That's what I was looking for, more or less. Thanks.
You can't bring back a dead system by changing data in a field. You can't even change the data if the system is down.
That is only true if the system which crashed and the system with the database on it are the same machine. A database client on a different machine crashing would not affect the database server at all. They could have used any non-crashed terminal to access the database and change the data.
Then there is this statement, from your last linked article: "The resulting database overload caused the ship's LAN, including 27 dual 200-MHz Pentium Pro miniature remote terminal units, to crash, they said."
It apprently took two hours to restore the network after the first time it happened. Even subsequent times: " Each time, we knew what caused the interrupt and were underway again in about 30 minutes." Thirty minutes to change a field in a database? That's suspicious. It sure seems to me like they had to go around rebooting machines before "everything [came] right back up".
I was hoping you'd find difinitive proof (i.e. a statement of the kind "The application crashed, but the computer the application was running on was not" or some such). Instead, just more vagueness. Oh well.
Everyone seems to think the Irish Potato Famine happened because the Irish just loved potatoes and that's all they ate. This is incorrect (and seems silly if you thought about it). That's all they were allowed to eat, because the British took all the other crops*. The Irish had no choice but to only grow the one crop.
Similarly, the existing software monoculture is not a result of everyone saying "Gee, I love monocultures, so let's all buy the same OS!" It's a result of people not having (or not feeling they have) a choice.
Some day, this will be a non-issue. I'll be running Linux and Enlightenment, your corporate desktop may be FreeBSD running KDE, and your brother will have OSX/Aqua, and we won't have any problems sharing documents, files, etc. All we need to do is remove the penalty for making a choice (not having shit work). The key is to get rid of the companies that hate choice and want to make choosing different cost you. Get rid of that problem, and I feel pretty sure that people's naturally differing tastes will result in exactly the kind of healthy "ecosystem" we need.
* Even after the famine had started, of course. The British have seriously fucked over the Irish for centuries. Braveheart, wonderful movie that it was, only scratched the surface of the abuse.
The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program. That caused the database to overflow and crash all LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units, the memo said.
From this article linked by granparent or something.
Since my recollection of the USS Yorktown failure stems from back when it actually happened, I'll admit the crashing of NT is a detail I may be incorrect on. I do remember being quite clear at the time that it was in fact an application fault and subsequent operating system failure, but again that was six years ago.
I was unable to find a link that explained the situation in more (technical) detail. If you have a link that would indicate specifically whether the operating system of the computer running the database software was still alive or not after the crash, then that would be helpful. Otherwise the issue remains unclear.
I think virii and adware are the only techs that MS truly owns.
Viruses and adware could perhaps be attributed to MS. The ascendence of virii, on the other hand, I think can safely be attributed to people without an adequate dictionary.
Actually, it was a divide-by-zero bug in the application software, not an OS failure. Whoever wrote the application software for the military was to blame, not Microsoft.
Wrong, it is Microsoft's fault. The application cause a divide-by-zero fault. Windows NT failed to properly handle that fault, and died. It is Microsoft's fault. There is no excuse for an operating system being brought down by a divide by zero error in an application.
I can think of something you can send your Congresscritter from WesternUnion.com that would have almost certainly have a greater impact than a telegram.
Stick six megs of cache on a Xeon, and if the Itanium still wins by a substantial margin, then I'll think that Intel hasn't wasted the last ten years and billions of dollars.
Nothing wrong with sticking a lot of cache on a part -- everyone would, were it not for other issues such as cost -- but that Itanium is better than anything else does not follow.
Itanium puts up impessive numbers, that I can't deny. I'd expect any competent architecture with that much raw die area thrown at the problem to do the same, though. There's little indication that any of the performance gains are due to the architecture of Itanium. In fact, there was an ISCA (?) paper by Intel which reported that major features of Itanium -- eg branch elimination through predication -- were worth a little if you hand-tuned, nil if you had a decent (intel) compiler, and negative if you didn't (gcc at the time).
Which is all just a way of saying that Itanium is just another architecture. It tried some things that worked, some things that didn't, and in the end does well because the ones making it can throw tons of resources at the problem. "Ahead of its time"? No, because in the future, the same thing will be true.
So... was the reason that we have to wait to see this because 1) test audiences couldn't bear a movie that was three hours and twenty six minutes long? 2) Peter Jackson unable to find anything to cut in ten minutes of hobbits hugging? 3) it's part of a three-step plan ending in "Profit!"
The media knew he was a fugitive, but didn't know where he was. Neither did the FBI, so I don't know how you could blame them. But they had a bunch of articles about them, as you'd see if you checked Google yourself.
The woman knew where he was, but she didn't know he was a fugitive. Until she searched on Google, finding both the FBI page and the various Cincinnati news items.
You're right, except that large companies don't file patents because they look good. They file them so that when they sit down at the negotiating table with another company, they have as big a patent club as possible to swing. For startups, patents may be about impressing investors. For big corps, patents are all about strategy.
In neither case, of course, are patents about producing and protecting useful and unique inventions.
I did my whole test with selection/middle-click. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. Also, I'm not running kde or gnome.
But no, middle-clicking into the gnome-term did NOT work.
Also, I just re-tried the test, using selection/paste from edit menu into gnome-terminal. Again, it did NOT work after I closed the xterm, but did before hand.
It is possible that your Klipper is fixing the problem for you.
Then I tried opening two gnome-terminals and repeating the experiment. It failed.
Copying text from an xterm, closing it, then pasting into a gnome-terminal doesn't work. Opening a new xterm and then pasting (from the old, closed xterm) still works.
So the facility obviously exists, making it the application's fault for not using it.
There'd have to be some kind of regulation system. Maybe several heat-pipe radiators on the suit, with closable aerogel flaps over them, so you could adjust the heat loss/retention? I'm thinking non-electrical, just because you don't want poor Bob to die from heat stress out in the Antarctic blizzard because he stumbled on a rock and broke his suit's computer.
I think it will be beneficial any time you have cold fingers and are willing to sacrifice some warmth from your forearms to get it. If the overall thermal efficiency of your garment isn't a huge issue, then these gloves present a reasonable tradeoff.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to have plenty of extra body heat around my torso and limbs, but my feet and hands still get cold. I'd like gloves like this.
Also, MS doesn't give a crap if xbox loses money. It has lost money and will continue to lose money. Those losses are dwarfed by revenue from Windows and Office, and again dwarfed by the monetary commitment of MS to Xbox. They know they won't make money until the next console, so in the meantime the key is to get in the industry.
All buying an xbox does is increase their sales numbers so MS can use that to tell everyone how great they are doing penetrating the industry.
Except power lock systems are just an electronic method of moving a physical locking switch. So you can still just pull the little lever to unlock the door and get out.
I doubt MS has that kind of on-demand manufacturing. They'll base their manufacturing off of demand from retailers, who are going to base their purchases off of sales estimates which won't be affected much by one sale.
But getting a thousand Linux geeks together to clear out all the Walmarts in the area of Xboxes, necessitating another shipment from MS, does sound like fun.
Why not just buy an Xbox and screw Microsoft over?
You mean why not just buy an Xbox and give Microsoft money?
They allegedly "lose" money on every Xbox sold, but all that really means is that the boxes sell for less than they cost to make. But the thing is, the box has already been made, so Microsoft has already felt the cost. If I buy one, all I do is help reduce that cost.
So I decided to screw Microsoft over and buy a 'Cube.:)
This hack does sound like too much of a hassle for too little reward, though.
You buy a game controller for one reason: to have maximum control in a videogame. Anything that interferes with that, including having to exert unnecessary muscle power, makes for a sucky controller.
Damn straight. I owned this controller about ten years ago, or rather the prescience-through-shoddy-quality precursor. That bastard took a ton of force to move, and while I may have gained some arm strength from using it all that happened was I got frustrated with the piece of crap making me die all the time in Double Dragon and went to go play Nintendo instead.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was looking for, more or less. Thanks.
You can't bring back a dead system by changing data in a field. You can't even change the data if the system is down.
That is only true if the system which crashed and the system with the database on it are the same machine. A database client on a different machine crashing would not affect the database server at all. They could have used any non-crashed terminal to access the database and change the data.
Then there is this statement, from your last linked article:
"The resulting database overload caused the ship's LAN, including 27 dual 200-MHz Pentium Pro miniature remote terminal units, to crash, they said."
It apprently took two hours to restore the network after the first time it happened. Even subsequent times: " Each time, we knew what caused the interrupt and were underway again in about 30 minutes." Thirty minutes to change a field in a database? That's suspicious. It sure seems to me like they had to go around rebooting machines before "everything [came] right back up".
I was hoping you'd find difinitive proof (i.e. a statement of the kind "The application crashed, but the computer the application was running on was not" or some such). Instead, just more vagueness. Oh well.
Everyone seems to think the Irish Potato Famine happened because the Irish just loved potatoes and that's all they ate. This is incorrect (and seems silly if you thought about it). That's all they were allowed to eat, because the British took all the other crops*. The Irish had no choice but to only grow the one crop.
Similarly, the existing software monoculture is not a result of everyone saying "Gee, I love monocultures, so let's all buy the same OS!" It's a result of people not having (or not feeling they have) a choice.
Some day, this will be a non-issue. I'll be running Linux and Enlightenment, your corporate desktop may be FreeBSD running KDE, and your brother will have OSX/Aqua, and we won't have any problems sharing documents, files, etc. All we need to do is remove the penalty for making a choice (not having shit work). The key is to get rid of the companies that hate choice and want to make choosing different cost you. Get rid of that problem, and I feel pretty sure that people's naturally differing tastes will result in exactly the kind of healthy "ecosystem" we need.
* Even after the famine had started, of course. The British have seriously fucked over the Irish for centuries. Braveheart, wonderful movie that it was, only scratched the surface of the abuse.
The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program. That caused the database to overflow and crash all LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units, the memo said.
From this article linked by granparent or something.
Since my recollection of the USS Yorktown failure stems from back when it actually happened, I'll admit the crashing of NT is a detail I may be incorrect on. I do remember being quite clear at the time that it was in fact an application fault and subsequent operating system failure, but again that was six years ago.
I was unable to find a link that explained the situation in more (technical) detail. If you have a link that would indicate specifically whether the operating system of the computer running the database software was still alive or not after the crash, then that would be helpful. Otherwise the issue remains unclear.
I think virii and adware are the only techs that MS truly owns.
Viruses and adware could perhaps be attributed to MS. The ascendence of virii, on the other hand, I think can safely be attributed to people without an adequate dictionary.
Actually, it was a divide-by-zero bug in the application software, not an OS failure. Whoever wrote the application software for the military was to blame, not Microsoft.
Wrong, it is Microsoft's fault. The application cause a divide-by-zero fault. Windows NT failed to properly handle that fault, and died. It is Microsoft's fault. There is no excuse for an operating system being brought down by a divide by zero error in an application.
Like his previous project, K-bot, Hanson sculpted Hertz to resemble his girlfriend.
What they don't mention is that his girlfriend is also a robot.
I can think of something you can send your Congresscritter from WesternUnion.com that would have almost certainly have a greater impact than a telegram.
Convenient that it lets you send both!
Stick six megs of cache on a Xeon, and if the Itanium still wins by a substantial margin, then I'll think that Intel hasn't wasted the last ten years and billions of dollars.
Nothing wrong with sticking a lot of cache on a part -- everyone would, were it not for other issues such as cost -- but that Itanium is better than anything else does not follow.
Itanium puts up impessive numbers, that I can't deny. I'd expect any competent architecture with that much raw die area thrown at the problem to do the same, though. There's little indication that any of the performance gains are due to the architecture of Itanium. In fact, there was an ISCA (?) paper by Intel which reported that major features of Itanium -- eg branch elimination through predication -- were worth a little if you hand-tuned, nil if you had a decent (intel) compiler, and negative if you didn't (gcc at the time).
Which is all just a way of saying that Itanium is just another architecture. It tried some things that worked, some things that didn't, and in the end does well because the ones making it can throw tons of resources at the problem. "Ahead of its time"? No, because in the future, the same thing will be true.
No, I only think one the three options is likely. Guess which one?
:)
I'm angry, but focused.
So... was the reason that we have to wait to see this because
1) test audiences couldn't bear a movie that was three hours and twenty six minutes long?
2) Peter Jackson unable to find anything to cut in ten minutes of hobbits hugging?
3) it's part of a three-step plan ending in "Profit!"
What are you talking about?
The media knew he was a fugitive, but didn't know where he was. Neither did the FBI, so I don't know how you could blame them. But they had a bunch of articles about them, as you'd see if you checked Google yourself.
The woman knew where he was, but she didn't know he was a fugitive. Until she searched on Google, finding both the FBI page and the various Cincinnati news items.
So, what were you talking about again?
You're right, except that large companies don't file patents because they look good. They file them so that when they sit down at the negotiating table with another company, they have as big a patent club as possible to swing. For startups, patents may be about impressing investors. For big corps, patents are all about strategy.
In neither case, of course, are patents about producing and protecting useful and unique inventions.
As long as we're making arbitrary demands...
I did my whole test with selection/middle-click. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. Also, I'm not running kde or gnome.
But no, middle-clicking into the gnome-term did NOT work.
Also, I just re-tried the test, using selection/paste from edit menu into gnome-terminal. Again, it did NOT work after I closed the xterm, but did before hand.
It is possible that your Klipper is fixing the problem for you.
I was able to repeat your experiment with xterms.
Then I tried opening two gnome-terminals and repeating the experiment. It failed.
Copying text from an xterm, closing it, then pasting into a gnome-terminal doesn't work. Opening a new xterm and then pasting (from the old, closed xterm) still works.
So the facility obviously exists, making it the application's fault for not using it.
Yes. So if you are out in the snow naked except for these gloves, then you should take them off. But the problem then isn't really the gloves.
Solution to fend of heat-pipe-glove-induced hypothermia, buy a warm coat to go with it.
Only if the other garments you were wearing were inadequate for the task of maintaining your body temp despite the extra heat loss to your hands.
:)
But if you're wearing these gloves, but aren't otherwise wearing clothes appropriate to -20, then yeah, you might get hypothermia.
On the other hand, hyperthermia is unlikely to be a problem caused by these gloves in -20C weather.
There'd have to be some kind of regulation system. Maybe several heat-pipe radiators on the suit, with closable aerogel flaps over them, so you could adjust the heat loss/retention? I'm thinking non-electrical, just because you don't want poor Bob to die from heat stress out in the Antarctic blizzard because he stumbled on a rock and broke his suit's computer.
I think it will be beneficial any time you have cold fingers and are willing to sacrifice some warmth from your forearms to get it. If the overall thermal efficiency of your garment isn't a huge issue, then these gloves present a reasonable tradeoff.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to have plenty of extra body heat around my torso and limbs, but my feet and hands still get cold. I'd like gloves like this.
See, this is why you should log in, so this gets archived.
Also, MS doesn't give a crap if xbox loses money. It has lost money and will continue to lose money. Those losses are dwarfed by revenue from Windows and Office, and again dwarfed by the monetary commitment of MS to Xbox. They know they won't make money until the next console, so in the meantime the key is to get in the industry.
All buying an xbox does is increase their sales numbers so MS can use that to tell everyone how great they are doing penetrating the industry.
So again, you only help them.
Except power lock systems are just an electronic method of moving a physical locking switch. So you can still just pull the little lever to unlock the door and get out.
I doubt MS has that kind of on-demand manufacturing. They'll base their manufacturing off of demand from retailers, who are going to base their purchases off of sales estimates which won't be affected much by one sale.
But getting a thousand Linux geeks together to clear out all the Walmarts in the area of Xboxes, necessitating another shipment from MS, does sound like fun.
Why not just buy an Xbox and screw Microsoft over?
:)
You mean why not just buy an Xbox and give Microsoft money?
They allegedly "lose" money on every Xbox sold, but all that really means is that the boxes sell for less than they cost to make. But the thing is, the box has already been made, so Microsoft has already felt the cost. If I buy one, all I do is help reduce that cost.
So I decided to screw Microsoft over and buy a 'Cube.
This hack does sound like too much of a hassle for too little reward, though.
You buy a game controller for one reason: to have maximum control in a videogame. Anything that interferes with that, including having to exert unnecessary muscle power, makes for a sucky controller.
Damn straight. I owned this controller about ten years ago, or rather the prescience-through-shoddy-quality precursor. That bastard took a ton of force to move, and while I may have gained some arm strength from using it all that happened was I got frustrated with the piece of crap making me die all the time in Double Dragon and went to go play Nintendo instead.