I haven't played around with ext4. From what I read I didn't think it would be much different than ext3.
Actually I am really not satisfied with IO prioritization on linux in general. I haven't found a way to launch a low-priority task that won't interfere with more important tasks when working with the disk. ionice doesn't seem to do anything at all, at least on my Ubuntu install. Simply setting the priority of a process (e.g. renice) ought to affect not only its cpu priority but also disk IO and IP packet prioritization (at least upstream). I don't know if any OS does that though.
Smartwheels use sonar, laser range finding and millimeter wave radar to identify mufflers and other debris. Each one consists of a hub with many tiny spokes. Each spoke telescopes into five sections. On the end is a squat foot, rubber tread on the bottom, swiveling on a ball joint. As the wheel rolls, the feet plant themselves one at a time, almost glomming into one continuous tire. If you surf over a bump, the spokes contract to roll over it. If you surf over a pothole, the rubber prongs probe its asphalt depths. Either way, the shock is thereby absorbed, no thuds, smacks, vibrations, or clunks will make their way into the plank or the Converse hightops with which you tread it.
I've switched to XFS for my Ubuntu install. My main complaint with EXT3 was it takes forever to delete large files (e.g. 10 GB TV recordings) making the system unresponsive (which will corrupt a recording currently underway). Current versions of grub seem to boot XFS fine.
Government negativism has reached a questionable new high. Most often the criticisms are not even quantified (as in this story), not compared to private industry (where possible) (e.g. Social Security fraud), and not compared to historical or global norms. The economy sucks and the public is united only in being unhappy about it, in which they feel some solidarity, yet can't form a consensus on what to do about it.
Good Lord, look at that graph. In the past I would say something like, "China's per capita emissions are still 1/4 of ours, even though we exported all our heavy industry there." But look at that graph! Scientists are saying we need to immediately make major reductions, and instead the curve is headed almost straight up. We are so screwed.
In pure capitalism, politicians would not have enough control over the economic system to provide sufficient advantage to be worth the cost of bribing the politician.
The government you describe is also too weak to define and uphold property rights, which is the foundation of capitalism.
It's also too weak to prevent the market from taking ridiculous risks that crater the economy, which is how the depression and the current recession began (and how Canada avoided following us over the cliff).
With IPv6 addresses being so plentiful, does that mean it should never have to change? I've been running a webserver and mailserver on my Comcast account since it was an @Home account (10+ years) and my IP rarely changes, but occasionally it still does.
Wait, what's this about $20 paper? It's $4.67 for 30 sheets at amazon. (No doubt it will be 3x that at any National Park, just like the good old days:) A camera is $180, or $39 for a standalone pocket-sized printer.
I don't suppose I'll run out and buy one, since I have no use for prints anyways. Actually I agree they should be able to do a $100 camera if the printer is only $39. But even so the prices don't seem unreasonable, if somebody wanted the capability.
I know a lot of people will take issue with this, but I actually do think a widely adopted cash-like micropayment system could revolutionize the Internet, and spam could be addressed by pay-the-recipient+whitelisting. (Yes, I am aware all these ideas have come and gone, more than once).
Anyways, spam has been addressed quite effectively by the consolidation of email into a few big providers plus content analysis. I'm not sure what the analogy with HFT is there. (In fact the point of my previous post is that "all things automated" is too broad a generalization to be useful.)
If they want a real assessment, offer a honeypot network with some stand-in data, and set a prize for whoever can get it and tell them how.
No, that's exactly what everybody's doing now - an endless game of find-and-patch whack-a-mole. That's not DARPA, it's Norton anti-virus.
What they want is to go back to first principles for a fresh start, to preclude as many attacks as possible from arising in the first place. How possible that is, nobody really knows. I'm afraid it will be determined that there's a sort of negative application of Turing completeness that means any computer capable of doing much of anything can do everything, including bad things. Security can't be entirely engineered in because the goals are fundamentally subjective - keep the "bad guys" out without denying access to the "good guys." No formal system will completely match our varying intuitions on who is good or bad and what exactly is a breach etc.
Sorry, but this is a valid partisan issue. If you are saying there would probably still be some environmental protection under Tea Party rule, then technically you are right. But if you are claiming it wouldn't be hugely destructive setback to the environment, then you are flat out wrong.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota wants to padlock the E.P.A.â(TM)s doors, as does former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wants to impose an immediate moratorium on environmental regulation.
Representative Ron Paul of Texas wants environmental disputes settled by the states or the courts. Herman Cain, a businessman, wants to put many environmental regulations in the hands of an independent commission that includes oil and gas executives. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, thinks most new environmental regulations should be shelved until the economy improves.
Only Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has a kind word for the E.P.A., and that is qualified by his opposition to proposed regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming.
But maybe they're just talk? No, not if you remember George Bush.
As an (extremely minor) shareholder, I feel this is a case of the guys hired to manage the store helping themselves to the till. It's a cultural problem. On average, stocks haven't gone up in 12 years, yet all the top management is getting richer and richer. How does that work?
Apple of course has gone WAY up in value, and although I think the designers and engineers at Apple and Jobs himself were the main reason (not Senior Vice Presidents), I still probably wouldn't bat an eye if these guys got $1,000,000 bonuses. But from the article, it appears these bonuses are NOT options for a given strike price (say, today's price). Rather, they are simply a gift. That means even if Apple's stock drops 80% in the next 5 years, each of these guys still get $15,000,000 each (on top of normal pay) - i.e. shareholders lose, management wins. How does that work? I hope I am misunderstanding this situation.
We need lots of scientists/engineers/etc., and relatively few athletes
If pay is any indication, this nation is suffering from a critical shortage of Senior Vice Presidents. Apple just has to pay $60,000,000 bonuses to each of its Senior Vice Presidents to to keep them from taking their unique skills to other companies where, apparently, Senior Vice Presidents might be paid even more. No word yet on the STEM folks underneath who design their products. And of course we all know what the poor schmucks who actually manufacture their goods make. Why is higher education not responding to the obvious indicators of demand? We should cancel all STEM education for the next 5-10 years and focus on the vibrant Senior Vice President sector so all Americans can get $60,000,000 bonuses.
One interesting thing about the "good" Apple ad vs. the "bad" Droid ad in the article is that the Apple ad is bright and sparkly and clean, while the Droid ad is much darker and sexier, with a pretty woman writhing all around.
doesn't this open carriers up to potential lawsuits when their network fails and someone dies of treatable maladies as a result?
Have there previously been successful lawsuits by people who tried to place a phonecall for help and the line was down or busy? How about suing Chrysler because a Jason and Freddy are chasing you and your car suddenly won't start? These things are manageable.
instead of raking in huge amounts via high interest and sneaky little fees and giving it to shareholders, they reinvest the money back into the credit union.
When my CU has a surplus, they deposit my share of it into my account. (It's never much, since they adjust rates to avoid it, but I suppose they have to undershoot somewhat for a margin of error).
And Costco (in response to the GP) *does* accept debit cards. The only time this bit me was when buying a new TV at Costco - turns out my debit card has a $1000/day limit. So for large purchases you need to call ahead (during bank business hours) to have the limit temporarily lifted.
I think the main reason people stick with banks that charge lots of fees is because the fees are designed to flatter the ego. Instead of upfront fees, they tend to charge penalties for irresponsible behavior. People tell themselves, "I'll always pay the card off each month. I would never make a late payment or overdraft. I'll get bonus miles paid for by all the other losers who bank here!" Everybody thinks this. And yet, somehow, the banks keep raking in billions of dollars. It's almost as if people aren't as responsible as they thought they were!
If I need to pay somebody who isn't on paypal etc., I can go onto my credit union website and have them cut a check and send it to the payee. No charge.
Perhaps they meant the primary developers had accepted contributions from outsiders under GPL and rolled them into the proprietary-only product. That's the only way I could see a violation.
Hey, I'm in favor of legalization myself (although I don't and wouldn't use) but I can't blame the administration too much for carrying out the will of the people. A referendum on legalization failed in California - and that was California.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I am really not satisfied with IO prioritization on linux in general. I haven't found a way to launch a low-priority task that won't interfere with more important tasks when working with the disk. ionice doesn't seem to do anything at all, at least on my Ubuntu install. Simply setting the priority of a process (e.g. renice) ought to affect not only its cpu priority but also disk IO and IP packet prioritization (at least upstream). I don't know if any OS does that though.
I've switched to XFS for my Ubuntu install. My main complaint with EXT3 was it takes forever to delete large files (e.g. 10 GB TV recordings) making the system unresponsive (which will corrupt a recording currently underway). Current versions of grub seem to boot XFS fine.
Government negativism has reached a questionable new high. Most often the criticisms are not even quantified (as in this story), not compared to private industry (where possible) (e.g. Social Security fraud), and not compared to historical or global norms. The economy sucks and the public is united only in being unhappy about it, in which they feel some solidarity, yet can't form a consensus on what to do about it.
Good Lord, look at that graph. In the past I would say something like, "China's per capita emissions are still 1/4 of ours, even though we exported all our heavy industry there." But look at that graph! Scientists are saying we need to immediately make major reductions, and instead the curve is headed almost straight up. We are so screwed.
What's the case for the idea that government intervention encouraged the reckless speculation of the 1920's?
The government you describe is also too weak to define and uphold property rights, which is the foundation of capitalism.
It's also too weak to prevent the market from taking ridiculous risks that crater the economy, which is how the depression and the current recession began (and how Canada avoided following us over the cliff).
With IPv6 addresses being so plentiful, does that mean it should never have to change? I've been running a webserver and mailserver on my Comcast account since it was an @Home account (10+ years) and my IP rarely changes, but occasionally it still does.
I don't suppose I'll run out and buy one, since I have no use for prints anyways. Actually I agree they should be able to do a $100 camera if the printer is only $39. But even so the prices don't seem unreasonable, if somebody wanted the capability.
Anyways, spam has been addressed quite effectively by the consolidation of email into a few big providers plus content analysis. I'm not sure what the analogy with HFT is there. (In fact the point of my previous post is that "all things automated" is too broad a generalization to be useful.)
That's like saying we should be in favor of spam - "wow, look at all that automation, isn't it great!"
No, that's exactly what everybody's doing now - an endless game of find-and-patch whack-a-mole. That's not DARPA, it's Norton anti-virus.
What they want is to go back to first principles for a fresh start, to preclude as many attacks as possible from arising in the first place. How possible that is, nobody really knows. I'm afraid it will be determined that there's a sort of negative application of Turing completeness that means any computer capable of doing much of anything can do everything, including bad things. Security can't be entirely engineered in because the goals are fundamentally subjective - keep the "bad guys" out without denying access to the "good guys." No formal system will completely match our varying intuitions on who is good or bad and what exactly is a breach etc.
But maybe they're just talk? No, not if you remember George Bush.
As an (extremely minor) shareholder, I feel this is a case of the guys hired to manage the store helping themselves to the till. It's a cultural problem. On average, stocks haven't gone up in 12 years, yet all the top management is getting richer and richer. How does that work?
Apple of course has gone WAY up in value, and although I think the designers and engineers at Apple and Jobs himself were the main reason (not Senior Vice Presidents), I still probably wouldn't bat an eye if these guys got $1,000,000 bonuses. But from the article, it appears these bonuses are NOT options for a given strike price (say, today's price). Rather, they are simply a gift. That means even if Apple's stock drops 80% in the next 5 years, each of these guys still get $15,000,000 each (on top of normal pay) - i.e. shareholders lose, management wins. How does that work? I hope I am misunderstanding this situation.
If pay is any indication, this nation is suffering from a critical shortage of Senior Vice Presidents. Apple just has to pay $60,000,000 bonuses to each of its Senior Vice Presidents to to keep them from taking their unique skills to other companies where, apparently, Senior Vice Presidents might be paid even more. No word yet on the STEM folks underneath who design their products. And of course we all know what the poor schmucks who actually manufacture their goods make. Why is higher education not responding to the obvious indicators of demand? We should cancel all STEM education for the next 5-10 years and focus on the vibrant Senior Vice President sector so all Americans can get $60,000,000 bonuses.
One interesting thing about the "good" Apple ad vs. the "bad" Droid ad in the article is that the Apple ad is bright and sparkly and clean, while the Droid ad is much darker and sexier, with a pretty woman writhing all around.
Have there previously been successful lawsuits by people who tried to place a phonecall for help and the line was down or busy? How about suing Chrysler because a Jason and Freddy are chasing you and your car suddenly won't start? These things are manageable.
When my CU has a surplus, they deposit my share of it into my account. (It's never much, since they adjust rates to avoid it, but I suppose they have to undershoot somewhat for a margin of error).
And Costco (in response to the GP) *does* accept debit cards. The only time this bit me was when buying a new TV at Costco - turns out my debit card has a $1000/day limit. So for large purchases you need to call ahead (during bank business hours) to have the limit temporarily lifted.
I think the main reason people stick with banks that charge lots of fees is because the fees are designed to flatter the ego. Instead of upfront fees, they tend to charge penalties for irresponsible behavior. People tell themselves, "I'll always pay the card off each month. I would never make a late payment or overdraft. I'll get bonus miles paid for by all the other losers who bank here!" Everybody thinks this. And yet, somehow, the banks keep raking in billions of dollars. It's almost as if people aren't as responsible as they thought they were!
If I need to pay somebody who isn't on paypal etc., I can go onto my credit union website and have them cut a check and send it to the payee. No charge.
Perhaps they meant the primary developers had accepted contributions from outsiders under GPL and rolled them into the proprietary-only product. That's the only way I could see a violation.
Hey, I'm in favor of legalization myself (although I don't and wouldn't use) but I can't blame the administration too much for carrying out the will of the people. A referendum on legalization failed in California - and that was California.
Which of the White House responses is it that you thought was out of line with the American public as a whole?
Theory, meet fact..