of cost places like Atlanta try to run their networks with the least expertise they can get away with, but projects like FreeNAS make it really easy. I have a cheap server running at home and have background tasks scheduled to rsync changes to it. It's like it's not even there, but if I need to I can mount the NAS box and right click on a file in Windows and access the all the previous versions.
Sure there are jobs that require that level of education. Thoracic surgeon. Biomedical engineer. School superintendent.
Many leadership positions that theoretically open to people with only undergraduate degrees are easier for people with (the right) advanced degree to get: lead data scientist, chief engineer on a megaproject like a new airliner
There are also many areas that need high educated people that are making do with less than optimal personnel. There's a critical shortage of adolescent psychologists in every single state of the US; waiting times are so long that a kid in trouble can take years to find help.
The problem is nobody is trying to match up need with supply; we encourage people to pursue their interests and assume that this will somehow end up matching the kind of people we need.
I think we're at a interesting point, where robotic drivers aren't as safe as human drivers in general, but are safer than human drivers under certain circumstances.
What this means is that robotic assistance can be used to improve safety, but when misused will actually make things worse. So for the foreseeable future, every time one of these things is in a crash the question will arise as to whether the system failed, or the driver misused it.
In fact both scenarios are bound to happen, and will continue to happen until the systems get so much better than humans should never drive. The details of an individual incident almost don't matter, except to the lawyers and engineers involved.
There's always evidence on both sides of a question in science, particularly when it comes to yes/no questions about the behavior of complex systems.
The Sherlock Holmes model of knowledge where all the clues fall into a perfect pattern with no contradictions or loose ends is a myth -- or at very least an exaggeration. Real life is like a jigsaw puzzle where there are always pieces that don't fit anywhere, don't seem right, or are missing altogether.
And that's not even counting the effects of *chance*. 5% of the time you reject the null hypothesis when it's true. 1 in 400 times you can do it twice in a row.
I suspect by calling their results "equivocal", the researchers are showing more understanding of their significance than the writer of TFA.
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
They haven't, so far as I know, been actually found on roasted meats. The Maillard reaction isn't a single reaction, it's more like a family of reactions between amino acids and reducing sugars.
You can avoid acrylamide in cooked food by (1) eating meat or (2) eating boiled food. So... meat and potatoes! Specifically roasted meat and boiled potatoes.
Acrylamide isn't an additive. Trace quantities of acrylamide are a byproduct of the Maillard (browning) reaction in certain foods. If you think about it, toasted bread isn't that different from roasted coffee; it's dry heat applied to seed proteins and sugars. People have been consuming it pretty much as long as they've been cooking things other than meat.
The monsoon is a seasonal change in prevailing winds. The summer monsoon, which runs from July to September, transports huge amounts of moisture from the Indian Ocean. Northern South Asia also has a winter monsoon, that runs from October to April, and brings modest rains in the first few months.
The trade winds bend fairly north in Asia, so that the prevailing winds in Tibet run from northeast to southwest, unlike most of the continental US at that latitude where westerlies prevail.
So if moisture is falling on the Tibetan plateau, it's not falling in the northern parts of South Asia. If China succeeds, I believe the losers will be Nepal, the Punjab, and possibly eastern Pakistan -- places that receive a mild fall northeast monsoon coming down from the Himalayas but not the more potent and well-known southeasterly summer monsoon. South Asian slashdotters, feel free to correct me.
The problem with Gen III and later reactors isn't confidence in their safety. The problem is that fracking has made new reactors economically unattractive. Natural gas is dirt cheap here in the US -- $3.50 per million BTUs. A natural gas plant can be constructed at 1/10 the cost per kw of capacity of a nuclear plant, and in a fraction of the time.
The most recent US nuclear projects started back in 2008, before fracking really took off. Those projects actually received construction green lights from the NRC after Fukushima, and the Obama administration even secured them billions of dollars of federal loan guarantees.
So the problem isn't government hostility to nuclear power, it's private sector reluctance to tie up billions of dollars in a nuclear plant that won't earn them a dime back for twelve years or more when they can have a gas plant up in less than half that time.
The only way nuclear plants will get built in the US is with federal government support.
I would say that "most people benefit" is a possible, even a plausible outcome. But it's far from certain. On the other hand it's almost certain that literally everyone won't do well out of it. I don't think that's ever happened in the history of disruptive technological change.
I think you have to be careful about generalizing from past disruptive events; every technological change is unique. And AI is taking us to a point that is unique even in the history of disruptive technologies -- although I think people may be getting a little ahead of the curve.
Here's my prediction for AI... I think soon we're going to start hearing more stories about how AI falls short of the hype. I think this will become almost a commonplace notion. We'll keep discovering ways AI falls short, until we realize that many of the things predicted have actually come to pass. Looked at under a microscope, that singularity point in the historical timeline will look more like a smudge.
Just because the derivatives market was a disaster doesn't mean you make any kind of valid point by comparing something else you despise to it. What's going on with Facebook is entirely different.
The problem with the derivatives market was a common anti-pattern in human behavior: something that works really well for an individual but fails miserably when everyone tries to do it. Companies used derivative contracts as a kind of speculation insurance, allowing hem to invest more aggressively, treating securities as if they were less risky than they actually were. This is great if it's just your company doing it, but if everyone does it, everyone starts acting as if that risk has simply disappeared. Consequently the market assumed a lot more risk than it should have because it was squirreled away where nobody could see it, through layers of opaque financial instruments. In hindsight the result was inevitable.
Facebook's valuation is something entirely different. Stock prices are based on peoples cumulative beliefs about the future, and because people are valuable, stocks often prove over- or under- priced. It's ordinary human fallibility. Fifteen year ago buying Amazon at $25 a share would seem to a speculation Puritan to be pure foolishness; where were the technical fundamentals to support that price? Amazon's stock value was based on peoples' confidence in its goal of achieving total worldwide retail domination, something that seems less far-fetched today.
Given the bad news, people are feeling less optimistic about Facebook's future, but it's still just an opinion.
Actually, the summary and particularly the title are pretty misleading here.
What the research shows is that non-antimicrobial drugs contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance. The bit about using these drugs as starting points for developing novel antimicrobials is an idea for further research.
This is a typical news media practice: give what appears to be good news equal weight to the bad news, thus producing "balance". As a result people come away with the wrong impression.
Yes, indeed. Stop using them. However your alternatives may in the long term become limited, because Uber is one of those companies built around an ideology of market disruption.
Slashdot Mirror
You can have rsync only send updated blocks. Or you could simply use a COW file system mounted by iSCSI on your windows servers, if you prefer simplicity to features.
You're just pissed because he's got a stronger asshole handshake than the Dear Leader.
If you think of security exclusively in terms of prevention you are in deep trouble.
There's always been riders tucked into bills, but the legislative process has broken down so badly that the only way anything gets done is if it is tacked onto a appropriation bill, which is the one kind of bill Congress absolutely has to pass or everything falls apart.
The way Congress is supposed to control spending is that there are three steps: (1) a budget, which is a comprehensive spending and revenue plan; (2) authorization bills, which are detailed spending plans, and (3) appropriation bills, which actually release money so the government could run. You might not like the result, but the system ensures that result was at least something that was planned and debated.
Then you had the Tea Party caucus people come in, with the mission of shaking the place up. The one thing they managed to break was the system that ensured spending was under control. For several years Congress was spending money without a budget. Think about that for a moment. Then a law was passed saying nobody gets paid if there's no budget, so Congress did the obvious smarmy thing: they started passing budgets which they ignore when it suits them.
Appropriations bills are supposed to be a formality, the last step in a carefully controlled process. Instead they've become bloated contraptions full of unauthorized and un-budgeted spending and unpopular shit. Congress has become a legislative one-trick pony: pass this shit or the government shuts down.
What I can't understand is why these high profile ransomware attacks haven't prompted a rush to adopt copy-on-write filesystems. It's not like ZFS is exactly new.
I understand that because of cost places like Atlanta try to run their networks with the least expertise they can get away with, but projects like FreeNAS make it really easy. I have a cheap server running at home and have background tasks scheduled to rsync changes to it. It's like it's not even there, but if I need to I can mount the NAS box and right click on a file in Windows and access the all the previous versions.
Sure there are jobs that require that level of education. Thoracic surgeon. Biomedical engineer. School superintendent.
Many leadership positions that theoretically open to people with only undergraduate degrees are easier for people with (the right) advanced degree to get: lead data scientist, chief engineer on a megaproject like a new airliner
There are also many areas that need high educated people that are making do with less than optimal personnel. There's a critical shortage of adolescent psychologists in every single state of the US; waiting times are so long that a kid in trouble can take years to find help.
The problem is nobody is trying to match up need with supply; we encourage people to pursue their interests and assume that this will somehow end up matching the kind of people we need.
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
But neither signifies what, in context, is being implied. Therefore they are lies of distraction.
I think we're at a interesting point, where robotic drivers aren't as safe as human drivers in general, but are safer than human drivers under certain circumstances.
What this means is that robotic assistance can be used to improve safety, but when misused will actually make things worse. So for the foreseeable future, every time one of these things is in a crash the question will arise as to whether the system failed, or the driver misused it.
In fact both scenarios are bound to happen, and will continue to happen until the systems get so much better than humans should never drive. The details of an individual incident almost don't matter, except to the lawyers and engineers involved.
There's always evidence on both sides of a question in science, particularly when it comes to yes/no questions about the behavior of complex systems.
The Sherlock Holmes model of knowledge where all the clues fall into a perfect pattern with no contradictions or loose ends is a myth -- or at very least an exaggeration. Real life is like a jigsaw puzzle where there are always pieces that don't fit anywhere, don't seem right, or are missing altogether.
And that's not even counting the effects of *chance*. 5% of the time you reject the null hypothesis when it's true. 1 in 400 times you can do it twice in a row.
I suspect by calling their results "equivocal", the researchers are showing more understanding of their significance than the writer of TFA.
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
They haven't, so far as I know, been actually found on roasted meats. The Maillard reaction isn't a single reaction, it's more like a family of reactions between amino acids and reducing sugars.
There's a word for bread toasted as lightly as possible... it's "bread".
They should have named it the Parkour Solar Probe.
You can avoid acrylamide in cooked food by (1) eating meat or (2) eating boiled food. So... meat and potatoes! Specifically roasted meat and boiled potatoes.
and they've been riddled with cancer
... ever since they started surviving to old age.
... then so does toast.
Acrylamide isn't an additive. Trace quantities of acrylamide are a byproduct of the Maillard (browning) reaction in certain foods. If you think about it, toasted bread isn't that different from roasted coffee; it's dry heat applied to seed proteins and sugars. People have been consuming it pretty much as long as they've been cooking things other than meat.
The monsoon is a seasonal change in prevailing winds. The summer monsoon, which runs from July to September, transports huge amounts of moisture from the Indian Ocean. Northern South Asia also has a winter monsoon, that runs from October to April, and brings modest rains in the first few months.
The trade winds bend fairly north in Asia, so that the prevailing winds in Tibet run from northeast to southwest, unlike most of the continental US at that latitude where westerlies prevail.
So if moisture is falling on the Tibetan plateau, it's not falling in the northern parts of South Asia. If China succeeds, I believe the losers will be Nepal, the Punjab, and possibly eastern Pakistan -- places that receive a mild fall northeast monsoon coming down from the Himalayas but not the more potent and well-known southeasterly summer monsoon. South Asian slashdotters, feel free to correct me.
The problem with Gen III and later reactors isn't confidence in their safety. The problem is that fracking has made new reactors economically unattractive. Natural gas is dirt cheap here in the US -- $3.50 per million BTUs. A natural gas plant can be constructed at 1/10 the cost per kw of capacity of a nuclear plant, and in a fraction of the time.
The most recent US nuclear projects started back in 2008, before fracking really took off. Those projects actually received construction green lights from the NRC after Fukushima, and the Obama administration even secured them billions of dollars of federal loan guarantees.
So the problem isn't government hostility to nuclear power, it's private sector reluctance to tie up billions of dollars in a nuclear plant that won't earn them a dime back for twelve years or more when they can have a gas plant up in less than half that time.
The only way nuclear plants will get built in the US is with federal government support.
I would say that "most people benefit" is a possible, even a plausible outcome. But it's far from certain. On the other hand it's almost certain that literally everyone won't do well out of it. I don't think that's ever happened in the history of disruptive technological change.
I think you have to be careful about generalizing from past disruptive events; every technological change is unique. And AI is taking us to a point that is unique even in the history of disruptive technologies -- although I think people may be getting a little ahead of the curve.
Here's my prediction for AI ... I think soon we're going to start hearing more stories about how AI falls short of the hype. I think this will become almost a commonplace notion. We'll keep discovering ways AI falls short, until we realize that many of the things predicted have actually come to pass. Looked at under a microscope, that singularity point in the historical timeline will look more like a smudge.
Just because the derivatives market was a disaster doesn't mean you make any kind of valid point by comparing something else you despise to it. What's going on with Facebook is entirely different.
The problem with the derivatives market was a common anti-pattern in human behavior: something that works really well for an individual but fails miserably when everyone tries to do it. Companies used derivative contracts as a kind of speculation insurance, allowing hem to invest more aggressively, treating securities as if they were less risky than they actually were. This is great if it's just your company doing it, but if everyone does it, everyone starts acting as if that risk has simply disappeared. Consequently the market assumed a lot more risk than it should have because it was squirreled away where nobody could see it, through layers of opaque financial instruments. In hindsight the result was inevitable.
Facebook's valuation is something entirely different. Stock prices are based on peoples cumulative beliefs about the future, and because people are valuable, stocks often prove over- or under- priced. It's ordinary human fallibility. Fifteen year ago buying Amazon at $25 a share would seem to a speculation Puritan to be pure foolishness; where were the technical fundamentals to support that price? Amazon's stock value was based on peoples' confidence in its goal of achieving total worldwide retail domination, something that seems less far-fetched today.
Given the bad news, people are feeling less optimistic about Facebook's future, but it's still just an opinion.
I'm picturing... concertinas.
Actually, the summary and particularly the title are pretty misleading here.
What the research shows is that non-antimicrobial drugs contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance. The bit about using these drugs as starting points for developing novel antimicrobials is an idea for further research.
This is a typical news media practice: give what appears to be good news equal weight to the bad news, thus producing "balance". As a result people come away with the wrong impression.
Someone is dead because of a faulty development process, which in turn is the result of a toxic business climate.
I suspect this happens more often than we know; it's just seldom that you can connect the dots so readily.
Yes, indeed. Stop using them. However your alternatives may in the long term become limited, because Uber is one of those companies built around an ideology of market disruption.