Check your alias for 'rm'. You will _probably_ find it's aliased as rm -i. Thus rm -f will override that, meaning you _don't_ have to press 'y' for everything.
It's typically a more dramatic 'pay within 14 days and get a fixed penalty and no further legal action, if you do not respond within this time then you well have to defend your case in court and be liable for court costs and a possible maximum fine of over 9000!'.
And actually, there's not many people who are absolutely 100% certain they could 'defend' the copyright status of everything on their hard disk, and 14 days isn't very long to verify that.
Official forums are for PR. They're to show the world what a cool player base they have, and how 'everyone' speaks in glowing terms about their product. As such most companies pretty much have to control it. It's entirely understandable, but it's also completely biased, between the self selection of the posters being people who care enough about a game to post about it, and the banning of the people who care enough to post negatively about it, you pretty much guarantee you have a forum full of positive spin.
I can understand that. I accept entirely that if I'm using someone's forum service, they've got every right to limit or control my posting. I just find it objectionable that stuff I've legitimately bought and paid for might be removed because of someone objecting to my conduct/posting in another domain.
Surely a game that deals with violent assault as a theme, really shouldn't be drawing the line at the secondary elements that in the real world, the people shooting you in the face with guns are probably also verbally abusing you.
Cuz, y'know, words hurt my feelings, but getting shot in the head is a bit more permanent.
I want to assault the police, but I don't want to go to jail.
Oh, how does that work? Oh it doesn't. Choose. If terms are unacceptable, don't accept them. Don't play the game - it's a luxury anyway, and it's not like your life will be less complete.
Yep. Which is why it doesn't make any sense for them to get more proprietary. The more open stuff they can get, and the more people that use it, the better their ad revenue is.
Actually, I have a lot of people on my 'social networks' that have a broad expanse of relevant expertise. Mostly because my friends are (mostly) people I've met through University. I have been able to make a post about a technology I knew nothing about, and over a couple of days accumulated a selection of very valuable primary sources to learn about.
So no, not _specifically_ 'tech support' level - "I am getting error xyz with this code snippet, anyone know what's up?" responses, but often eliciting useful redirects to 'hot' sources of techniques, knowledge and advice.
Keeping up to speed on industry developments is a valuable part of a lot of IT jobs. Slashdot serves quite well at providing a weathervane on what's important and what's not.
I find stuff like instant messaging to be invaluable - or would if my current employer was a bit more tolerant. At a previous job it was massively useful as a collaboration tool - there's just a whole realm more communications that are possible, when you're not 'interrupting' someone to ask. Especially when said person is a friend, rather than a colleague.
Could call it autumn, instead, which more or less literally means 'the time between the autnumnal equinox and the winter solstice'. Which, because they're astronomical measurements, are as applicable on Mar as they are on Earth.
Actually, that's practically impossible on a living person - you're effectively putting something 250+ degrees hotter into the liquid nitrogen, and you're circulating nice hot blood around it continuously - you'll thus be flash-boiling the nitrogen, which has quite a low specific heat capacity, and the bubbles as the nitrogen boils off forms quite an effective insulator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect
It's therefore possible to immerse parts of the anatomy in liquid nitrogen for a fairly substantial amount of time before it will freeze to 'shatter on a table' temperature. Of course, getting frostbite is somewhat faster, and not recommended, so don't try this at home:)
The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to -200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.
The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1 F, ( -17.2 C) to -178 F (-107 C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225 F, (-143 C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81 F (27 C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.
In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C and the coldest is -15 Celsius in the Guisev Crater."
All sorts of stuff goes badly wrong when you're looking at that kind of temperature, not least anything with a hint of moisture in it. Rubber will crack, and metals will become brittle. But yes, I guess there's a chance that they can 'park' and wait for it to thaw in the summer, gather enough juice to power it's stuff, and boot up. It's more likely though that it'll just never start up again, as a system critical component is degraded by the extreme cold to the point where it doesn't work any more.
That's before you start looking at other environmentals, such as dust - get a joint clogged due to dust, and you may find you're only burning out motors when it's thawing time.
Well, I've been on the receiving end of a rather prohibitive bandwidth 'throttle' as 'punishment' for treating our unlimited connection as unlimited. The major problem is it's so hard to do a meaningful comparison, as the different sizes of 'unlimited' vs. how much you're screwed if you hit the limit. We were told we'd be put onto a higher contention during peak times, which... was irritating, but understandable if their goal was to serve the average consumer.
However what really happened is our 'higher contention' meant our whole netlink was virtually unusuable during that time. Which if you assume their goal is minimizing costs by keeping transit bandwidth down, and thus oppressing their 'high' users, makes a lot of sense.
*shrug*. I can understand the reason for a bandwidth limit, but FUP limiting 'unlimited' services, is just plain fraud. Complaint to the ASA, and get the ad pulled, and maybe we'll start seeing an end to this outright deceit.
If you're already local, you know when stuff opens and closes. If everyone was on UTC, then rather than look at timezone, all you'd need is to look up what time was noon.
I'm getting used to international scheduling, and we do work in GMT, and just accept that we each need to convert locally based on our 'GMT pattern'. It's really not that bad.
The counter argument though, is that relative timezones around the world don't actually matter to the majority of people in the world. They only care what time lunch is where they are.
Hmm, that's a very good point. If you have less daylight than hours in work, no amount of daylight savings is going to help, as you're typically in work over solar noon. So clearly the logical solution is rather than 'daylight saving', is to move everyone to MAXIMUM DAYLIGHT where the standard working shift is 20:00 to 04:00. This makes it most likely that you will have daylight at a point when you're not at work. For convenience sake, it may be worth adjusting clocks by... erm, about 12 hours. Or just tell everyone that 8pm is actually 8am now, and hope they don't understand the 24 hour clock.
Except for employers that actually understand that flexible working is actually more effective and efficient. And then I can have as many hours of daylight in the evening as I choose, I just have to get in earlier.
The thing is, you don't get any extra hours of light by moving to DST - all it does is 'push' employers to basically alter your working pattern by an hour.
If companies weren't so hung up on counting the hours that you work, then it would be entirely irrelevant. For starters most jobs above a certain level, productivity doesn't directly correlate to hours anyway. Also of course, most jobs it's irrelevant -which- 8 hours of the day you're working. Even the ones that require 'someone to be in' between certain hours (e.g. shops) it doesn't actually mean you need the entire shift ready to go on the dot. There's a few exceptions I'll grant. Places like assembly lines, or where there's similar kinds of time sensitive dependancies, but in the grand scope of 'possible jobs' I'd put that in at a relatively small fraction.
Windows adjust the clock method is immensely frustrating, and a symptom of an OS that despite pretending for the last few years, still isn't actually a multi-user environment.
It's a good idea. All that would be required is that we get a bit more thoughtful about a daily routine - when you're on a flexible working pattern, who cares what the clock says? And on the plus side, means less traffic congestion.
I can tell you how MTBF scales in a SAN - I've got a pair of 1400 drive storage arrays.
Approximate failure rate is 1-2 drives per month. That seems high, until you start looking at expected failure rates, and then you realise that actually that's lower than the manufacturers spec failure rate.
However even with such a failure rate, it's no big deal - we're on 7+1 RAID sets (where we're not RAID1), so rather than 'another drive fail' we're on 'another drive in this set of 8 disks, between the first one failing and the hot spare rebuilding'.
We've just recently had a backend controller problem, which meant 16 drives went offline (in at least 16 different raid sets, for that very reason), which was more than we could hot spare. Thankfully our luck held, and we didn't get another failure in any of the other drives in the 16 raid sets (112 drives).
But that wasn't actually a drive fault, rather than a controller problem. It just highlights though, that your RAID group does you no good if multiple drives are using _any_ shared components beyond a certain point, as the failure rate of _anything_ can screw with your system. (OK, so they don't tend to do so in a 'data loss' sense)
Not quite. That's the expected unrecoverable error rate published by the drive manufacturers. That doesn't mean it's mandatory that you'll have one every 12Tb, it just makes it increasingly likely that one will happen.
Nor does it mean that's the probability of a complete RAID failure - an unrecoverable error is one thingy that can't be read properly. On a RAID, that's corrected by the RAID. With the Raid down... well, oops, you've got a corrupt file (well, more likely you've a corrupt stripe). But the rest of your 12Tb isn't affected.
Do you mean RAID 1? That's mirrored disk, and that's generally more expensive than RAID 5 - you need (at least) twice as much raw storage, as usable storage.
So you'd stick 2x 1TB drives in a RAID1 to get 1Tb of usable storage.
2 disk RAID5 doesn't make much sense, as RAID 5 'costs' one disk out of the set, but you could do a 2+1 for 2Tb of usable, RAID protected storage, on your 3x 1TB drives.
RAID5 is a cost compromise between the factor 2 that you need to do mirroring, and the resilience it provides. A 4+1 RAID costs 1 disk, but protects 4, and you need two failures out of 5 to take it down. RAID1 needs at least two failures - you need both mirrors to fail, so it's possible that even with half your drives dead, you're still ok.
For my purposes as a home user, I've got a really quite small set of files that I actively care about losing. Most of my storage is 'assorted junk' like game installs, videos, music files, that kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your alias for 'rm'. You will _probably_ find it's aliased as rm -i. Thus rm -f will override that, meaning you _don't_ have to press 'y' for everything.
Just watch you don't get your feet wet. What with it being a river and all.
It's typically a more dramatic 'pay within 14 days and get a fixed penalty and no further legal action, if you do not respond within this time then you well have to defend your case in court and be liable for court costs and a possible maximum fine of over 9000!'.
And actually, there's not many people who are absolutely 100% certain they could 'defend' the copyright status of everything on their hard disk, and 14 days isn't very long to verify that.
Brb. Drafting form 'copyright infringement' letter.
What I object to is the single player stuff, that 'phones home'.
I can understand that. I accept entirely that if I'm using someone's forum service, they've got every right to limit or control my posting. I just find it objectionable that stuff I've legitimately bought and paid for might be removed because of someone objecting to my conduct/posting in another domain.
Cuz, y'know, words hurt my feelings, but getting shot in the head is a bit more permanent.
I want to assault the police, but I don't want to go to jail.
Oh, how does that work? Oh it doesn't. Choose. If terms are unacceptable, don't accept them. Don't play the game - it's a luxury anyway, and it's not like your life will be less complete.
Yep. Which is why it doesn't make any sense for them to get more proprietary. The more open stuff they can get, and the more people that use it, the better their ad revenue is.
So no, not _specifically_ 'tech support' level - "I am getting error xyz with this code snippet, anyone know what's up?" responses, but often eliciting useful redirects to 'hot' sources of techniques, knowledge and advice.
I find stuff like instant messaging to be invaluable - or would if my current employer was a bit more tolerant. At a previous job it was massively useful as a collaboration tool - there's just a whole realm more communications that are possible, when you're not 'interrupting' someone to ask. Especially when said person is a friend, rather than a colleague.
Could call it autumn, instead, which more or less literally means 'the time between the autnumnal equinox and the winter solstice'. Which, because they're astronomical measurements, are as applicable on Mar as they are on Earth.
It's therefore possible to immerse parts of the anatomy in liquid nitrogen for a fairly substantial amount of time before it will freeze to 'shatter on a table' temperature. Of course, getting frostbite is somewhat faster, and not recommended, so don't try this at home :)
All sorts of stuff goes badly wrong when you're looking at that kind of temperature, not least anything with a hint of moisture in it. Rubber will crack, and metals will become brittle. But yes, I guess there's a chance that they can 'park' and wait for it to thaw in the summer, gather enough juice to power it's stuff, and boot up. It's more likely though that it'll just never start up again, as a system critical component is degraded by the extreme cold to the point where it doesn't work any more.
That's before you start looking at other environmentals, such as dust - get a joint clogged due to dust, and you may find you're only burning out motors when it's thawing time.
However what really happened is our 'higher contention' meant our whole netlink was virtually unusuable during that time. Which if you assume their goal is minimizing costs by keeping transit bandwidth down, and thus oppressing their 'high' users, makes a lot of sense.
*shrug*. I can understand the reason for a bandwidth limit, but FUP limiting 'unlimited' services, is just plain fraud. Complaint to the ASA, and get the ad pulled, and maybe we'll start seeing an end to this outright deceit.
I'm getting used to international scheduling, and we do work in GMT, and just accept that we each need to convert locally based on our 'GMT pattern'. It's really not that bad.
The counter argument though, is that relative timezones around the world don't actually matter to the majority of people in the world. They only care what time lunch is where they are.
Hmm, that's a very good point. If you have less daylight than hours in work, no amount of daylight savings is going to help, as you're typically in work over solar noon. So clearly the logical solution is rather than 'daylight saving', is to move everyone to MAXIMUM DAYLIGHT where the standard working shift is 20:00 to 04:00. This makes it most likely that you will have daylight at a point when you're not at work. For convenience sake, it may be worth adjusting clocks by ... erm, about 12 hours. Or just tell everyone that 8pm is actually 8am now, and hope they don't understand the 24 hour clock.
Except for employers that actually understand that flexible working is actually more effective and efficient. And then I can have as many hours of daylight in the evening as I choose, I just have to get in earlier.
If companies weren't so hung up on counting the hours that you work, then it would be entirely irrelevant. For starters most jobs above a certain level, productivity doesn't directly correlate to hours anyway. Also of course, most jobs it's irrelevant -which- 8 hours of the day you're working. Even the ones that require 'someone to be in' between certain hours (e.g. shops) it doesn't actually mean you need the entire shift ready to go on the dot. There's a few exceptions I'll grant. Places like assembly lines, or where there's similar kinds of time sensitive dependancies, but in the grand scope of 'possible jobs' I'd put that in at a relatively small fraction.
Windows adjust the clock method is immensely frustrating, and a symptom of an OS that despite pretending for the last few years, still isn't actually a multi-user environment.
It's a good idea. All that would be required is that we get a bit more thoughtful about a daily routine - when you're on a flexible working pattern, who cares what the clock says? And on the plus side, means less traffic congestion.
Approximate failure rate is 1-2 drives per month. That seems high, until you start looking at expected failure rates, and then you realise that actually that's lower than the manufacturers spec failure rate.
However even with such a failure rate, it's no big deal - we're on 7+1 RAID sets (where we're not RAID1), so rather than 'another drive fail' we're on 'another drive in this set of 8 disks, between the first one failing and the hot spare rebuilding'.
We've just recently had a backend controller problem, which meant 16 drives went offline (in at least 16 different raid sets, for that very reason), which was more than we could hot spare. Thankfully our luck held, and we didn't get another failure in any of the other drives in the 16 raid sets (112 drives).
But that wasn't actually a drive fault, rather than a controller problem. It just highlights though, that your RAID group does you no good if multiple drives are using _any_ shared components beyond a certain point, as the failure rate of _anything_ can screw with your system. (OK, so they don't tend to do so in a 'data loss' sense)
Nor does it mean that's the probability of a complete RAID failure - an unrecoverable error is one thingy that can't be read properly. On a RAID, that's corrected by the RAID. With the Raid down... well, oops, you've got a corrupt file (well, more likely you've a corrupt stripe). But the rest of your 12Tb isn't affected.
So you'd stick 2x 1TB drives in a RAID1 to get 1Tb of usable storage.
2 disk RAID5 doesn't make much sense, as RAID 5 'costs' one disk out of the set, but you could do a 2+1 for 2Tb of usable, RAID protected storage, on your 3x 1TB drives.
RAID5 is a cost compromise between the factor 2 that you need to do mirroring, and the resilience it provides. A 4+1 RAID costs 1 disk, but protects 4, and you need two failures out of 5 to take it down. RAID1 needs at least two failures - you need both mirrors to fail, so it's possible that even with half your drives dead, you're still ok.
For my purposes as a home user, I've got a really quite small set of files that I actively care about losing. Most of my storage is 'assorted junk' like game installs, videos, music files, that kind of thing.