Either you can't be bothered to edit the configuration file, or you don't care about your data still being there tomorrow.
PostgreSQL even has pretty sensible defaults out of the box compared to other heavy-duty DBs according to my very humble experience. Once I tried out a variety of "Enterprise-level" DBs when our IT department simply couldn't manage to fix our dog-slow production DB2 server which hosts a fairly simple db accessed by fairly complex queries, some of which would require minutes to run. I'm by no means a DB admin, but were pretty exasperated by their lack of competence, and decided to try my hand.
The results were something like this (MySQL was not an option at the time due to a lack of enforced referential integrity, among other things):
* Oracle: Even slower by default, not worth the effort to tune for a non-expert. I tried, but didn't get very far. * SQL server: Slightly faster with a little basic tuning * PostgreSQL: Blazingly fast, as in orders of magnitude ahead of the three commercial ones, with default options and no tuning at all.
At first I thought I'd missed something obvious with pg, but it returned everything it should, it was simply incredibly more efficient for this use case than the alternatives. Queries which required about two minutes on the huge DB2-server would run in less than two seconds on my desktop in pgsql.
As it turned out the IT guys refused to run anything which didn't cost heaps of money (that was literally their opinion, free/cheap was not an option, Oracle would have been fine). In the process of tuning I also learned a little bit about performance analysis, and managed to turn the DB2 server into something usable by creating a few indexes. Still PostgreSQL would run circles around it, I still don't know why, but it might create indexes as needed or something like that.
If someone who actually know anything about DBs could comment on this huge performance difference I'd love to read it!
In order to be useful to the electricity company, the company needs to be able to decide when to charge and when to discharge the cars batteries (depending of overall need, and availability of finicky renewable sources).
Nevermind the utility companies, I see a couple of use cases for feeding electricity from your car to your breaker box:
1) In case of outages/brownouts. Where I live the power is dependable, I haven't had a non-planned outage in years (the planned ones are infrequent as well). When I lived in Ecuador, however, it was a rare day when we didn't lose power at the office at least once. UPS and generator backup was a must, both in order to be able to work, and to avoid damage to equipment. Laptops would have been an option, but having a huge UPS in the form of an electric car would be nice.
... and so it just happens that you'll start your holiday trip with almost empty batteries although (or rather: because...) the car was plugged in all night. ==> silly
2) I believe that in some places electriciy is generally expensive, but cheaper at night. You could use your car as a buffer in order to exploit the cheaper power at peak times. Mind you, this would have to be a measure for the benefit of each household, as I doubt that people would place their cars at the mercy of the utility company, not least because of the issue you mention about your car being out of battery when you need it, but if you have close control it's easy to avoid those complications. Given enough penetration, this might help to assuage diurnal fluctuations in power availability, providing a secondary benefit to the utility company as well.
Of course it's a cost/benefit problem, as those batteries probably have a limited number of duty cycles, and they aren't exactly cheap. I haven't seen any analysis in this respect, but the idea in itself is not necessarily stupid.
Are you kidding? The GUI way is easier. Obviously so. The CLI way may be more concise, faster even if you know the exact syntax by heart, but certainly not easier.
That's incredibly naive, it depends on what you want to do. Rename or copy one file in a GUI? Sure. Flatten a directory structure containing thousands of dirs and files by prefixing the path to the file name? Good luck with that...
It's very simple. With CLI you do stuff that cannot be done (easily) with a GUI. Ever used rsync, grep, find or sed? If not, you probably don't really *work* with computers.
Our central IT department migrated our file storage area to a new server a while ago. After the operation the whole thing was a mess, with missing and misplaced files all over the place. I called them up, wondering how on earth they'd managed to screw it up, and it turned out that the guy had done it with several drag'n'drop operations which he'd fucked up in numerous ways. Several operations due to the fact that some files caused an error because they were in use at the time. I was flabbergasted and asked why on earth he didn't use a proper tool like rsync. "What's sync? Command line you say? Nah, I try to avoid that stuff because it's way to error-prone. I'll just take the whole server offline (!?), delete everything from the target, and redo the copy. It should be ready by tomorrow" *facepalm*.
For any GUI heroes who play at being admin out there: a good way of doing it would be to stage the transfer by doing an rsync preserving all file attributes, feel free to do this while the share is online. Take it offline and do a final sync, which should be very quick. There are other methods, but this one works fine and is quite easy.
1) You miss the point. The background might be blurred, but that's when I am not looking at it (e.g. not interested). BUT if I choose to look at it, it stops being blurred. At what is "background" depends on what/where I choose to look.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree that it shouldn't be overdone, but I think that if you were to remove motion blur (MB) altogether from such a scene it would look very strange. Try enabling/disabling MB and play a suitable scene in a modern video game. It *will* look strange without MB, also with high fps/resolution on a fast monitor. I don't think that having everything completely sharp will work (if that's what you mean).
My complaint is about the situation where movie directors artificially and unnecessarily make bits of the picture out of focus. Sometimes there are technological limitations, but often nowadays most of the scene is rendered and then artificially blurred (e.g. Avatar). Sometimes it's part of the story, or for good effect, in which case I don't mind.
It hurts my eyes when it's overdone.
Exactly.
2) I know they are not the same, I'm just complaining about them all. I wrote: "out of focus or motion blurred". I dislike both effects. And I also dislike lower frame rates (which is another separate thing - the low-frame-rate frames could be perfectly sharp and in focus).
I think we're agreeing in principle, but I took what you wrote to mean "do not include MB whatsoever", which probably wouldn't work, as mentioned above. Exaggerated MB *might* have a place in special cases like movies based on cartoons, but probably not even then. No need to argue further, I think I just misunderstood:)
And low frame rates be damned.
On a side note you should change the link description in your.sig, many people will miss out since it currently looks like a known troll sig.
In virtually *ALL* recycling operations that involve an industrial shredder, there is also automated material sorting. For example electronic recycling that starts off with a big shredder, and then routes the smaller and smaller pieces past various devices that remove different types of metals and plastics...
I saw a mini-documentary about a car shredder/sorter on Discovery (I believe). They showed how the car was shredded, and then what techniques were used to sort all the parts. They sorted the shredded junk by specific weight (fans), magnetic properties, whether the piece would adhere to different types surfaces, how well it bounced, and numerous other ingenious methods. The end results had a remarkable fidelity as to what kinds of material could be sorted with high accuracy.
It was all very impressive. I can't relocate this video, but if anyone remembers it and can provide a link it would be great. The ones I have found are very skimpy on details, the video I remember was about 10-15 minutes long.
but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that it can affect mood
A lot of evidence? I have never seen even one study that suggests WiFi can affect humans at all (as your parent poster notes, several studies indicate that sufferers can't even tell when a vastly more powerful mobile phone is switched on nearby, much less a meagre WiFi access point). Care to cite some papers? I have access to most scientific journals, don't be shy.
I *do* believe that these people really are anxious around radio sources, and that it's a real problem for them which should be taken seriously, but it's not physiological.
On a side note, of course I know that man-made EM radiation can be very harmful. Try taking a nap in front of a long range radar, put your head in a microwave oven, or stare at even a minuscule laser. That's not what we're discussing here:)
He isn't, that's what's so sad. The only special thing about the character is that it is owned by a company which in turn owns your legislative branch, at least in this respect. Of course you know that, but what is even sadder is that they also own your Foreign Relations people, which in turn serves as errand-boys all over the world in order to cater to U.S. companies' needs and impose your arbitrariy laws on us. Yes, U.S. Govt. will pressure foreign nations on request from copyright holders.
Authors don't want you reading orphaned works; they want you buying copies of new works.
I believe you're right about competition being an issue behind insane Copyright extensions, but that the problem lies more with Big Content than with individual creators (even if they can be handy sock-puppets). The large companies don't want you to be able to enjoy, say, 30+ year old works unimpeded, even if said works are not currently in sale and have no commercial value whatsoever. They want to bury them so that no one would be tempted to enjoy them instead of spending money on their new stuff. This, of course, leads to heaps of cultural history being lost because it's impractical to even format-shift them legally under the current laws. Think crumbling old film reels or even books printed on poor quality paper.
I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed).
I don't necessarily agree that a company must be able to exploit a work "for a very long time" (in perpetuity, as it turns out, with the Mickey Mouse act), that right should belong to the creator and possibly his/her immediate descendants. Otherwise I totally agree. So many works get lost because there's no practical way to obtain the rights to reproduce them, even if the work has no commercial value (probably > 99% of works still in copyright), and even if you're willing to pay for the rights. Leave the rights to commercially valuable works in the creator's hands, and let the rest be free for the public good.
In his CC book Free CultureLawrence Lessig outlines the problems with the current legislature and suggests a reasonable solution to the whole copyright issue which adresses all of Big Content's concerns, at least the overt ones. The book is a very good read, it's not outdated even if it's a few years old.
Why not? If it's not all spaces (prohibited by the three-chars-in-a-row requirement) you're good to go. I can't find it now, but I read an article a while ago that endorsed passwords containing spaces. They're apparently a lot more secure against dictionary attacks since very few people use them. On a side note my telco disallows *any* special characters, I have no idea why this is a part of any password policy.
The plane would empty it's load of anti radar missiles and immediately turn home.
And all missiles would probably hit the intended target as there's no way the ovens could interfere with the missiles' operation. To be fair, you never claimed that it worked:)
On actually reading the article the actions of the crew seems perfectly legit; they just aborted the exercise and returned to base when facing difficulties. The shenanigans of NK would probably not disrupt operations in a live situation, as they surely have backup methods:)
But that's just it. If a little radio signal, rather than missiles or rounds, can bring a plane down, then it's really, really fragile. GPS is nice, but relying on it exclusively for navigation is just moronic.
I'm amazed that they don't have backup contingency plans for navigation. Dead reckoning and other methods worked just fine for aircraft navigation long before the advent of GPS. When I was stationed at a frigate in the navy, we had, in addition to GPS: A 25k RPM gyroscope pointed at true north close to Polaris, radar, radio based navigational systems, radio equipment which could triangulate based on known civilian low-frequency transmitters, wind/current charts to aid in dead reckoning, a mechanical chronometer, star charts and sun/moon/stars set/rise tables and even a goddamn mechanical sextant (and knowledge of how to use it) for emergency navigation.
Except for the gyro* (which is more precise than a magnetic compass) we never used them except for in specific exercises, but the alternative methods worked very well when we did. The only way we could be lost was pretty much if all the navigational experts (around 10 in various stations around the ship) was somehow taken out of action.
* The gyro was essential for correction of platform movement when aiming our guns, but also served as our primary "compass". Of course we also had a couple of nautical magnetic compasses for backup in case the gyro should seize:)
you'll also want a measure of the deviation of every frame's draw time from the average draw time being reported. And likely a measure of how atypically bad frames are distributed(ie. 5 seconds of super-low framerate during some sort of loading is annoying. 20 25 millisecond frames scattered throught action-heavy areas is really annoying...)
As a non-stats-guy I hereby invent the standard-deviation-for-slow-down-only-including-outliers metric. You're welcome:)
But seriously, couldn't they just include the whole distribution graph of time between frames, with a description of what it means? And maybe provide the underlying data as a spreadsheet so that you can run whatever analysis you're most comfortable with on it. Oh well, back to stats class.
This post is going nowhere, so I'm gonna save it for posterity.
When you look at a fast moving object it's sharp (unless it's moving so fast that your eyes can't track it).
But the background will be blurred. Motion blurring usually has it's place, if done well you will not even notice it, it just seems natural. Of course that often involves no effects at all, the camera just uses the same limitations as your eyes. If you were to use a very high shutter speed in a scene with a fast moving object it will seem strange, your eyes won't do the motion blurring right because they're fed a completely sharp image to begin with, which is not what happens when your eyes pan in a real scene.
In your post you seem to mix up frame rate problems with aperture effects or depth of field. Aperture effects != motion blur, and have nothing to do with frame rate.
It irks me as well when they use heavy aperture effects, especially in 3D movies, where my brain is fooled into thinking my eyes can focus and it's not possible. Note to directors: don't try to force me to look at what *you* want in a 3D movie:)
I completely agree with you that frame rates in general should be higher though. BTW your sig is hilarious, it's even better if you know Norwegian:)
This tool will give you a look into exactly what is going on during boot and what is hogging disk, CPU, and everything. It is very detailed.
That seems interesting, thanks for the link. Mailed to myself to check out at work come Monday:)
On a side note we've found that a very efficient way of reviving a somewhat slow computer (boot and in general) is to throw in a small, cheap SSD for the OS. The increase in speed and responsiveness is amazing. You don't even need to reinstall, just dd the system partitions to the new disk.
we'd still lose much more time to restroom or cigarette breaks (and in the later case, most people here don't even smoke).
Somewhat OT, but short and relatively frequent breaks are good whether you smoke or not. Where I work most employees and managers, including the non-smokers, join in on "smoking" breaks about every 90 minutes. Actually, in my country the law gives you the right to a five minute break per hour if your main working tool is a computer or if your work is very repetititive.
With breaks you are less prone to fatigue which increases productivity towards the end of the day. It leads to a better work environment when employees can chat and get to know each other better. Employees don't feel dogged, and are happier. In my experience, if your work involves problem solving (like coding) a short break can take your mind off a tricky problem for a while and lets your subconscious work on it, I frequently have Eureka moments when on a break and not actively thinking about whatever issue I'm tackling. We'll often discuss work on the breaks, effectively having a mini-meeting, and often get valuable input from others who isn't directly involved with our particular project. Win all around.
Of course, if you only allow explicit smoking breaks for smokers you are an idiot, it makes no sense to punish someone for not smoking.
As for productivity it varies hugely between employees anyway, a good moment was when a somewhat grumpy (incidentally a non-smoker) co-worker complained at lunch that us bastards (which included a lot of non-smoking bastards) "were outside half the time" leaving him to "do all the work". My boss' reply? "They actually carry *your* load since they get a lot more done on an individual basis (this was no secret to anyone). Maybe you need to put in that little extra time. Or you could shut up and join us".
If I was informed at a workplace that short breaks were not allowed I'd be sceptical to their ability to treat employees in general.
I there are a few C++ modules, but a very few, due to the terrible and bizarre attitude of the kernel developers, who seem to want to insult users of C++, then purposfully make life more difficult, then finally spread the entire issue 3 feet deep in FUD.
Woa, that was a fun read:) *scratches zinged eyebrows*
Yes. I work at a publishing company, we publish books in hardcover, paperback, and electronic versions. It's still a book. If I needed to specify a format I could have written ebooks, but in this case I was referring to content, not format. I'm not arguing about this, this is just how the terms are used in the business. Oh, and if you're in the "only-paper-books-are-real-books"-camp, that's pure BS, I will not argue about that either. Go huddle with the vinyl record fanatics over there:) (I actually like vinyl for nostalgic reasons, but it's not exactly a practical format for carrying music around, and the sound quality is arguably inferior.)
Promise? I'd say that the technology is wildly successful for those of us that actually read books. I don't have a Kindle, but I have a Sony PRS-650 which is a comparable device (slightly better IMO). I've read more than 300 books on it, and it's just about perfect for its purpose. No eyestrain whatsoever, only needs charging every third week. For Internet and media on the go I have my phone, but you just can't find anything better than E-Ink for reading novels. I really don't see how my reader could be significantly improved.
Slashdot Mirror
Either you can't be bothered to edit the configuration file, or you don't care about your data still being there tomorrow.
PostgreSQL even has pretty sensible defaults out of the box compared to other heavy-duty DBs according to my very humble experience. Once I tried out a variety of "Enterprise-level" DBs when our IT department simply couldn't manage to fix our dog-slow production DB2 server which hosts a fairly simple db accessed by fairly complex queries, some of which would require minutes to run. I'm by no means a DB admin, but were pretty exasperated by their lack of competence, and decided to try my hand.
The results were something like this (MySQL was not an option at the time due to a lack of enforced referential integrity, among other things):
* Oracle: Even slower by default, not worth the effort to tune for a non-expert. I tried, but didn't get very far.
* SQL server: Slightly faster with a little basic tuning
* PostgreSQL: Blazingly fast, as in orders of magnitude ahead of the three commercial ones, with default options and no tuning at all.
At first I thought I'd missed something obvious with pg, but it returned everything it should, it was simply incredibly more efficient for this use case than the alternatives. Queries which required about two minutes on the huge DB2-server would run in less than two seconds on my desktop in pgsql.
As it turned out the IT guys refused to run anything which didn't cost heaps of money (that was literally their opinion, free/cheap was not an option, Oracle would have been fine). In the process of tuning I also learned a little bit about performance analysis, and managed to turn the DB2 server into something usable by creating a few indexes. Still PostgreSQL would run circles around it, I still don't know why, but it might create indexes as needed or something like that.
If someone who actually know anything about DBs could comment on this huge performance difference I'd love to read it!
In order to be useful to the electricity company, the company needs to be able to decide when to charge and when to discharge the cars batteries (depending of overall need, and availability of finicky renewable sources).
Nevermind the utility companies, I see a couple of use cases for feeding electricity from your car to your breaker box:
1) In case of outages/brownouts. Where I live the power is dependable, I haven't had a non-planned outage in years (the planned ones are infrequent as well). When I lived in Ecuador, however, it was a rare day when we didn't lose power at the office at least once. UPS and generator backup was a must, both in order to be able to work, and to avoid damage to equipment. Laptops would have been an option, but having a huge UPS in the form of an electric car would be nice.
... and so it just happens that you'll start your holiday trip with almost empty batteries although (or rather: because...) the car was plugged in all night.
==> silly
2) I believe that in some places electriciy is generally expensive, but cheaper at night. You could use your car as a buffer in order to exploit the cheaper power at peak times. Mind you, this would have to be a measure for the benefit of each household, as I doubt that people would place their cars at the mercy of the utility company, not least because of the issue you mention about your car being out of battery when you need it, but if you have close control it's easy to avoid those complications. Given enough penetration, this might help to assuage diurnal fluctuations in power availability, providing a secondary benefit to the utility company as well.
Of course it's a cost/benefit problem, as those batteries probably have a limited number of duty cycles, and they aren't exactly cheap. I haven't seen any analysis in this respect, but the idea in itself is not necessarily stupid.
57 comments and only one joke about drunk Irishmen? Slashdot truly is dying.
OK, here goes: "Two Irishmen walked out of a bar..."
Are you kidding? The GUI way is easier. Obviously so. The CLI way may be more concise, faster even if you know the exact syntax by heart, but certainly not easier.
That's incredibly naive, it depends on what you want to do. Rename or copy one file in a GUI? Sure. Flatten a directory structure containing thousands of dirs and files by prefixing the path to the file name? Good luck with that...
It's very simple. With CLI you do stuff that cannot be done (easily) with a GUI. Ever used rsync, grep, find or sed? If not, you probably don't really *work* with computers.
Our central IT department migrated our file storage area to a new server a while ago. After the operation the whole thing was a mess, with missing and misplaced files all over the place. I called them up, wondering how on earth they'd managed to screw it up, and it turned out that the guy had done it with several drag'n'drop operations which he'd fucked up in numerous ways. Several operations due to the fact that some files caused an error because they were in use at the time. I was flabbergasted and asked why on earth he didn't use a proper tool like rsync. "What's sync? Command line you say? Nah, I try to avoid that stuff because it's way to error-prone. I'll just take the whole server offline (!?), delete everything from the target, and redo the copy. It should be ready by tomorrow" *facepalm*.
For any GUI heroes who play at being admin out there: a good way of doing it would be to stage the transfer by doing an rsync preserving all file attributes, feel free to do this while the share is online. Take it offline and do a final sync, which should be very quick. There are other methods, but this one works fine and is quite easy.
1) You miss the point. The background might be blurred, but that's when I am not looking at it (e.g. not interested). BUT if I choose to look at it, it stops being blurred. At what is "background" depends on what/where I choose to look.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree that it shouldn't be overdone, but I think that if you were to remove motion blur (MB) altogether from such a scene it would look very strange. Try enabling/disabling MB and play a suitable scene in a modern video game. It *will* look strange without MB, also with high fps/resolution on a fast monitor. I don't think that having everything completely sharp will work (if that's what you mean).
My complaint is about the situation where movie directors artificially and unnecessarily make bits of the picture out of focus. Sometimes there are technological limitations, but often nowadays most of the scene is rendered and then artificially blurred (e.g. Avatar). Sometimes it's part of the story, or for good effect, in which case I don't mind.
It hurts my eyes when it's overdone.
Exactly.
2) I know they are not the same, I'm just complaining about them all. I wrote: "out of focus or motion blurred". I dislike both effects. And I also dislike lower frame rates (which is another separate thing - the low-frame-rate frames could be perfectly sharp and in focus).
I think we're agreeing in principle, but I took what you wrote to mean "do not include MB whatsoever", which probably wouldn't work, as mentioned above. Exaggerated MB *might* have a place in special cases like movies based on cartoons, but probably not even then. No need to argue further, I think I just misunderstood :)
And low frame rates be damned.
On a side note you should change the link description in your .sig, many people will miss out since it currently looks like a known troll sig.
Speciation has been observed, but I'll concede the point that it hasn't been observed in dinosaurs .
No modpoints left, so I just wanted to thank you for this one. It's pure gold :)
In virtually *ALL* recycling operations that involve an industrial shredder, there is also automated material sorting. For example electronic recycling that starts off with a big shredder, and then routes the smaller and smaller pieces past various devices that remove different types of metals and plastics...
I saw a mini-documentary about a car shredder/sorter on Discovery (I believe). They showed how the car was shredded, and then what techniques were used to sort all the parts. They sorted the shredded junk by specific weight (fans), magnetic properties, whether the piece would adhere to different types surfaces, how well it bounced, and numerous other ingenious methods. The end results had a remarkable fidelity as to what kinds of material could be sorted with high accuracy.
It was all very impressive. I can't relocate this video, but if anyone remembers it and can provide a link it would be great. The ones I have found are very skimpy on details, the video I remember was about 10-15 minutes long.
but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that it can affect mood
A lot of evidence? I have never seen even one study that suggests WiFi can affect humans at all (as your parent poster notes, several studies indicate that sufferers can't even tell when a vastly more powerful mobile phone is switched on nearby, much less a meagre WiFi access point). Care to cite some papers? I have access to most scientific journals, don't be shy.
I *do* believe that these people really are anxious around radio sources, and that it's a real problem for them which should be taken seriously, but it's not physiological.
On a side note, of course I know that man-made EM radiation can be very harmful. Try taking a nap in front of a long range radar, put your head in a microwave oven, or stare at even a minuscule laser. That's not what we're discussing here :)
Why is Mickey so special all of the sudden?
He isn't, that's what's so sad. The only special thing about the character is that it is owned by a company which in turn owns your legislative branch, at least in this respect. Of course you know that, but what is even sadder is that they also own your Foreign Relations people, which in turn serves as errand-boys all over the world in order to cater to U.S. companies' needs and impose your arbitrariy laws on us. Yes, U.S. Govt. will pressure foreign nations on request from copyright holders.
Authors don't want you reading orphaned works; they want you buying copies of new works.
I believe you're right about competition being an issue behind insane Copyright extensions, but that the problem lies more with Big Content than with individual creators (even if they can be handy sock-puppets). The large companies don't want you to be able to enjoy, say, 30+ year old works unimpeded, even if said works are not currently in sale and have no commercial value whatsoever. They want to bury them so that no one would be tempted to enjoy them instead of spending money on their new stuff. This, of course, leads to heaps of cultural history being lost because it's impractical to even format-shift them legally under the current laws. Think crumbling old film reels or even books printed on poor quality paper.
I find it reasonable that Mickey is copyrighted as long as Disney company actively use the character and that can be for a very long time. The same should be true of any work being actively exploited (i.e. being in print or software being distributed).
I don't necessarily agree that a company must be able to exploit a work "for a very long time" (in perpetuity, as it turns out, with the Mickey Mouse act), that right should belong to the creator and possibly his/her immediate descendants. Otherwise I totally agree. So many works get lost because there's no practical way to obtain the rights to reproduce them, even if the work has no commercial value (probably > 99% of works still in copyright), and even if you're willing to pay for the rights. Leave the rights to commercially valuable works in the creator's hands, and let the rest be free for the public good.
In his CC book Free CultureLawrence Lessig outlines the problems with the current legislature and suggests a reasonable solution to the whole copyright issue which adresses all of Big Content's concerns, at least the overt ones. The book is a very good read, it's not outdated even if it's a few years old.
Ain't no way you have multiple Netflix streams on 1.5 Mbps and not notice slowdown or degradation!
Maybe he's blind? That's the only explanation I can think of :)
Don't use spaces
Why not? If it's not all spaces (prohibited by the three-chars-in-a-row requirement) you're good to go. I can't find it now, but I read an article a while ago that endorsed passwords containing spaces. They're apparently a lot more secure against dictionary attacks since very few people use them. On a side note my telco disallows *any* special characters, I have no idea why this is a part of any password policy.
The plane would empty it's load of anti radar missiles and immediately turn home.
And all missiles would probably hit the intended target as there's no way the ovens could interfere with the missiles' operation. To be fair, you never claimed that it worked :)
On actually reading the article the actions of the crew seems perfectly legit; they just aborted the exercise and returned to base when facing difficulties. The shenanigans of NK would probably not disrupt operations in a live situation, as they surely have backup methods :)
But that's just it. If a little radio signal, rather than missiles or rounds, can bring a plane down, then it's really, really fragile. GPS is nice, but relying on it exclusively for navigation is just moronic.
I'm amazed that they don't have backup contingency plans for navigation. Dead reckoning and other methods worked just fine for aircraft navigation long before the advent of GPS. When I was stationed at a frigate in the navy, we had, in addition to GPS: A 25k RPM gyroscope pointed at true north close to Polaris, radar, radio based navigational systems, radio equipment which could triangulate based on known civilian low-frequency transmitters, wind/current charts to aid in dead reckoning, a mechanical chronometer, star charts and sun/moon/stars set/rise tables and even a goddamn mechanical sextant (and knowledge of how to use it) for emergency navigation.
Except for the gyro* (which is more precise than a magnetic compass) we never used them except for in specific exercises, but the alternative methods worked very well when we did. The only way we could be lost was pretty much if all the navigational experts (around 10 in various stations around the ship) was somehow taken out of action.
* The gyro was essential for correction of platform movement when aiming our guns, but also served as our primary "compass". Of course we also had a couple of nautical magnetic compasses for backup in case the gyro should seize :)
you'll also want a measure of the deviation of every frame's draw time from the average draw time being reported. And likely a measure of how atypically bad frames are distributed(ie. 5 seconds of super-low framerate during some sort of loading is annoying. 20 25 millisecond frames scattered throught action-heavy areas is really annoying...)
As a non-stats-guy I hereby invent the standard-deviation-for-slow-down-only-including-outliers metric. You're welcome :)
But seriously, couldn't they just include the whole distribution graph of time between frames, with a description of what it means? And maybe provide the underlying data as a spreadsheet so that you can run whatever analysis you're most comfortable with on it. Oh well, back to stats class.
This post is going nowhere, so I'm gonna save it for posterity.
When you look at a fast moving object it's sharp (unless it's moving so fast that your eyes can't track it).
But the background will be blurred. Motion blurring usually has it's place, if done well you will not even notice it, it just seems natural. Of course that often involves no effects at all, the camera just uses the same limitations as your eyes. If you were to use a very high shutter speed in a scene with a fast moving object it will seem strange, your eyes won't do the motion blurring right because they're fed a completely sharp image to begin with, which is not what happens when your eyes pan in a real scene.
In your post you seem to mix up frame rate problems with aperture effects or depth of field. Aperture effects != motion blur, and have nothing to do with frame rate.
It irks me as well when they use heavy aperture effects, especially in 3D movies, where my brain is fooled into thinking my eyes can focus and it's not possible. Note to directors: don't try to force me to look at what *you* want in a 3D movie :)
I completely agree with you that frame rates in general should be higher though. BTW your sig is hilarious, it's even better if you know Norwegian :)
This tool will give you a look into exactly what is going on during boot and what is hogging disk, CPU, and everything. It is very detailed.
That seems interesting, thanks for the link. Mailed to myself to check out at work come Monday :)
On a side note we've found that a very efficient way of reviving a somewhat slow computer (boot and in general) is to throw in a small, cheap SSD for the OS. The increase in speed and responsiveness is amazing. You don't even need to reinstall, just dd the system partitions to the new disk.
repetititive
Oh goddamnit.
we'd still lose much more time to restroom or cigarette breaks (and in the later case, most people here don't even smoke).
Somewhat OT, but short and relatively frequent breaks are good whether you smoke or not. Where I work most employees and managers, including the non-smokers, join in on "smoking" breaks about every 90 minutes. Actually, in my country the law gives you the right to a five minute break per hour if your main working tool is a computer or if your work is very repetititive.
With breaks you are less prone to fatigue which increases productivity towards the end of the day. It leads to a better work environment when employees can chat and get to know each other better. Employees don't feel dogged, and are happier. In my experience, if your work involves problem solving (like coding) a short break can take your mind off a tricky problem for a while and lets your subconscious work on it, I frequently have Eureka moments when on a break and not actively thinking about whatever issue I'm tackling. We'll often discuss work on the breaks, effectively having a mini-meeting, and often get valuable input from others who isn't directly involved with our particular project. Win all around.
Of course, if you only allow explicit smoking breaks for smokers you are an idiot, it makes no sense to punish someone for not smoking.
As for productivity it varies hugely between employees anyway, a good moment was when a somewhat grumpy (incidentally a non-smoker) co-worker complained at lunch that us bastards (which included a lot of non-smoking bastards) "were outside half the time" leaving him to "do all the work". My boss' reply? "They actually carry *your* load since they get a lot more done on an individual basis (this was no secret to anyone). Maybe you need to put in that little extra time. Or you could shut up and join us".
If I was informed at a workplace that short breaks were not allowed I'd be sceptical to their ability to treat employees in general.
You sound pretty arrogent to me...
I there are a few C++ modules, but a very few, due to the terrible and bizarre attitude of the kernel developers, who seem to want to insult users of C++, then purposfully make life more difficult, then finally spread the entire issue 3 feet deep in FUD.
Woa, that was a fun read :) *scratches zinged eyebrows*
... yet you're talking about e-readers.
Yes. I work at a publishing company, we publish books in hardcover, paperback, and electronic versions. It's still a book. If I needed to specify a format I could have written ebooks, but in this case I was referring to content, not format. I'm not arguing about this, this is just how the terms are used in the business. Oh, and if you're in the "only-paper-books-are-real-books"-camp, that's pure BS, I will not argue about that either. Go huddle with the vinyl record fanatics over there :) (I actually like vinyl for nostalgic reasons, but it's not exactly a practical format for carrying music around, and the sound quality is arguably inferior.)
so much for e-ink... The technology had promise.
Promise? I'd say that the technology is wildly successful for those of us that actually read books. I don't have a Kindle, but I have a Sony PRS-650 which is a comparable device (slightly better IMO). I've read more than 300 books on it, and it's just about perfect for its purpose. No eyestrain whatsoever, only needs charging every third week. For Internet and media on the go I have my phone, but you just can't find anything better than E-Ink for reading novels. I really don't see how my reader could be significantly improved.