Now SL is a BUSINESS environment, huh? Sure, to the same extent that poker can be a business. You're horribly mistaken, Linden Lab is the business, SL is their game. "Professional" poker players still play a game. It's still gambling, regardless of the skill or amount of money. Some may make a living off of the winnings, but the _game_ is not more serious or important to the rest of us because they do. It is purely entertainment. The same can be said for any professional sports. Sure, it's a business for some, but FOOTBALL is not important, how many viewers is. It is still purely entertainment.
My point is that you can throw money away at anything, and sometimes get it back. That doesn't automatically make whatever the hell you're doing any bit more important to anyone but you.
Except that real money is involved in Second Life. There's more to it than just a game -- when money can be made and lost, the stakes and consequences are higher. My problem is that you're making it out to be more than a game just because money is involved. Even the people making a living off of it have to realize it's JUST A GAME. I thought my analogy did a fine job getting that point across. You know.. I invest money, but a lawn is still just a lawn. Even professionals know their job is just to make a patch of dirt look pretty. Although they may have too much pride to tell you that.
I can understand why people are attracted to this game. It does sound like a great place explore your creativity. However, there is a HUGE problem with SL.
When I was younger, I spent a lot of my time playing Doom, and Quake. I even made my own levels, and some models. My friends and I had tons of fun playing in our own creations. Everyone has access to modeling tools, and there are plenty of games and 3D worlds to share your creativity in. The problem with modding games is that there's a very steep learning curve. The idea of a free, massive, online world with modeling and scripting tools built in sounds AWESOME. It really lowers the bar for people interested in creating/animating 3D content, and sharing with others.
BUT... why does this need to involve real money? Why are people quibbling over security, and banks, and losing real money? SL is an insanely risky investment. It's absurd to think that REAL money is needed for this game to work. Spending money for the sake of spending money is NOT fun.
A game like this, done properly, should have some some kind of intrinsic, fun gameplay (or strong social elements at a bare minimum), coupled with a completely virtual economy, if needed. Something along these lines that I've always hoped would be made someday is a massive, online LEGO universe. Modeling with bricks isn't that hard. All the LEGO themes over the years lend themselves to a WIDE variety of possible gameplay elements. Pirates on the sea, space exploration, racing, etc. Eh, just an idea.
Who was the dickwad who came up with SL? How exactly did the pitch go... Dick: "Hey, how about a massive online game with ZERO gameplay or content. Instead, we let the PLAYERS make stuff, and chat with each other" Bigger Dick: "Brilliant! It needs some pizzaz though. We'll let players transfer REAL money directly to us so they can buy other people's crap with FAKE money."
Sorry, that's a bit rough, SL was obviously designed as a social experiment, not a game. Enjoy.. I guess.
Yes, so is SL. Stop being dramatic. I lose money every time I spray my backyard with grass seed. I don't go around telling people "It's more than just lawn-care!... It's another LIFE!"
Seriously, the consequences are as high as you want to set them. Throwing wads of money into the street has high stakes and consequences too.
That version can be tested and inspected, even checking the binary wouldn't reveal malicious code because there wouldn't be any malicious code to find - no dodgy looking system calls, for example. Just a chunk of seemingly random data, which could be disguised as a lookup table, compressed image or whatever. I'll ask the same thing many others are asking. If you can sneak garbage into a binary, why not sneak the actual payload in? And... there are people who inspect binaries and are thrown off by random garbage code? What exactly are they looking for then? If I throw a fistful of metal widgets under someone's hood, would I expect to fool the driver or his mechanic? The attack most of you are suggesting is so bizarrely over-complicated.
It's like a crazy plan to put a suspicious looking EMPTY package in the mail.. followed by an equally puzzling plan to somehow deliver the suspicious looking EVIL package later on.
Let me give it another shot... 1. Already have access to source and/or binary to be released. 2. You can't sign your own package. 3. Submit a benign, funny looking package for signing & release. 4. Switch out evil, funny looking package for distribution later, keeping the same valid signature.
Is this a plot from Mission Impossible IV? This is so silly. The attacker would already have to have access to the source, and distribution system, but not the signing mechanism for this attack to be worthwhile. You are so screwed at that point, any weakness in MD5 doesn't matter one bit.
Wow, can we stop with all the Ubuntu plugs? It will NOT EEEEEVEEEEER replace the functionality of a Mac. Every damned article with anything bad to say about Macs winds of with three or four of you Ubuntu douche bags. Do you have no idea how far off from Mac OS X + Mac, Ubuntu + PC is? Not even f'ing CLOSE. Your shit might fly in some Windows bashing forums, but really, that's it. Windows veterans know what the platform's pros and cons are, and many have at least dabbled with a Linux distro by now. It might come as a surprise to you, but a good deal of new Mac users are IT professionals with a lot of experience with Windows (often Linux too). There's a REASON we bought Macs, and running a free Windows replacement on cheap PC hardware again does NOT appeal. Sorry, "free Windows replacement" is a little harsh, but please understand. Linux on the desktop is far better (relatively speaking) positioned to replace Windows desktops than Macs. I don't think you can look a real Mac user in the face and tell them they should switch to a desktop PC running Ubuntu without wincing.
You may as well be in an car enthusiast forum trolling "Check out my Scion! I have SIX cup holders, eat that Lotus!"
Why Ubuntu anyway? Slashdot isn't plagued by Fedora or Debian trolls. I spent eight years with Red Hat/Fedora on my primary desktop, and not once do I recall some idiot even imply that a Linux desktop is viable as a Mac replacement. Now Ubuntu rolls in with a 3D window manager, users bragging about how little they need to use the command line, and a sickening level of hype. My Linux half cries. The culture that was unique to Linux not so long ago is so wasted now. It could be so much more than an attempt to be grannie's desktop OS. All the stuff that made Linux stand out is getting pushed aside for more cheesy Mac OS X/Windows knockoff features.
I've calmed down a bit now, and sorry if I offended anyone. This one is for the Ubuntu trolls..
Solaris is looking like a better Linux all the time. Eat that.
I'm going to have to spend more time with Ubuntu too I guess:)
Most recently, I had to dick around with the VMWare client and Cisco VPN client. They both required compiling. VMWare, I think is included in some Ubuntu repo now.
I have nothing against Linux, and the popular distros have gotten much better over the years. The custom kernel was a semi-recent attempt to get a wireless card running under Fedora. I used two different methods of loading the Windows NDIS driver, both required a small kernel tweak, and both were crazy unstable on an SMP kernel.
Sorry for your problems, but I don't think you speak for the majority of Mac or Linux users:\ It would take a LOT to convince me Linux distros have fewer hardware & software issues than Macs do.
I should have written "tiny icons in all four quadrants of the screen" to be clear. To be fair, In Windows XP, a maximized window does put the close button and app menu buttons at the absolute corners of the screen. The whole taskbar seems to be clickable from the far edge also.
I'm still not convinced that putting useful features in all four corners at the same time (absolute or not) is ergonomically sound, or even best from a usability standpoint. Maybe with high enough mouse accel I guess...
using a different polling methodology Did they knock on random doors and say "pretty please" this time?
The Lancet studies estimated ~300,000 to ~900,000 deaths, and ran with 655,000. If anything is consistent with that, I'd find it just as ridiculous.
How can you blow 629 deaths reported in a poll into 655,000? Tell me what kind of statistical magic can do this. No, why the hell is a new report guesstimating 1.2 million deaths consistent with a report that guesstimated 655 thousand?
The Free Press provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. What, the free, uh.. I mean the _press_ in countries that start with "Ir"?
Freedom of Speech provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. You mean the freedom of speech in... uh.. WHERE again? Is that statement true ANYWHERE?
I don't see any difference between a "Press" and "The Internet". I'm sorry, you don't know the difference? Seriously? Who writes for the Internet? Do terrorists freely publish propaganda in our press? Am I getting through to you?
One definition of "propaganda" is "speech by your political opponents". Political speech is, of course, the most highly protected form of free speech. No, that's not even A definition of "propaganda", thank you very much. Here's what Oxford American Dictionary says...
prop-a-gan-da noun 1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. [bullet] the dissemination of such information as a political strategy 2 (Propaganda) a committee of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church...
I don't believe you meant #2, and derogatory, biased, or misleading speech is NOT the most highly protected form of free speech.
Seems to me the bill is facially unconstitutional. Have you lost your damned mind? Are you calling Congress's findings unconstitutional? Can a Congressional finding BE unconstitutional? Incorrect, maybe.
From the H.R. 1955 that about THREE people in this whole forum actually read:
`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.
`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. Are you calling their ability to establish this new commission unconstitutional? Is there something in (b) through (s) that's wrong?
Did you read the bill? Or did you respond to someone else's post about someone else's post about the post that said the Internet is mentioned only once?
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following: ... `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
Why specifically name the Internet? We could substitute the word with any of the following: Postal system, library, school system, etc. And now your suggestions, with my own emphasis around portions people are having trouble reading.
`(3) The US Postal Service has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) US public libraries have aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) The US school system has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
This sets a horrible precendence and seeds the idea that the Internet must be controlled or even dismantled. What kind of 'precedent'? Is the Congress's finding incorrect, or are you just afraid of the implications you made up? YOU are seeding the idea that "the Internet might be controlled or even dismantled."
Sure, your being smug because you know your friendly federal agents who are not ACTUALLY going to be monitoring the Internet have already classified Me as a possible terrorist agent. They'll be wrong, but that is what they are wont to do. Your post is so damned crazy, I don't know where to start. Take off your tin-foil hat. Go outside and get some fresh air.
You got mod points, but it doesn't seem like you are putting emphasis where it needs to be. With what was stated in the bill, it is also plausible that public libraries, Popular Science magazine, the Radio Shack catalog, the USPS, the public switched phone systems, and dozens of other things that might qualify as helping to spread terrorist ideals, assist in terrorist activities, or otherwise be used by terrorists. Moderators are apparently attracted to really long posts, but don't read them.
You COMPLETELY missed the point of the bill, and jumped to wild conclusions. I can't even stomach arguing your idiotic points, and I doubt anyone else can. Please, start watching more C-SPAN, stop reading blogs, and try to get half a clue how our government actually works before putting your silly conspiracy theories together.
A copyright restricts distribution to the copyright holder. The GPL is a license that gives permission for others to redistribute GPL'd code under its terms. The only relation to copyright is that if you violate the terms of the agreement (GPL isn't a contract) then you may be infringing on the copyright. If you don't copy, redistribute, or otherwise do something that could infringe on a copyrighted work, a GPL notice in some source file means jack squat.
Sounds like this update really pushes me to use more linux:) It's clear Apple is using their monopoly powers to force folks to BUY more software, with less functionality... Is that supposed to be a joke? I lost count of how many times an update hosed my Linux system (often related to Gnome/GConf). It's much better these days, but messing with packages outside your system's default repositories can still screw things up very easily. There is STILL important software that require./configure && make && make install. I love Linux, but a Mac replacement it will never be. A fine complement, yes.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly (on what, Apple hardware!?), and they didn't force anyone to buy more software. Also, how exactly does Leopard have less functionality than Tiger? Boot Camp was beta, and everyone knew this. It didn't come with OS X. Everyone knew it was available for a limited time. Duh?
Please forgive me if I missed your sarcasm, I'm trying real hard to find it. If you're just getting started with Linux, have fun. Switching from Windows (home desktop, Linux at the workplace came much later) when I was young was one of the best decisions I ever made career-wise, and switching from Linux to Mac when I was older leaves me with a LOT more free time. I miss screwing around with Linux quite a bit, but I don't have time to dick with custom kernels and never, ever get 100% of my hardware working at the same time.
I'm sorry if I came of sounding like "racism doesn't exist." It obviously does, but it was brought into this conversation unduly.
That was an implication in one of the previous posts regarding the "tragedy" of the Americans and indifference to the deaths of the locals. Show me an example of racism (implied or real) in the previous posts.
Look, "A beautiful mind" came clean, that is all I was looking for. I was not defending or denying the existence of actual racism, elsewhere.
The racism comment should be clarified that what I ment is not really racism, but rather a mix of xenophobia and racism. Given that the "win" condition unless you plan to wipe out the iraqi people must be pretty close to what I've defined above, it is unimaginable to suppose that the fight is between the american and the iraqi people. Because of this fact, I would say that it is meaningless to talk about sides in this terms, or if you want to talk about sides you have to include the iraqi civilians on your side. Back to you.
Racism isn't based on political correctness. As such, calling for the requirement of political correctness for the definition of the races in order to discriminate on them would indicate that discrimination against gays is impossible because they aren't a race. Ask the "average" American what race they are in Iraq, and I'd guess more than a few will answer with "Iraqi" or something to that effect. Racism is politically incorrect. The word should be used correctly. Discrimination against gays is NOT racism, by any stretch, please don't go there. It can be any number of other bad things, but not racism. I agree with you that "racism" might not strictly be against one particular race, but Iraqi still isn't a race. Those same Americans also couldn't tell the difference between any two dark skinned people from the whole Middle East. WE are mislabeling their racist attitudes as "towards Iraqis".
When are civilians considered enemy combatants? Where did I say civilians were enemy combatants? The source given by "A beautiful mind", a "Lancet" article, made no distinction between the two. Look the thing up, read their methods and decide for your self wether it gives a true account of the casualties, civilian or otherwise. They went door-to-door asking about deaths in the family, skipped empty houses, skipped houses where no one would talk to them. No questions of military affiliation were asked, reason was that the answers couldn't be trusted. They then extrapolated a reported ~600 deaths to ~650,000 for the country. Actually, it is given as ~300,000 - ~900,000 (~650,000) in the paper. Don't take my word for it, look it up, the numbers are the best I can remember.
That's why I don't assume all the deaths are civilian. That and OBVIOUSLY people are shooting back at us, and they die too. Where is THAT statistic? The original poster was NOT talking about 650,000 civilian deaths for sure, his source makes it quite clear they didn't make any distinction.
Now that that's clear, what I said is still true.
Well, I'll grant you that it's more xenophobia and nationalism than racism, but when you hear "raghead" being used regularly to refer to those from Iraq, you must suspect that there is some racism involved. And I've never met a single person, of any race, that isn't racist. So to claim that racism isn't involved is disingenuous. Almost all people think their race is the best. It's a fact of self esteem. To pretend racism is rare, rather than ubiquitous is to not understand what it is. I did not EVER say there wasn't any racism in the world. There wasn't any in the previous posts. Holy crap, drop it man. Sure, there are little bits of racism everywhere, whatever, just dilute the living hell out of that word for all I care. That does NOT justify calling, or even implying someone is racist because we don't agree with someone else (or their BS statistics).
Putting tiny icons in all four corners at the same time is not an example of Fitt's law.
It is the reason that, on a Mac, all the window management functions and application menus are located in the SAME corner though. They are most likely in the upper left because that's where most the people reading this post will train their eyes when reading a piece of paper.
"Flicking" a mouse only counts as a shortcut where you can't overshoot the target and won't have to reposition it afterwards. To some extent, I think the Windows taskbar and Mac menu were designed with that in mind. I don't have a Windows desktop in front of me at the moment to test it, but on a Mac, the leftmost and rightmost items, the apple and spotlight logos, have huge clickable regions that go to the ends of the bar, and even into the black, "rounded off" corners of he bar.
In Mac OS there is no concept of maximising a window, so the same reasoning does not apply. I think that might be due to the widescreen displays that are standard on Macs. I do run XP in a VM occasionally, and I figured out that maximising to all four corners of a wide screen display is mostly useless. I still maximise JDeveloper though (Java apps 'zoom' to all four corners by default), not because I really want to write a two page wide line of code, but to hide any distractions while I work:)
Right, I suppose that's Linux's excuse also. Security is so poo-poo on Mac OS X and Linux that they're only safe because they aren't big enough targets. uh huh.
Look man, Windows security _was_ horrible.... nonexistent. Mac OS X and Linux are not in some security Dark Age just because they haven't had widespread attacks. If/when malware and viruses come to these platforms, they are plenty prepared. There wont be a repeat on the same scale as some older Windows attacks. Vista will have an easier time this generation too. Think where OS security will be however far into the future you think Mac OS X or Linux could be 'big enough' targets.
Some malware can already be adopted to any platform. Trojans, installed to user's home directory, and replication done by using the client's mail application, all while throwing out dozens of pop-up confirmations. The kind of attack vector which will probably exist for another 10 years or so in computing.
There will always be bugs in system software, but as far as being a serious compromise to security, they get fewer and further between. Too many different layers today for the nastier types of stuff that used to fly in the past.
You have GOT to be kidding. Gmail has a clean, consistent DESIGN, with almost no images, other than a static "GMail" in the upper left corner. It brings me to my inbox, with a one line plug for their Google Reader service, and a one line text add for an IT service outsourcing company that's placed near the top of the site. I open an email, and color matched text ads span from top to bottom on the right, similar to a newspaper column. Only the content of the text ads change, not the color, shape, or location.
For Yahoo, both new and classic bring me to some sort of welcome page with a 1x4" ad for their own search service titled "Top Electronics Search", and at least it matches the colors of the rest of the site. There's a big news widget thing in the center. To the right, there's a big f'ing RED, square, Bank of America credit card ad. On the left, the top and bottom of my Outlook-like directory are straddled by little, fugly, Win95 desktop icon-ads. "Bad credit? Card in 3 days", "Netflix Only $4.99/mo.", "Best SUV for Everyday", "Gold's Gym Free 7 Day VIP Pass".
The NEW Yahoo Mail site warns that Safari is not a supported browser, click to ignore. It is cleverly disguised as Outlook, with ads. Moving right along, I click a mail in my inbox, the BoA ad disapears, and the right ad region resizes to allow a shit-you-not, blinking "Have You Checked Your Credit Score This Month?" ad that runs from top to bottom of the page.
The CLASSIC Yahoo Mail site has a 'classical' giant, horizontal, animated ebay ad across the top, and in the same places on the left are more desktop-icon-ads, "See your credit score - free", "Netflix...", "Online Degree Programs", "Gold's Gym...", oh, and with a slightly different icon as the VIP pass, "Gold's Gym 7 Day Free Trial" It looks like a high schooler designed it.
Whoa whoa whoa, charging a 9mm handgun, and charging Marines with RIFLES are just a TAD different.
You're not referring to this incident with the Moros in 1899 I hope. I mean, bolt-action rifles with bayonets are an odd thing to compare with modern day handgun/taser vs. knife scenarios.
It's not clear what options you're presenting, but I'd take any rifle with a bayonet or any modern day service rifle over a taser to any knife fight, even with only a good running distance between us. Besides, wouldn't the presence of any firearm do more to dissuade an attacker than a taser would? Judging by the reactions of people threatened with tasers, and there are many youtube links floating around Slashdot with examples, it would seem that those on both ends of tasers underestimate their effect. Hard to blame just the cops when they tell you at least three times their going to use it, and you don't listen.
Make no mistake: had Apple designed the "Microsoft Sync" thingamajig, it would only work with iPods, period. You know, that's a tad unfair. Many cars today at least has a 2.5 mm audio jack that'll fit any MP3 player. There's no reason a high end head unit like this wouldn't have one, regardless of the designer. That being said, why the F would an Apple designed head unit NOT use an iPod connector? Wether it would also have a USB connector or not, who knows.
Many more people are going to be put off by lack of iPod connectors than lack of USB hookup. With the iPod connector and 2.5mm jack, you can play all the music you bought online, one way or another, and iPod owners get integrated controls. Check out Scion's standard Pioneer head units with iPod&AUX hookups. The steering wheel controls integrate with the iPod connection.
With a USB hookup, you have a choice, let it control your PMP's storage and only have access to non-DRM files, or play all the music you bought online, but through the same interface every other head unit on the planet has, the AUX jack.
Microsoft's system will probably appeal to those who don't have iPods (thus no integration available) or restricted music files of any kind. That's an awfully small chunk of the PMP world.
Xbox has nearly caught up to Playstation in brandname power and has indeed surpassed it in pop-culture. You see more Xboxes used or referred to in TV shows, songs, movies than Playstations nowadays. Wow, you are gullible. I suppose you think most of America uses Macs too (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's product placement dude.
Sure, that's a good idea, but your online nickname doesn't need to be on a resume. The emphasis should be on the projects you created or contributed to, not some virtual persona. You should explain in person, the online or FOSS projects that relate to the position applied for, and earn their trust. The whole notion of googling a nickname being more validating than telling someone the work you've done and demonstrating your knowledge is ridiculous. It comes down to trust (both ways). Besides, if you _really_ cared about getting recognition from the professional, err.. real world for your online projects, use your real name or at least a semi-professional looking email address!
Here it is in a nutshell, if your potential employer is relying on a google search to make a decision, YOU FUCKED UP YOUR INTERVIEW.
There was not even an argument for PC vs. console when Super Nintendo/Genesis came out. Even today, there is very little overlap between console and PC games other than 3D FPS. If a game could work equally well on both console and PC, you're more likely to see it on consoles.
Since around the time consoles started getting good online FPS games, PC's lost their biggest advantage. Today, quibbling over console FPS vs. PC FPS is just as silly as doing the same for console/PC 2D platform games during the Super Nintendo's heyday.
The PC's hottest exclusive genres are either lost to consoles or nearly dead. RTS right now is nothing compared to its boom in the late 90's. Simulators are... where did they go? Remember how big BattleTech/MechWarrior, and EarthSiege/Starsiege were? Flight/tank/sub/boat/helicopter sims aren't nearly as popular as they used to be. Anyone notice how PC gaming peripherals have dwindled down to a tiny handful of console-looking gamepads and only a couple decent joysticks? Shelves used to be lined with $10 to $150 joysticks & gamepads, with rudder pedals, 2/3/4 throttle levers, ungodly numbers of buttons, and so on. Force feedback was getting big, then.. *poof*. I can't find a replacement for my Gravis Eliminator Dual Aftershock that isn't a PS2 or XBox controller clone.
The PCs biggest advantage as a game platform now are MMOGs. You know that's next to go...
Sorry for being WAY off topic, had to get that off my chest.
Not quite true. A RAID system can't tell you which drive a single-sector error is on, and so you lose the entire stripe. For 512byte blocks, in a RAID-5 array with 3 disks you would lose 1.5KB (1KB of real data, 512bytes of parity) for a single block error on any drive. What do you mean by error? Some kind of silent, undetectable corruption, right? Otherwise... well, a detectable error results in failed disk, obviously. I can understand that will always be a possibility, and by adding more drives and introducing a more complicated controller, you may be slightly increasing the chances of running into something like that, but the pros heavily outweigh the cons.
Also you don't lose a whole stripe from one bad sector. If there were some silent corruption that affected one sector on one disk, the array would simply return a stripe with one bad sector in it. In your case, there's even a one-in-three chance the bad sector was only in a parity element, in which case, your data will be safe until one of the other two disks fail, and are rebuilt from bad parity. Stripe elements are independent of each other unless a disk fails and you're recalculating them from parity.
Did you base your reasoning on wiki's section for RAID0?
When one sector on one of the disks fails, however, the corresponding sector on every other disk is rendered useless because part of the data is now corrupted. That doesn't make sense either, parity or not, stripe elements are not tied to each other in any way during normal reads. The corresponding sectors on all disks will have to be marked as bad eventually (if possible, maybe in some SW RAID setups), unless the 'bad' disk remapped it's bad sector for you. Most likely, the bad drive is failed.
Why would a RAID implementation return an IO error because part of a stripe that wasn't asked for is bad? There's no reason that aligned 256k reads from a 1024k stripe with a 256k element size should fail unless the one on the bad disk is requested. If it was a detectable error, the requested 256k can be returned, and only the RAID controller knows that the stripe read was unsuccessful. It would then fail the bad disk. If it was undetectable, nothing will happen at all, until something reads the element with that sector, and finds out the data is corrupt.
Where are you going to put the mapping data? I guess it could have a good sized flash chip built in, but then it still needs PC connectivity to get updates and load regional data. Then there's the extra PC (and hopefully Mac too) software you need to maintain to keep the thing updated. It could be done, but there's more to it than gluing an antenna to a DS.
It would be a great excuse to carry my DS everywhere, but there are already good, portable GPS units with touch screens, if that's what you're after.
The integrity of his data isn't going to get _worse_ when RAIDed. He may not _need_ to implement ZFS to get an acceptable assurance of integrity. ZFS also has hefty CPU and IO requirements, so a ~$500 x86 running OpenSolaris might not provide adequate backup performance.
Silent data corruption is always a potential problem for backup systems (on tape anyway), so use a backup solution that makes as many copies of your data as possible, overwriting the oldest data when needed. ZFS is just more useful for critical fileservers, not backup storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Now SL is a BUSINESS environment, huh? Sure, to the same extent that poker can be a business. You're horribly mistaken, Linden Lab is the business, SL is their game.
"Professional" poker players still play a game. It's still gambling, regardless of the skill or amount of money. Some may make a living off of the winnings, but the _game_ is not more serious or important to the rest of us because they do. It is purely entertainment. The same can be said for any professional sports. Sure, it's a business for some, but FOOTBALL is not important, how many viewers is. It is still purely entertainment.
My point is that you can throw money away at anything, and sometimes get it back. That doesn't automatically make whatever the hell you're doing any bit more important to anyone but you. Except that real money is involved in Second Life. There's more to it than just a game -- when money can be made and lost, the stakes and consequences are higher. My problem is that you're making it out to be more than a game just because money is involved. Even the people making a living off of it have to realize it's JUST A GAME.
I thought my analogy did a fine job getting that point across. You know.. I invest money, but a lawn is still just a lawn. Even professionals know their job is just to make a patch of dirt look pretty. Although they may have too much pride to tell you that.
Maybe that's your problem, pride.
I can understand why people are attracted to this game. It does sound like a great place explore your creativity. However, there is a HUGE problem with SL.
When I was younger, I spent a lot of my time playing Doom, and Quake. I even made my own levels, and some models. My friends and I had tons of fun playing in our own creations. Everyone has access to modeling tools, and there are plenty of games and 3D worlds to share your creativity in. The problem with modding games is that there's a very steep learning curve. The idea of a free, massive, online world with modeling and scripting tools built in sounds AWESOME. It really lowers the bar for people interested in creating/animating 3D content, and sharing with others.
BUT... why does this need to involve real money? Why are people quibbling over security, and banks, and losing real money? SL is an insanely risky investment. It's absurd to think that REAL money is needed for this game to work. Spending money for the sake of spending money is NOT fun.
A game like this, done properly, should have some some kind of intrinsic, fun gameplay (or strong social elements at a bare minimum), coupled with a completely virtual economy, if needed. Something along these lines that I've always hoped would be made someday is a massive, online LEGO universe. Modeling with bricks isn't that hard. All the LEGO themes over the years lend themselves to a WIDE variety of possible gameplay elements. Pirates on the sea, space exploration, racing, etc. Eh, just an idea.
Who was the dickwad who came up with SL? How exactly did the pitch go...
Dick: "Hey, how about a massive online game with ZERO gameplay or content. Instead, we let the PLAYERS make stuff, and chat with each other"
Bigger Dick: "Brilliant! It needs some pizzaz though. We'll let players transfer REAL money directly to us so they can buy other people's crap with FAKE money."
Sorry, that's a bit rough, SL was obviously designed as a social experiment, not a game. Enjoy.. I guess.
Sincerely,
ToasterMonkey
Yes, so is SL. Stop being dramatic. I lose money every time I spray my backyard with grass seed. I don't go around telling people "It's more than just lawn-care! ... It's another LIFE!"
Seriously, the consequences are as high as you want to set them. Throwing wads of money into the street has high stakes and consequences too.
It's like a crazy plan to put a suspicious looking EMPTY package in the mail.. followed by an equally puzzling plan to somehow deliver the suspicious looking EVIL package later on.
Let me give it another shot...
1. Already have access to source and/or binary to be released.
2. You can't sign your own package.
3. Submit a benign, funny looking package for signing & release.
4. Switch out evil, funny looking package for distribution later, keeping the same valid signature.
Is this a plot from Mission Impossible IV? This is so silly. The attacker would already have to have access to the source, and distribution system, but not the signing mechanism for this attack to be worthwhile. You are so screwed at that point, any weakness in MD5 doesn't matter one bit.
Wow, can we stop with all the Ubuntu plugs? It will NOT EEEEEVEEEEER replace the functionality of a Mac. Every damned article with anything bad to say about Macs winds of with three or four of you Ubuntu douche bags. Do you have no idea how far off from Mac OS X + Mac, Ubuntu + PC is? Not even f'ing CLOSE. Your shit might fly in some Windows bashing forums, but really, that's it. Windows veterans know what the platform's pros and cons are, and many have at least dabbled with a Linux distro by now. It might come as a surprise to you, but a good deal of new Mac users are IT professionals with a lot of experience with Windows (often Linux too).
There's a REASON we bought Macs, and running a free Windows replacement on cheap PC hardware again does NOT appeal. Sorry, "free Windows replacement" is a little harsh, but please understand. Linux on the desktop is far better (relatively speaking) positioned to replace Windows desktops than Macs. I don't think you can look a real Mac user in the face and tell them they should switch to a desktop PC running Ubuntu without wincing.
You may as well be in an car enthusiast forum trolling "Check out my Scion! I have SIX cup holders, eat that Lotus!"
Why Ubuntu anyway? Slashdot isn't plagued by Fedora or Debian trolls. I spent eight years with Red Hat/Fedora on my primary desktop, and not once do I recall some idiot even imply that a Linux desktop is viable as a Mac replacement. Now Ubuntu rolls in with a 3D window manager, users bragging about how little they need to use the command line, and a sickening level of hype. My Linux half cries. The culture that was unique to Linux not so long ago is so wasted now. It could be so much more than an attempt to be grannie's desktop OS. All the stuff that made Linux stand out is getting pushed aside for more cheesy Mac OS X/Windows knockoff features.
I've calmed down a bit now, and sorry if I offended anyone. This one is for the Ubuntu trolls..
Solaris is looking like a better Linux all the time. Eat that.
I'm going to have to spend more time with Ubuntu too I guess :)
:\ It would take a LOT to convince me Linux distros have fewer hardware & software issues than Macs do.
Most recently, I had to dick around with the VMWare client and Cisco VPN client. They both required compiling. VMWare, I think is included in some Ubuntu repo now.
I have nothing against Linux, and the popular distros have gotten much better over the years. The custom kernel was a semi-recent attempt to get a wireless card running under Fedora. I used two different methods of loading the Windows NDIS driver, both required a small kernel tweak, and both were crazy unstable on an SMP kernel.
Sorry for your problems, but I don't think you speak for the majority of Mac or Linux users
I should have written "tiny icons in all four quadrants of the screen" to be clear. To be fair, In Windows XP, a maximized window does put the close button and app menu buttons at the absolute corners of the screen. The whole taskbar seems to be clickable from the far edge also.
I'm still not convinced that putting useful features in all four corners at the same time (absolute or not) is ergonomically sound, or even best from a usability standpoint. Maybe with high enough mouse accel I guess...
The Lancet studies estimated ~300,000 to ~900,000 deaths, and ran with 655,000.
If anything is consistent with that, I'd find it just as ridiculous.
How can you blow 629 deaths reported in a poll into 655,000? Tell me what kind of statistical magic can do this.
No, why the hell is a new report guesstimating 1.2 million deaths consistent with a report that guesstimated 655 thousand?
The Free Press provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
What, the free, uh.. I mean the _press_ in countries that start with "Ir"?
Freedom of Speech provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
You mean the freedom of speech in... uh.. WHERE again? Is that statement true ANYWHERE? I don't see any difference between a "Press" and "The Internet". I'm sorry, you don't know the difference? Seriously? Who writes for the Internet? Do terrorists freely publish propaganda in our press? Am I getting through to you? One definition of "propaganda" is "speech by your political opponents". Political speech is, of course, the most highly protected form of free speech. No, that's not even A definition of "propaganda", thank you very much.
Here's what Oxford American Dictionary says...
prop-a-gan-da
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
[bullet] the dissemination of such information as a political strategy
2 (Propaganda) a committee of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church...
I don't believe you meant #2, and derogatory, biased, or misleading speech is NOT the most highly protected form of free speech. Seems to me the bill is facially unconstitutional. Have you lost your damned mind? Are you calling Congress's findings unconstitutional? Can a Congressional finding BE unconstitutional? Incorrect, maybe.
From the H.R. 1955 that about THREE people in this whole forum actually read: `SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.
`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. Are you calling their ability to establish this new commission unconstitutional? Is there something in (b) through (s) that's wrong?
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
...
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. Why specifically name the Internet? We could substitute the word with any of the following: Postal system, library, school system, etc. And now your suggestions, with my own emphasis around portions people are having trouble reading.
`(3) The US Postal Service has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) US public libraries have aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) The US school system has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. This sets a horrible precendence and seeds the idea that the Internet must be controlled or even dismantled. What kind of 'precedent'? Is the Congress's finding incorrect, or are you just afraid of the implications you made up?
YOU are seeding the idea that "the Internet might be controlled or even dismantled."
You COMPLETELY missed the point of the bill, and jumped to wild conclusions. I can't even stomach arguing your idiotic points, and I doubt anyone else can.
Please, start watching more C-SPAN, stop reading blogs, and try to get half a clue how our government actually works before putting your silly conspiracy theories together.
A copyright restricts distribution to the copyright holder.
The GPL is a license that gives permission for others to redistribute GPL'd code under its terms. The only relation to copyright is that if you violate the terms of the agreement (GPL isn't a contract) then you may be infringing on the copyright. If you don't copy, redistribute, or otherwise do something that could infringe on a copyrighted work, a GPL notice in some source file means jack squat.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly (on what, Apple hardware!?), and they didn't force anyone to buy more software. Also, how exactly does Leopard have less functionality than Tiger? Boot Camp was beta, and everyone knew this. It didn't come with OS X. Everyone knew it was available for a limited time. Duh?
Please forgive me if I missed your sarcasm, I'm trying real hard to find it. If you're just getting started with Linux, have fun. Switching from Windows (home desktop, Linux at the workplace came much later) when I was young was one of the best decisions I ever made career-wise, and switching from Linux to Mac when I was older leaves me with a LOT more free time. I miss screwing around with Linux quite a bit, but I don't have time to dick with custom kernels and never, ever get 100% of my hardware working at the same time.
Look, "A beautiful mind" came clean, that is all I was looking for. I was not defending or denying the existence of actual racism, elsewhere. The racism comment should be clarified that what I ment is not really racism, but rather a mix of xenophobia and racism. Given that the "win" condition unless you plan to wipe out the iraqi people must be pretty close to what I've defined above, it is unimaginable to suppose that the fight is between the american and the iraqi people. Because of this fact, I would say that it is meaningless to talk about sides in this terms, or if you want to talk about sides you have to include the iraqi civilians on your side. Back to you. Racism isn't based on political correctness. As such, calling for the requirement of political correctness for the definition of the races in order to discriminate on them would indicate that discrimination against gays is impossible because they aren't a race. Ask the "average" American what race they are in Iraq, and I'd guess more than a few will answer with "Iraqi" or something to that effect. Racism is politically incorrect. The word should be used correctly. Discrimination against gays is NOT racism, by any stretch, please don't go there. It can be any number of other bad things, but not racism.
I agree with you that "racism" might not strictly be against one particular race, but Iraqi still isn't a race. Those same Americans also couldn't tell the difference between any two dark skinned people from the whole Middle East. WE are mislabeling their racist attitudes as "towards Iraqis". When are civilians considered enemy combatants? Where did I say civilians were enemy combatants? The source given by "A beautiful mind", a "Lancet" article, made no distinction between the two. Look the thing up, read their methods and decide for your self wether it gives a true account of the casualties, civilian or otherwise. They went door-to-door asking about deaths in the family, skipped empty houses, skipped houses where no one would talk to them. No questions of military affiliation were asked, reason was that the answers couldn't be trusted. They then extrapolated a reported ~600 deaths to ~650,000 for the country. Actually, it is given as ~300,000 - ~900,000 (~650,000) in the paper. Don't take my word for it, look it up, the numbers are the best I can remember.
That's why I don't assume all the deaths are civilian. That and OBVIOUSLY people are shooting back at us, and they die too. Where is THAT statistic? The original poster was NOT talking about 650,000 civilian deaths for sure, his source makes it quite clear they didn't make any distinction.
Now that that's clear, what I said is still true. Well, I'll grant you that it's more xenophobia and nationalism than racism, but when you hear "raghead" being used regularly to refer to those from Iraq, you must suspect that there is some racism involved. And I've never met a single person, of any race, that isn't racist. So to claim that racism isn't involved is disingenuous. Almost all people think their race is the best. It's a fact of self esteem. To pretend racism is rare, rather than ubiquitous is to not understand what it is. I did not EVER say there wasn't any racism in the world. There wasn't any in the previous posts.
Holy crap, drop it man. Sure, there are little bits of racism everywhere, whatever, just dilute the living hell out of that word for all I care. That does NOT justify calling, or even implying someone is racist because we don't agree with someone else (or their BS statistics).
It is the reason that, on a Mac, all the window management functions and application menus are located in the SAME corner though.
They are most likely in the upper left because that's where most the people reading this post will train their eyes when reading a piece of paper.
"Flicking" a mouse only counts as a shortcut where you can't overshoot the target and won't have to reposition it afterwards. To some extent, I think the Windows taskbar and Mac menu were designed with that in mind. I don't have a Windows desktop in front of me at the moment to test it, but on a Mac, the leftmost and rightmost items, the apple and spotlight logos, have huge clickable regions that go to the ends of the bar, and even into the black, "rounded off" corners of he bar. In Mac OS there is no concept of maximising a window, so the same reasoning does not apply. I think that might be due to the widescreen displays that are standard on Macs. I do run XP in a VM occasionally, and I figured out that maximising to all four corners of a wide screen display is mostly useless. I still maximise JDeveloper though (Java apps 'zoom' to all four corners by default), not because I really want to write a two page wide line of code, but to hide any distractions while I work
Right, I suppose that's Linux's excuse also. Security is so poo-poo on Mac OS X and Linux that they're only safe because they aren't big enough targets. uh huh.
Look man, Windows security _was_ horrible.... nonexistent. Mac OS X and Linux are not in some security Dark Age just because they haven't had widespread attacks. If/when malware and viruses come to these platforms, they are plenty prepared. There wont be a repeat on the same scale as some older Windows attacks. Vista will have an easier time this generation too. Think where OS security will be however far into the future you think Mac OS X or Linux could be 'big enough' targets.
Some malware can already be adopted to any platform. Trojans, installed to user's home directory, and replication done by using the client's mail application, all while throwing out dozens of pop-up confirmations. The kind of attack vector which will probably exist for another 10 years or so in computing.
There will always be bugs in system software, but as far as being a serious compromise to security, they get fewer and further between. Too many different layers today for the nastier types of stuff that used to fly in the past.
You have GOT to be kidding. Gmail has a clean, consistent DESIGN, with almost no images, other than a static "GMail" in the upper left corner.
It brings me to my inbox, with a one line plug for their Google Reader service, and a one line text add for an IT service outsourcing company that's placed near the top of the site. I open an email, and color matched text ads span from top to bottom on the right, similar to a newspaper column. Only the content of the text ads change, not the color, shape, or location.
For Yahoo, both new and classic bring me to some sort of welcome page with a 1x4" ad for their own search service titled "Top Electronics Search", and at least it matches the colors of the rest of the site. There's a big news widget thing in the center. To the right, there's a big f'ing RED, square, Bank of America credit card ad. On the left, the top and bottom of my Outlook-like directory are straddled by little, fugly, Win95 desktop icon-ads. "Bad credit? Card in 3 days", "Netflix Only $4.99/mo.", "Best SUV for Everyday", "Gold's Gym Free 7 Day VIP Pass".
The NEW Yahoo Mail site warns that Safari is not a supported browser, click to ignore. It is cleverly disguised as Outlook, with ads. Moving right along, I click a mail in my inbox, the BoA ad disapears, and the right ad region resizes to allow a shit-you-not, blinking "Have You Checked Your Credit Score This Month?" ad that runs from top to bottom of the page.
The CLASSIC Yahoo Mail site has a 'classical' giant, horizontal, animated ebay ad across the top, and in the same places on the left are more desktop-icon-ads, "See your credit score - free", "Netflix...", "Online Degree Programs", "Gold's Gym...", oh, and with a slightly different icon as the VIP pass, "Gold's Gym 7 Day Free Trial" It looks like a high schooler designed it.
I'll take Gmail, fuck you very much.
Whoa whoa whoa, charging a 9mm handgun, and charging Marines with RIFLES are just a TAD different.
You're not referring to this incident with the Moros in 1899 I hope. I mean, bolt-action rifles with bayonets are an odd thing to compare with modern day handgun/taser vs. knife scenarios.
It's not clear what options you're presenting, but I'd take any rifle with a bayonet or any modern day service rifle over a taser to any knife fight, even with only a good running distance between us.
Besides, wouldn't the presence of any firearm do more to dissuade an attacker than a taser would? Judging by the reactions of people threatened with tasers, and there are many youtube links floating around Slashdot with examples, it would seem that those on both ends of tasers underestimate their effect. Hard to blame just the cops when they tell you at least three times their going to use it, and you don't listen.
Many more people are going to be put off by lack of iPod connectors than lack of USB hookup. With the iPod connector and 2.5mm jack, you can play all the music you bought online, one way or another, and iPod owners get integrated controls. Check out Scion's standard Pioneer head units with iPod&AUX hookups. The steering wheel controls integrate with the iPod connection.
With a USB hookup, you have a choice, let it control your PMP's storage and only have access to non-DRM files, or play all the music you bought online, but through the same interface every other head unit on the planet has, the AUX jack.
Microsoft's system will probably appeal to those who don't have iPods (thus no integration available) or restricted music files of any kind. That's an awfully small chunk of the PMP world.
I see Microsoft's system being
You're the reason companies keep doing it.
Sure, that's a good idea, but your online nickname doesn't need to be on a resume. The emphasis should be on the projects you created or contributed to, not some virtual persona. You should explain in person, the online or FOSS projects that relate to the position applied for, and earn their trust. The whole notion of googling a nickname being more validating than telling someone the work you've done and demonstrating your knowledge is ridiculous. It comes down to trust (both ways). Besides, if you _really_ cared about getting recognition from the professional, err.. real world for your online projects, use your real name or at least a semi-professional looking email address!
Here it is in a nutshell, if your potential employer is relying on a google search to make a decision, YOU FUCKED UP YOUR INTERVIEW.
There was not even an argument for PC vs. console when Super Nintendo/Genesis came out. Even today, there is very little overlap between console and PC games other than 3D FPS. If a game could work equally well on both console and PC, you're more likely to see it on consoles.
Since around the time consoles started getting good online FPS games, PC's lost their biggest advantage. Today, quibbling over console FPS vs. PC FPS is just as silly as doing the same for console/PC 2D platform games during the Super Nintendo's heyday.
The PC's hottest exclusive genres are either lost to consoles or nearly dead. RTS right now is nothing compared to its boom in the late 90's. Simulators are... where did they go? Remember how big BattleTech/MechWarrior, and EarthSiege/Starsiege were? Flight/tank/sub/boat/helicopter sims aren't nearly as popular as they used to be. Anyone notice how PC gaming peripherals have dwindled down to a tiny handful of console-looking gamepads and only a couple decent joysticks? Shelves used to be lined with $10 to $150 joysticks & gamepads, with rudder pedals, 2/3/4 throttle levers, ungodly numbers of buttons, and so on. Force feedback was getting big, then.. *poof*. I can't find a replacement for my Gravis Eliminator Dual Aftershock that isn't a PS2 or XBox controller clone.
The PCs biggest advantage as a game platform now are MMOGs. You know that's next to go...
Sorry for being WAY off topic, had to get that off my chest.
Also you don't lose a whole stripe from one bad sector. If there were some silent corruption that affected one sector on one disk, the array would simply return a stripe with one bad sector in it. In your case, there's even a one-in-three chance the bad sector was only in a parity element, in which case, your data will be safe until one of the other two disks fail, and are rebuilt from bad parity. Stripe elements are independent of each other unless a disk fails and you're recalculating them from parity.
Did you base your reasoning on wiki's section for RAID0? When one sector on one of the disks fails, however, the corresponding sector on every other disk is rendered useless because part of the data is now corrupted. That doesn't make sense either, parity or not, stripe elements are not tied to each other in any way during normal reads. The corresponding sectors on all disks will have to be marked as bad eventually (if possible, maybe in some SW RAID setups), unless the 'bad' disk remapped it's bad sector for you. Most likely, the bad drive is failed.
Why would a RAID implementation return an IO error because part of a stripe that wasn't asked for is bad? There's no reason that aligned 256k reads from a 1024k stripe with a 256k element size should fail unless the one on the bad disk is requested. If it was a detectable error, the requested 256k can be returned, and only the RAID controller knows that the stripe read was unsuccessful. It would then fail the bad disk. If it was undetectable, nothing will happen at all, until something reads the element with that sector, and finds out the data is corrupt.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Where are you going to put the mapping data? I guess it could have a good sized flash chip built in, but then it still needs PC connectivity to get updates and load regional data. Then there's the extra PC (and hopefully Mac too) software you need to maintain to keep the thing updated. It could be done, but there's more to it than gluing an antenna to a DS.
It would be a great excuse to carry my DS everywhere, but there are already good, portable GPS units with touch screens, if that's what you're after.
The integrity of his data isn't going to get _worse_ when RAIDed. He may not _need_ to implement ZFS to get an acceptable assurance of integrity.
ZFS also has hefty CPU and IO requirements, so a ~$500 x86 running OpenSolaris might not provide adequate backup performance.
Silent data corruption is always a potential problem for backup systems (on tape anyway), so use a backup solution that makes as many copies of your data as possible, overwriting the oldest data when needed. ZFS is just more useful for critical fileservers, not backup storage.