I actually sometimes use files as raw devices for writing (for example, if I need to demonstrate how ZFS resiliency works, a couple of files and mount allows me to quicly show how it works instead of having to use physical devices)?
Thanks, I don't think I could find a better example of a corner case if I tried.
The motors aren't mounted in the hub; they're mounted on the chassis and connected with a drive axle via a universal joint as with FWD vehicles. Picture here, about 1/3 down the page.
I've heard a lot of horror stories about students who were able to ride on the success of others.
Ah yes, the parasite. In high school I had a classmate in my CS class who couldn't program a VCR. I, being naive, socially awkward, and wanting to have friends, allowed him to look over my shoulder every week to get the correct answers. He went on to graduate with honors, was selected as the valedictorian, got a full ride to an ivy league university where he undoubtedly continued his shenanigans, and now he's a vice president at Visa Inc. So let that be a lesson to all you would-be cheaters, I guess.
ISO is the short name for International Organization for Standardization in general. In this context it's referring to a file (usually ending in.iso) which conforms to ISO9660, a specification for a CD-ROM filesystem. It's really a context-specific usage though -- in any other context ISO is usually referring to the International Organization for Standardization itself, not this particular spec, and other specs, which have far more wide-ranging applications, are usually referenced specifically by number and/or name.
To be fair, mount and its ilk are more complicated than they need to be. The flags and path should be optional, and the default behavior should be to detect the FS type where possible and mount in/mnt/volumename as read-only, creating the folder if necessary. This is the behavior that the majority of people want the majority of the time, and "mount image.iso" should accomplish that automatically. Commands without default behavior are like doorknobs that don't return to center because hey, *someone* might not want the door to latch after they close it. Conform to desired/expected functionality with as little user input as possible by default and let actual power users handle the corner cases.
I'm not the GP, but I saw the same thing all the time at the Fry's in San Diego. Granted, that was 10 years ago, so maybe they've changed, but I'm guessing it's cheaper to try to restock and resell it than to return it to the manufacturer, especially if the poor sap who buys it next doesn't notice the problem and return it in time.
I think it's poetic justice that he probably died thanks to the same pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo that he used to market his own products. Apple products are not marketed by comparable specs, for the most part, but on their non-quantifiable attributes such as "easy," "beautiful," "just working," and, notably, "magical." Apple products are sold as opaque "black boxes" which mere owners are not meant to understand.
Fortunately for Apple customers, there is some very sound science and engineering behind the devices Apple sells, even if the specs aren't always used in marketing. Unfortunately for Jobs, he fell victim (quite literally) to the same magical thinking and willful ignorance of engineering that made him shun megahertz and pixel counts. I cannot argue that his refusal to accept engineering limits indeed pushed his engineers to do better, but it also consequently made him less aware and appreciative of the difference between implementation of existing engineering concepts and true innovation. He catered to people without technical knowledge because he *hated* technical knowledge and failed to appreciate its virtue except as the end result. If something wasn't aesthetically pleasing, it was shit, and if polished shit was aesthetically pleasing, then it was the best thing in the world. And while wildly successful, as catering to intellectual laziness can be, and undeniably, though perhaps accidentally, pushing the engineering envelope in some respects, I think Jobs' aversion to specs and technical language (i.e. facts) has done a disservice to the public by discouraging them from having concrete knowledge of what they're really getting for their money. When you only focus on the promise of the marketer instead of the actual product they deliver and what that product is in concrete (engineering) terms, then you risk falling victim to charlatans who will tell you that they have the cure for cancer, and it's eating fruit.
You raise an interesting point. Most of the people around here drive ~10 over during rush hour, particularly in the morning. I think mass adoption of these devices will either a) validate the theory that many speed limits are too arbitrary*, or b) result in everyone driving the speed limit. It will be interesting to see which of these comes to pass.
* Where arbitrary means that higher speed doesn't translate to higher risk of an accident, though obviously the energy of a collision, and resulting damage, is pegged to speed via physics.
Incidentally, my son's homework last week was solving SPEED + SPEED + SPEED = KILLS, where each letter represents a single digit from 0 to 9. Since we're orbiting the sun at ~67,000MPH, I guess somebody better tell the earth to slow the fuck down.
There were a few states who believed something along those lines circa 1865. There are arguments on both sides of the issue: The civil war is proof positive that brothers will certainly take up arms against one another if they believe they're fighting for the right cause. It's also strong evidence (as fits with common sense) that a better supplied, commanded, and outfitted army will triumph over smaller forces.
On the other hand, the Revolutionary War is evidence that it's entirely possible for a relatively small band of fighters to make things too expensive and painful for a would-be ruler to remain in control.
All that in just our own short history, which says nothing of results going in either direction throughout world history. As with most conflicts, it generally comes down to who wants it more and is willing to go to the furthest lengths to win, followed by luck and skill of execution in equal parts.
Because there's no limits on (or indeed, definitions of) Interstate Commerce in the Constitution. That's the problem with vague laws that people argue are "straightforward," though if they're defined explicitly and thoroughly, then people complain that they're too complicated.
The root of bullying is bad parenting. "Other" adults who engage in bad behavior can be dismissed as "bad people," but the parent-child bond (at least from the child's perspective) excuses that behavior. The child learns to rationalize that he "deserves" to be treated poorly which, in his mind, makes it ok to treat other people that way when they "deserve" it, or if no connection between behavior and treatment is made or exists, that it's ok to treat people poorly on a whim. You can teach them differently outside the home, but if home life is bad, they're still going to have emotional trauma that they don't know how to handle appropriately. It's easy to say "parents should stop doing that," but it's much more difficult to devise an effective strategy to actually make it happen.
You have your answers, but someone else has theirs, and they're not the same. If you can't acknowledge that without resorting to the "No True Scotsman" argument, then you're being intellectually dishonest.
True, but without copyright, would the GPL be necessary? Source code is nice and all, but it's not strictly necessary in order to reuse existing software verbatim. Cracking is a pervasive form of binary reuse, though it's typically not thought of in those terms.
The problem is we have too many lawyers, and too many of them are involved in writing laws.
Well that problem seems to be taking care of itself, in that many lawyers can't find jobs these days, or clients if they go into private practice. Unless you finish at or very near the top of your class from a reputable school, law isn't a particularly good field to get into right now, and even then you may face difficulty. Case in point, my wife finished top of her class with a paralegal degree, was offered a full scholarship to Columbia, which she politely declined (we live on the other side of the country), and now works in IT. The corporate attorney at her company wanted to get her into their department so she could work in her field, but she won't go because it would mean a pay cut. As it stands the lawyer actually makes less than my wife and has over $200k of student loan debt to boot. Obviously that's just one anecdote, but it seems to be representative of the state of the legal profession.
TL;DR, yes, there are too many people in the legal profession, but many of them are finding their way into other fields.
Yeah, by a bunch of purposely obtuse dickwads who would like to argue what the definition of "is", is.
That was Bill Clinton, not the SCOTUS.
Most normal, rational, people have no problems understanding what was written and what was meant by them.
Most normal, rational people *think* they have no problem interpreting what was meant, but you'll find that there's disagreement, and that disagreement has to be resolved somehow. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [sic] shall not be infringed..." What are arms? Should we be allowed to own nukes? Should we require permits? Are permits an infringement? Does people mean "individual private citizens," militias, or something else entirely?
And that's just one half of one sentence. If anything, laws are too vague, including (perhaps especially) the Constitution.
Note: Those questions are rhetorical -- the point is you'll find vastly different answers from "normal, rational people."
Slashdot Mirror
I actually sometimes use files as raw devices for writing (for example, if I need to demonstrate how ZFS resiliency works, a couple of files and mount allows me to quicly show how it works instead of having to use physical devices)?
Thanks, I don't think I could find a better example of a corner case if I tried.
Sorry, GP was rated too low; I thought you were commenting on the Tesla X specifically.
The motors aren't mounted in the hub; they're mounted on the chassis and connected with a drive axle via a universal joint as with FWD vehicles. Picture here, about 1/3 down the page.
I've heard a lot of horror stories about students who were able to ride on the success of others.
Ah yes, the parasite. In high school I had a classmate in my CS class who couldn't program a VCR. I, being naive, socially awkward, and wanting to have friends, allowed him to look over my shoulder every week to get the correct answers. He went on to graduate with honors, was selected as the valedictorian, got a full ride to an ivy league university where he undoubtedly continued his shenanigans, and now he's a vice president at Visa Inc. So let that be a lesson to all you would-be cheaters, I guess.
ISO is the short name for International Organization for Standardization in general. In this context it's referring to a file (usually ending in .iso) which conforms to ISO9660, a specification for a CD-ROM filesystem. It's really a context-specific usage though -- in any other context ISO is usually referring to the International Organization for Standardization itself, not this particular spec, and other specs, which have far more wide-ranging applications, are usually referenced specifically by number and/or name.
To be fair, mount and its ilk are more complicated than they need to be. The flags and path should be optional, and the default behavior should be to detect the FS type where possible and mount in /mnt/volumename as read-only, creating the folder if necessary. This is the behavior that the majority of people want the majority of the time, and "mount image.iso" should accomplish that automatically. Commands without default behavior are like doorknobs that don't return to center because hey, *someone* might not want the door to latch after they close it. Conform to desired/expected functionality with as little user input as possible by default and let actual power users handle the corner cases.
I agree with com.mystuff.wordlist.nouns.pronouns.demonstrative.that!
I'm not the GP, but I saw the same thing all the time at the Fry's in San Diego. Granted, that was 10 years ago, so maybe they've changed, but I'm guessing it's cheaper to try to restock and resell it than to return it to the manufacturer, especially if the poor sap who buys it next doesn't notice the problem and return it in time.
I think it's poetic justice that he probably died thanks to the same pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo that he used to market his own products. Apple products are not marketed by comparable specs, for the most part, but on their non-quantifiable attributes such as "easy," "beautiful," "just working," and, notably, "magical." Apple products are sold as opaque "black boxes" which mere owners are not meant to understand.
Fortunately for Apple customers, there is some very sound science and engineering behind the devices Apple sells, even if the specs aren't always used in marketing. Unfortunately for Jobs, he fell victim (quite literally) to the same magical thinking and willful ignorance of engineering that made him shun megahertz and pixel counts. I cannot argue that his refusal to accept engineering limits indeed pushed his engineers to do better, but it also consequently made him less aware and appreciative of the difference between implementation of existing engineering concepts and true innovation. He catered to people without technical knowledge because he *hated* technical knowledge and failed to appreciate its virtue except as the end result. If something wasn't aesthetically pleasing, it was shit, and if polished shit was aesthetically pleasing, then it was the best thing in the world. And while wildly successful, as catering to intellectual laziness can be, and undeniably, though perhaps accidentally, pushing the engineering envelope in some respects, I think Jobs' aversion to specs and technical language (i.e. facts) has done a disservice to the public by discouraging them from having concrete knowledge of what they're really getting for their money. When you only focus on the promise of the marketer instead of the actual product they deliver and what that product is in concrete (engineering) terms, then you risk falling victim to charlatans who will tell you that they have the cure for cancer, and it's eating fruit.
You raise an interesting point. Most of the people around here drive ~10 over during rush hour, particularly in the morning. I think mass adoption of these devices will either a) validate the theory that many speed limits are too arbitrary*, or b) result in everyone driving the speed limit. It will be interesting to see which of these comes to pass.
* Where arbitrary means that higher speed doesn't translate to higher risk of an accident, though obviously the energy of a collision, and resulting damage, is pegged to speed via physics.
Incidentally, my son's homework last week was solving SPEED + SPEED + SPEED = KILLS, where each letter represents a single digit from 0 to 9. Since we're orbiting the sun at ~67,000MPH, I guess somebody better tell the earth to slow the fuck down.
printf("H");
printf("a");
printf("h");
printf("a");
printf("h");
printf("!\n");
What to do in the case of a meltdown is obvious: run as fast as you can and hope you're far away before it goes critical.
How to prevent a meltdown in the face of catastrophic structural, infrastructural, and logistical failure is another question entirely.
Electric Brain Stimulation To Train Snipers Quickly
Private: "I'm trying, but I just suck at shooting..."
Drill Sgt: "I've got a brain-shocker here that says you don't."
There were a few states who believed something along those lines circa 1865. There are arguments on both sides of the issue: The civil war is proof positive that brothers will certainly take up arms against one another if they believe they're fighting for the right cause. It's also strong evidence (as fits with common sense) that a better supplied, commanded, and outfitted army will triumph over smaller forces.
On the other hand, the Revolutionary War is evidence that it's entirely possible for a relatively small band of fighters to make things too expensive and painful for a would-be ruler to remain in control.
All that in just our own short history, which says nothing of results going in either direction throughout world history. As with most conflicts, it generally comes down to who wants it more and is willing to go to the furthest lengths to win, followed by luck and skill of execution in equal parts.
More "fun" once they figure out how to arm them with tasers.
Because there's no limits on (or indeed, definitions of) Interstate Commerce in the Constitution. That's the problem with vague laws that people argue are "straightforward," though if they're defined explicitly and thoroughly, then people complain that they're too complicated.
The root of bullying is bad parenting. "Other" adults who engage in bad behavior can be dismissed as "bad people," but the parent-child bond (at least from the child's perspective) excuses that behavior. The child learns to rationalize that he "deserves" to be treated poorly which, in his mind, makes it ok to treat other people that way when they "deserve" it, or if no connection between behavior and treatment is made or exists, that it's ok to treat people poorly on a whim. You can teach them differently outside the home, but if home life is bad, they're still going to have emotional trauma that they don't know how to handle appropriately. It's easy to say "parents should stop doing that," but it's much more difficult to devise an effective strategy to actually make it happen.
You have your answers, but someone else has theirs, and they're not the same. If you can't acknowledge that without resorting to the "No True Scotsman" argument, then you're being intellectually dishonest.
True, but without copyright, would the GPL be necessary? Source code is nice and all, but it's not strictly necessary in order to reuse existing software verbatim. Cracking is a pervasive form of binary reuse, though it's typically not thought of in those terms.
The problem is we have too many lawyers, and too many of them are involved in writing laws.
Well that problem seems to be taking care of itself, in that many lawyers can't find jobs these days, or clients if they go into private practice. Unless you finish at or very near the top of your class from a reputable school, law isn't a particularly good field to get into right now, and even then you may face difficulty. Case in point, my wife finished top of her class with a paralegal degree, was offered a full scholarship to Columbia, which she politely declined (we live on the other side of the country), and now works in IT. The corporate attorney at her company wanted to get her into their department so she could work in her field, but she won't go because it would mean a pay cut. As it stands the lawyer actually makes less than my wife and has over $200k of student loan debt to boot. Obviously that's just one anecdote, but it seems to be representative of the state of the legal profession.
TL;DR, yes, there are too many people in the legal profession, but many of them are finding their way into other fields.
Yeah, by a bunch of purposely obtuse dickwads who would like to argue what the definition of "is", is.
That was Bill Clinton, not the SCOTUS.
Most normal, rational, people have no problems understanding what was written and what was meant by them.
Most normal, rational people *think* they have no problem interpreting what was meant, but you'll find that there's disagreement, and that disagreement has to be resolved somehow. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [sic] shall not be infringed..." What are arms? Should we be allowed to own nukes? Should we require permits? Are permits an infringement? Does people mean "individual private citizens," militias, or something else entirely?
And that's just one half of one sentence. If anything, laws are too vague, including (perhaps especially) the Constitution.
Note: Those questions are rhetorical -- the point is you'll find vastly different answers from "normal, rational people."
We don't punish actions, we punish consequences. If I'm in a hurry and blow through a stop sign on purpose I get a fine.
Really? What's the consequence of blowing through the stop sign in that situation, other than the fine?
Gee, I wonder what the reactions on Slashdot will be. I can only guess.
You don't have to guess; you can just read the comments from the mysterious past, AKA this morning.
That is unless your ass actually is Process Explorer
That would explain a lot about Process Explorer.
Maybe you'd have gotten the GP's post if he'd enclosed it in imaginary sarcasm tags for you, like this:
[sarcasm]Sarcasm tags are so useful.[/sarcasm]
Unfortunately, that just ruins the joke for everyone else.