So.... six terabytes... isn't that horribly small by today's standards ?
Depends what you're doing with it. Suppose a bunch of netbooting, diskless nodes designed for doing calculations stored in RAM; 6TB might be plenty for that setup.
As I recall, the military has also run into similar problems, with body builders hitting the "obese" mark despite body fat ranges in the 5% area.
Absolutely. When I was in the Navy in the early '90s, we had semi-annual fitness tests. One of the requirements was a BMI lower than a certain value. There was a guy in my group (no, not me!), who had been extremely obese earlier in his life but who'd lost almost all the weight and was really fit by the time he joined the Navy. However, he still had all the extra skin and stuff around his waist from his heavy days.
Every six months, we'd go through the same ordeal: "Bob" would get measured for BMI, he'd fail as morbidly obese, and we'd haul him over to the dunk tank to measure his displacement so we could calculate his real body fat percentage. He'd get an excellent score, we'd all pass the fitness test, and then wait for the cycle to repeat itself.
Calculated BMI absolutely sucks for fitness evaluation, and I'm kind of horrified at the idea that anyone would ever count on it for anything real.
On average men in the US are 1.5 inches taller and women are 1.2 inches taller.
I bet the standard deviation is much higher in the US, though, since our population is much more diverse. I'm guessing that there are a lot more Japanese in America than the reverse.
I'm 6'0", and in my part of the country that makes me just a little taller than average. When I lived in San Diego, I could see over most of the crowd in night clubs.
I'd gladly stand up for a lack of choice on the filesystem front. Pick one, make sure it's absolutely tested, make sure it supports a nice range of features.
Absolutely! I'm tired of having to pick different filesystems for flash and RAID-0/SCSI-320 volumes when their needs and abilities are obviously identical.
An image hosted on your server and placed inside an anchor tag is called a 'link'. Putting an image hosted on another server inside an image tag is a 'hotlink'.
Note: this is a neologism. "Hotlink" had been synonymous with "link" for a long time before that distinction was made; in fact, this is the first I've heard of it. Look for old Usenet posts where "hotlink" just meant a link to another site.
"Funny" doesn't give you karma, but "Interesting" does. Someone was throwing you a bone for being funny, but had to work around Slashdot's broken moderation system.
So you could send a 500MB source code archive split across 350 1.4MB floppies?
Of course. However, it'd be your responsibility to make sure that the original archive could be reproduced from those floppies, meaning that you'd have to test for bad sectors and everything else likely to strike more than 1:350 disks. That also wouldn't stop a recipient with plenty of time on their hands (like a college CS major who hasn't been to class in a month) from piecing it together once, then sharing it with the world.
Basically, you could do that, but there are a lot of reasons why that would be a bad thing to do.
Working at a company with multiple physically distant colos, our legal dept informed us that we could not alter GPL code and push it to the servers without distributing the source publicly, because copying it over to the physically distant servers could be (and was presumed to be) "distribution".
So, what proximity is required to make it not distribution? Same state? Same building? Same rack? Same chassis? Same drive? Same partition? Same CPU?
we are trying to build outrage in order to get public sympathy behind him so he will get off with a slap in the wrist.
I'm not sympathetic to him. He (allegedly) did something wrong and deserves a fair punishment. However, he didn't do 38 years wrong - not even a hypothetical, unlikely 38 years. The fact that he's even potentially facing that stretch is a travesty, if for no other reason than that it gives prosecutors an enormous freakin' bargaining stick. "Play it nice and confess, kid, and we'll let you out in just 8. This is the only shot you'll get before we get crazy on you." If he had a maximum 4 year sentence dangling over his head, perhaps he'd fight it rather than take a crappy deal.
Again, I'm not a soft-on-crime person. It's just that I think something's severely broken if this is even a possibility, however remote.
While 38 years is certainly harsh, that is criminal behavior.
Thirty. Eight. Years. I am far from a bleeding heart, but my God, man! Imagine walking out of high school on your last day and realizing you're now 56. He'll miss the best 4 decades of his life. That's basically life in prison!
The pendulum's swung, and we have to get some sanity back into sentencing.
Yep, I actually own (or am good friends with people who own) such businesses. Every domain in my control actually refers to a legitimate business. My question was mostly rhetorical, because I've heard people on Slashdot who were bothered by web-less domains, and wanted to remind people that such things aren't terribly uncommon.
I just want to see those spammy squatters get a punch in the face one of these days so I can help a friend buy his domain back.
One question: what's a squatter? I have a few domains with no website but with active mail service. Some of these are in the form of $common_city_name$common_business_category.com, so others might incorrectly think that I'm holding their domains hostage.
Could you do something like using branches in place of commits, then when you get back online merge each of those branches in turn back onto the original tree?
Hmmm. I'm starting to see the appeal of git et al.
Nvidia has had a lock on the Linux market for years because of their support. The WRT line with Linux support made that router long outlive its normal market time.
With SVN, revision control while on a boat is impossible since while offline, there is no access to the central repository to check in revisions. Now with Git, I can continue to work productively offline and seamlessly push the day's changes and revision history to a repository on the network drive for nightly backup when returning to the office.
Having not used git before, I don't really see what's so great about that. Suppose that your code is in svn in branches/devel. You could do a nightly svn cp branches/devel branches/`date +%Y-%m-%d` to track all your revisions locally. You can do diffs between branches, delete them, rename them, etc.
Again, I've not used git. What would it do better? Help me see the light.
You know, the world's not exactly beating a path to Linux distros. It might not be the best idea to piss off a huge percentage of your intended audience, especially given that it's much more freedom-loving than most.
No, the intent is to access the network. If it's not your network, and you don't have authorization, then you are using it without permission.
If I didn't have authorization, then I wouldn't know that it was there in the first place (because it wasn't broadcasting its SSID) or wouldn't have been able to connect to it (because I was lacking the encryption key).
And for all of the idiots stating that the "router" gave them permission, give me a break. The router isn't a legal entity, and only works in the way you interact with it.
That's right. The router is only a piece of equipment: one that has been set up by its owner to allow anyone else to use it (whether the owner realizes that or not).
A big part of what a lot of people are missing is, even if you had a point regarding associating with his wireless network because it is open (which you don't), that only gives you authorization to access his LAN.
Then don't route my packets.
You don't have that right, because you aren't paying the ISP, and because the owner of the access point doesn't have the right to share or transfer his right to use his internet service with all of his neighbors, just like I don't have the right to share my HBO programming with all of my neighbors.
That's a hell of an ASS-umption. Any violation of the ISP's terms of service are between the WAP owner and his ISP. Furthermore, I'm not aware that all (or even most) ISPs disallow sharing the connection. Mine certainly doesn't.
And even if I run coax down my lawn, and put a coax jack at the end of my property so that people on the sidewalk can screw into it and watch HBO, that doesn't mean I have any right to share my HBO or that you have any right to leech service that you're not paying for.
Again, that's between you and your TV provider. I'm certain not on the hook for you violating your agreement - if in fact one exists that would prevent you from sharing your service.
Using someone else's wifi is a crime, because you're not just accessing their network, you're accessing their ISP's network without permission.
Assumption, and a hell of a big one.
Giving away your wifi by intentionally hosting open access points is very likely a breach of your contract with your ISP.
Possibly, but not certainly.
How you went from "possible against terms of service" to "illegal" is beyond me, but your grasp of the law sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends what you're doing with it. Suppose a bunch of netbooting, diskless nodes designed for doing calculations stored in RAM; 6TB might be plenty for that setup.
Absolutely. When I was in the Navy in the early '90s, we had semi-annual fitness tests. One of the requirements was a BMI lower than a certain value. There was a guy in my group (no, not me!), who had been extremely obese earlier in his life but who'd lost almost all the weight and was really fit by the time he joined the Navy. However, he still had all the extra skin and stuff around his waist from his heavy days.
Every six months, we'd go through the same ordeal: "Bob" would get measured for BMI, he'd fail as morbidly obese, and we'd haul him over to the dunk tank to measure his displacement so we could calculate his real body fat percentage. He'd get an excellent score, we'd all pass the fitness test, and then wait for the cycle to repeat itself.
Calculated BMI absolutely sucks for fitness evaluation, and I'm kind of horrified at the idea that anyone would ever count on it for anything real.
I bet the standard deviation is much higher in the US, though, since our population is much more diverse. I'm guessing that there are a lot more Japanese in America than the reverse.
I'm 6'0", and in my part of the country that makes me just a little taller than average. When I lived in San Diego, I could see over most of the crowd in night clubs.
No, we weren't, until it disproved your point. Nice way to move the goalposts, though.
Absolutely! I'm tired of having to pick different filesystems for flash and RAID-0/SCSI-320 volumes when their needs and abilities are obviously identical.
Doubtful. GPLv3 is too nice a license for them to reject just because Linus is being bullheaded.
The Tremendous Hadron Collider is more likely to create a black hole with the munchies.
Note: this is a neologism. "Hotlink" had been synonymous with "link" for a long time before that distinction was made; in fact, this is the first I've heard of it. Look for old Usenet posts where "hotlink" just meant a link to another site.
"Funny" doesn't give you karma, but "Interesting" does. Someone was throwing you a bone for being funny, but had to work around Slashdot's broken moderation system.
Of course. However, it'd be your responsibility to make sure that the original archive could be reproduced from those floppies, meaning that you'd have to test for bad sectors and everything else likely to strike more than 1:350 disks. That also wouldn't stop a recipient with plenty of time on their hands (like a college CS major who hasn't been to class in a month) from piecing it together once, then sharing it with the world.
Basically, you could do that, but there are a lot of reasons why that would be a bad thing to do.
Absolutely! Why would that even come into question?
So, what proximity is required to make it not distribution? Same state? Same building? Same rack? Same chassis? Same drive? Same partition? Same CPU?
The *AA is fighting to take away your freedom. The FSF is fighting to keep others from taking away yours. That's the difference.
I'm not sympathetic to him. He (allegedly) did something wrong and deserves a fair punishment. However, he didn't do 38 years wrong - not even a hypothetical, unlikely 38 years. The fact that he's even potentially facing that stretch is a travesty, if for no other reason than that it gives prosecutors an enormous freakin' bargaining stick. "Play it nice and confess, kid, and we'll let you out in just 8. This is the only shot you'll get before we get crazy on you." If he had a maximum 4 year sentence dangling over his head, perhaps he'd fight it rather than take a crappy deal.
Again, I'm not a soft-on-crime person. It's just that I think something's severely broken if this is even a possibility, however remote.
Thirty. Eight. Years. I am far from a bleeding heart, but my God, man! Imagine walking out of high school on your last day and realizing you're now 56. He'll miss the best 4 decades of his life. That's basically life in prison!
The pendulum's swung, and we have to get some sanity back into sentencing.
They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS. Win.
Yep, I actually own (or am good friends with people who own) such businesses. Every domain in my control actually refers to a legitimate business. My question was mostly rhetorical, because I've heard people on Slashdot who were bothered by web-less domains, and wanted to remind people that such things aren't terribly uncommon.
Are the squat police responsible for traps?
One question: what's a squatter? I have a few domains with no website but with active mail service. Some of these are in the form of $common_city_name$common_business_category.com, so others might incorrectly think that I'm holding their domains hostage.
Could you do something like using branches in place of commits, then when you get back online merge each of those branches in turn back onto the original tree?
Hmmm. I'm starting to see the appeal of git et al.
You're 7 years and halfway into your PhD? I thought I was a slacker.
Linksys. But yeah.
Having not used git before, I don't really see what's so great about that. Suppose that your code is in svn in branches/devel. You could do a nightly svn cp branches/devel branches/`date +%Y-%m-%d` to track all your revisions locally. You can do diffs between branches, delete them, rename them, etc.
Again, I've not used git. What would it do better? Help me see the light.
You know, the world's not exactly beating a path to Linux distros. It might not be the best idea to piss off a huge percentage of your intended audience, especially given that it's much more freedom-loving than most.
If I didn't have authorization, then I wouldn't know that it was there in the first place (because it wasn't broadcasting its SSID) or wouldn't have been able to connect to it (because I was lacking the encryption key).
That's right. The router is only a piece of equipment: one that has been set up by its owner to allow anyone else to use it (whether the owner realizes that or not).
A big part of what a lot of people are missing is, even if you had a point regarding associating with his wireless network because it is open (which you don't), that only gives you authorization to access his LAN.Then don't route my packets.
You don't have that right, because you aren't paying the ISP, and because the owner of the access point doesn't have the right to share or transfer his right to use his internet service with all of his neighbors, just like I don't have the right to share my HBO programming with all of my neighbors.That's a hell of an ASS-umption. Any violation of the ISP's terms of service are between the WAP owner and his ISP. Furthermore, I'm not aware that all (or even most) ISPs disallow sharing the connection. Mine certainly doesn't.
And even if I run coax down my lawn, and put a coax jack at the end of my property so that people on the sidewalk can screw into it and watch HBO, that doesn't mean I have any right to share my HBO or that you have any right to leech service that you're not paying for.Again, that's between you and your TV provider. I'm certain not on the hook for you violating your agreement - if in fact one exists that would prevent you from sharing your service.
Using someone else's wifi is a crime, because you're not just accessing their network, you're accessing their ISP's network without permission.Assumption, and a hell of a big one.
Giving away your wifi by intentionally hosting open access points is very likely a breach of your contract with your ISP.Possibly, but not certainly.
How you went from "possible against terms of service" to "illegal" is beyond me, but your grasp of the law sucks.