You clearly don't know what you are talking about even in the slightest. A Carrera is a trim level of the 911 and is a completely different car than the Carrera GT that this article is about. The Carrera GT is a 600,000 USD V10 super car that was only sold/built by Porsche from 2005-2008; there were only ever about 1300 produced.
Typically you get something called a "declared value policy". Wherein you basically document what modifications/parts are on the car and how much the value is as a result. You often times are expected to keep a folder of "comparables" that help validate the market value of the vehicle and then the policy works basically the same as any other policy. They are super common for things like show cars or antiques.
Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average?
FWIW, 75% can be "above average" if by "average" you are talking about the mean and not the median; it only takes a few outliers to throw the mean off.
I simply don't buy your argument. If using facebook only serves to "steal" time that consumers would otherwise spend shopping then how do you explain that the average American spends some 20+ hours a week watching television and still manages to spend enough money at retail to make television advertising a worthwhile venture? You can't have it both ways... even the most rabid facebook addicts aren't jacked into their monitor 24 hours a day; they leave the house, they buy things, and when they do they might just have a preference for the items which they've seen advertised. The same behavior is true for all the advertising support media you've listed.
9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?
"Correct" is a matter of context. I shouldn't expect that teenagers writing sms messages are going to eschew expediency for accuracy and as such excessive use of acronyms and false contractions can be considered "correct" in the context of an SMS. However that same message when included in a homework assignment can clearly be considered incorrect given the more formal context. Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course. To disregard these principal in favor of picking arguments based on some false premise is pedantic at best...
And before you jump in with some retort please consider for a moment the formal acceptance of the ideas I've expressed. In an America criminal court an expert recognized by the court is expected to use language that is specific to their expertise in a manner that is both consistent and correct within their claimed/recognized expertise. The same level of expectation is not levied upon an layperson when they are presented as a witness. Such that a layperson could and should be expected to say "theory" when they might actually mean "hypothesis" yet a scientist would be expected to both understand the difference and use the term which is correct within the domain of their meaning.
i wasn't trying to guess at what he needed, but his question was about snap shotting. One of (if not THE) key feature of a snapshot is that it is atomic. Anything that rolls through a changing filesystem one file at a time is not going to fit that bill. Also you run the risk of making "backups" that could break things that presume state consistency. If you capture the log of a daemon before the product output then your backup could have no record of the event which created the output for example.
These types of concerns are of increasing importance to professional system administrators in a time where there (to me at least) seems to be an increasing focus on meeting legally mandated audit and retention requirements.
While I basically agree with the premise of what you are saying, doesn't the SLI bus provide for having a shared memory segment between all the cards? I'm not 100% sure that is a feature of that specific interconnect; but I've always assumed it was. The difference being that if n cards with x memory would have a single (n*x) memory pool local to the processors plus the overhead of whatever locking semantics that would require. v.s. having n spearate x sized pools plus whatever work predivision overhead and/or synchronization overhead and/or lock semantic overhead.
I could be, and likely am, wrong; please correct me me if I am. I don't see any clear indication in the SLI wikipedia article and I'm not motivated enough to dig much deeper than that.
I do have lots of netapp gear and access to the now.netapp.com site. The entirity of the "zfs support" that netapp provides on their site is a single document from 2007 which is basically a reformatted zfs whitepaper showing that you can zfs format iscsi luns exported from a netapp... There isn't even a single line of netapp specific information in the entire document except for the format command output on page 5 has "NETAPP-LUN-0.2-8.01GB" as the friendly name for the disk...
As for your claim that netapp is more than a SAN/NAS, I'll agree there is a bit more in the way of features, but not much. I've yet to see a netapp used for much more than CIFS/NFS/ISCSI and maybe some light http/ftp work. Clustering, failover, remote mirroring, etc are neat but they are essentially just enterprise frosting on top of the basic nas/san functionality.
Also, being included in the S&P500 means that the increase in demand created by the associated index fund inclusion will (or should in theory) increase the per share value which has the resultant effect of increasing the over all value of the company as represented as the market capitalization. Larger market caps allow for much more leverage when negotiating financing on large business deals; not only by giving a greater perceived value but also by providing for more favorable rates on direct equity exchange deals.
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
Are you pot high? In what way does NetApp support ZFS? ZFS is not a NAS protocol... ZFS on SAN luns isn't a feature that needs to be explicitly supported and is the only way I can think you'd even sort of have a NA filer with ZFS on it. Also the continuing litigation by NetApp with regards to ZFS's purported infringement on NA's WAFL file system would be a pretty good reason to not believe that "Netapp [supports] ZFS".
If I missing something exceedingly obvious please reply...
The weight difference only matters for acceleration. Top speed is purely a function of max rpm, gear train reduction, aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) and road/tire traction. Early top speed attempts with the SSC Aero hit a traction limitation near 200MPH where increased RPM only resulted in increased tire slip.
This is actually the explanation which I've read/heard is the one that Alanis Morisette herself offers with regards to the apparent incongruity between the lyrics and the title. As to whether or not she developed that response before or after writing the song is anyone's guess.
There are a few "hdmi repeaters" on the market which do a decent job of stripping hdcp, however they do not advertise this feature widely for fear of having their hdcp keys revoked. The repeater functionality defined by the hdcp standard requires that repeaters decrypt and then encrypt the output stream. Some devices just skip the whole re-encryption part of the spec though. Poke around on AVS forums or similar hometheater websites for reviews which may indicate if a particular device is usable for this purpose.
There is no such thing as too much data... If they asked for feedback and they got a greater response than they expected that makes numerical analysis easier and more accurate. Trends pop and outliers become clear when you have a huge body of data.
The GCC team has to work on ARM/MIPS/SPARC/whatever while ICC only need to work on x86.
ICC supports IA-32, Itanium 1 & 2, x86-64, and xscale. Not that it kicks too much of a leg from your argument, but if you are going to argue the point you should at least make it accurate. Ah yeah almost forgot to mention all the extended instruction sets too... SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, MMX2, etc...
The mounting hardware for a removeable battery does not need to take significantly more room than a non-removable battery, and certainly nowhere near 10%.
I'm no apple fan boy, never even owned anything they make aside from an old II/E and an ipod, but I say that you really don't know what you are talking about if you can't see how the space required for a removable battery can't be more than 10% the volume of the battery itself. A removable battery includes a casing, a connector, latches, etc. and these are also present on the laptop too to accept the removable battery. I think that the video on their own site does a pretty decent job of showing the difference, but I suppose you have too big a chip on your shoulder about Apple "trying to be cool" to bother trusting that the simple line drawing explaining the design is clearly both feasible and likely.
Personally I'd like to see Apple give the option of trackpad with some real physical buttons (more than one and certainly more than none); but in the end it doesn't matter since I think their gear is a bit too finicky and pricey for my taste.
I've had a yahoo mail account since the mid 90s and pop3 has never been a free feature as far as I can remember. I did at one point pay for their premium services so that I could do a pop3 dump/archive before setting an auto-responder letting people know that I don't actively check the address any longer. Which brings up another problem cause by not providing free account redirection or pop3/imap, it encourages autoresponders which effectively amplify the congestion caused by spam...
This is a chicken egg argument. x86 won't be made irrelevant by other chips until/unless software developers support other target architectures. Software developers won't target something unless they feel that it will have wide enough acceptance as to make it worth their development time/effort/cost. If a chip maker has to sacrifice some percentage of their die/power to graft a translayer that allows people to continue to use legacy software then the trans layer provides a sufficient value for most applications as to negate nearly all the performance/efficiency cost of that layer. But don't take my word for it... Go right ahead and prove me wrong, point at a commercially successful x86 replacement that is making sufficient headway as to be considered a truly viable alternative to x86 chips. Atom is eating ARM's lunch right now in the consumer space and any penetration that atom sees into embedded platforms can just be considered frosting.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly don't know what you are talking about even in the slightest. A Carrera is a trim level of the 911 and is a completely different car than the Carrera GT that this article is about. The Carrera GT is a 600,000 USD V10 super car that was only sold/built by Porsche from 2005-2008; there were only ever about 1300 produced.
Typically you get something called a "declared value policy". Wherein you basically document what modifications/parts are on the car and how much the value is as a result. You often times are expected to keep a folder of "comparables" that help validate the market value of the vehicle and then the policy works basically the same as any other policy. They are super common for things like show cars or antiques.
Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average?
FWIW, 75% can be "above average" if by "average" you are talking about the mean and not the median; it only takes a few outliers to throw the mean off.
I simply don't buy your argument. If using facebook only serves to "steal" time that consumers would otherwise spend shopping then how do you explain that the average American spends some 20+ hours a week watching television and still manages to spend enough money at retail to make television advertising a worthwhile venture? You can't have it both ways... even the most rabid facebook addicts aren't jacked into their monitor 24 hours a day; they leave the house, they buy things, and when they do they might just have a preference for the items which they've seen advertised. The same behavior is true for all the advertising support media you've listed.
"Correct" is a matter of context. I shouldn't expect that teenagers writing sms messages are going to eschew expediency for accuracy and as such excessive use of acronyms and false contractions can be considered "correct" in the context of an SMS. However that same message when included in a homework assignment can clearly be considered incorrect given the more formal context. Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course. To disregard these principal in favor of picking arguments based on some false premise is pedantic at best...
And before you jump in with some retort please consider for a moment the formal acceptance of the ideas I've expressed. In an America criminal court an expert recognized by the court is expected to use language that is specific to their expertise in a manner that is both consistent and correct within their claimed/recognized expertise. The same level of expectation is not levied upon an layperson when they are presented as a witness. Such that a layperson could and should be expected to say "theory" when they might actually mean "hypothesis" yet a scientist would be expected to both understand the difference and use the term which is correct within the domain of their meaning.
These types of concerns are of increasing importance to professional system administrators in a time where there (to me at least) seems to be an increasing focus on meeting legally mandated audit and retention requirements.
This is no good for a true snapshot since the rsync operation is non-atomic on a live filesystem.
Yeah that title was referring to the swing axle rear suspension of the corvair.
I could be, and likely am, wrong; please correct me me if I am. I don't see any clear indication in the SLI wikipedia article and I'm not motivated enough to dig much deeper than that.
I do have lots of netapp gear and access to the now.netapp.com site. The entirity of the "zfs support" that netapp provides on their site is a single document from 2007 which is basically a reformatted zfs whitepaper showing that you can zfs format iscsi luns exported from a netapp... There isn't even a single line of netapp specific information in the entire document except for the format command output on page 5 has "NETAPP-LUN-0.2-8.01GB" as the friendly name for the disk...
As for your claim that netapp is more than a SAN/NAS, I'll agree there is a bit more in the way of features, but not much. I've yet to see a netapp used for much more than CIFS/NFS/ISCSI and maybe some light http/ftp work. Clustering, failover, remote mirroring, etc are neat but they are essentially just enterprise frosting on top of the basic nas/san functionality.
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
Are you pot high? In what way does NetApp support ZFS? ZFS is not a NAS protocol... ZFS on SAN luns isn't a feature that needs to be explicitly supported and is the only way I can think you'd even sort of have a NA filer with ZFS on it. Also the continuing litigation by NetApp with regards to ZFS's purported infringement on NA's WAFL file system would be a pretty good reason to not believe that "Netapp [supports] ZFS".
If I missing something exceedingly obvious please reply...
The weight difference only matters for acceleration. Top speed is purely a function of max rpm, gear train reduction, aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) and road/tire traction. Early top speed attempts with the SSC Aero hit a traction limitation near 200MPH where increased RPM only resulted in increased tire slip.
This is actually the explanation which I've read/heard is the one that Alanis Morisette herself offers with regards to the apparent incongruity between the lyrics and the title. As to whether or not she developed that response before or after writing the song is anyone's guess.
A 1960 250gt California Spyder sold for exactly that price less than 3 weeks ago... I'm just saying....
yup! Sun's openflash initiative is exactly this.
Linux hasn't depended on the bios for handling drive geometry for ages... Sometime before the 2.2 kernel iirc.
There are a few "hdmi repeaters" on the market which do a decent job of stripping hdcp, however they do not advertise this feature widely for fear of having their hdcp keys revoked. The repeater functionality defined by the hdcp standard requires that repeaters decrypt and then encrypt the output stream. Some devices just skip the whole re-encryption part of the spec though. Poke around on AVS forums or similar hometheater websites for reviews which may indicate if a particular device is usable for this purpose.
There is no such thing as too much data... If they asked for feedback and they got a greater response than they expected that makes numerical analysis easier and more accurate. Trends pop and outliers become clear when you have a huge body of data.
The GCC team has to work on ARM/MIPS/SPARC/whatever while ICC only need to work on x86.
ICC supports IA-32, Itanium 1 & 2, x86-64, and xscale. Not that it kicks too much of a leg from your argument, but if you are going to argue the point you should at least make it accurate. Ah yeah almost forgot to mention all the extended instruction sets too... SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, MMX2, etc...
Can someone post a link to a simple "What's New" doc? I'm not gonna go combing through the code to see if they've fixed my bug.
I'm no apple fan boy, never even owned anything they make aside from an old II/E and an ipod, but I say that you really don't know what you are talking about if you can't see how the space required for a removable battery can't be more than 10% the volume of the battery itself. A removable battery includes a casing, a connector, latches, etc. and these are also present on the laptop too to accept the removable battery. I think that the video on their own site does a pretty decent job of showing the difference, but I suppose you have too big a chip on your shoulder about Apple "trying to be cool" to bother trusting that the simple line drawing explaining the design is clearly both feasible and likely.
Personally I'd like to see Apple give the option of trackpad with some real physical buttons (more than one and certainly more than none); but in the end it doesn't matter since I think their gear is a bit too finicky and pricey for my taste.
I've had a yahoo mail account since the mid 90s and pop3 has never been a free feature as far as I can remember. I did at one point pay for their premium services so that I could do a pop3 dump/archive before setting an auto-responder letting people know that I don't actively check the address any longer. Which brings up another problem cause by not providing free account redirection or pop3/imap, it encourages autoresponders which effectively amplify the congestion caused by spam...
Those are all cogent points I hadn't considered :)
This is a chicken egg argument. x86 won't be made irrelevant by other chips until/unless software developers support other target architectures. Software developers won't target something unless they feel that it will have wide enough acceptance as to make it worth their development time/effort/cost. If a chip maker has to sacrifice some percentage of their die/power to graft a translayer that allows people to continue to use legacy software then the trans layer provides a sufficient value for most applications as to negate nearly all the performance/efficiency cost of that layer. But don't take my word for it... Go right ahead and prove me wrong, point at a commercially successful x86 replacement that is making sufficient headway as to be considered a truly viable alternative to x86 chips. Atom is eating ARM's lunch right now in the consumer space and any penetration that atom sees into embedded platforms can just be considered frosting.