Tragically, the fourth amendment contains a fatal flaw. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." OK, it stood for some for some 200 years without, in the main, anyone twisting it beyond recognition, but evidently government personnel today have become stupider than pandas and more power-mad than Roman emperors.
All the supreme court has to do is deem the TSA searches "reasonable" and they get away with flagrant disregard for fundamental rights. The amendment makes not the slightest effort to clarify "reasonable."
No. They don't believe it is easier, more user-friendly, or anything else positive. They intend that it be MORE DUMBED DOWN, which is just a continuation of the trend started by switching to the piece of crap called Unity. This is an initiative by which they intend to turn a powerful, full fledged distro into a tinkertoy to suit drooling idiots.
There are two ways to deal with a long waiting list. 1) MAKE MORE freakin cars, dammit. 2) CHARGE MORE for the goddam cars. And, OK, 3) a combination of both. If you have a waiting list, you are paying for it in lost income. Not in THIS PLANET is stopping production a sane response to having a long waiting list. Not unless you can't make the damn cars.
The above is just elementary economics in general. Now, Tesla may have specific strategic reasons to switch production 100% to a new model that addresses a different market. This would have to involve some reason why they couldn't just make both models in parallel.
You do realize that during the time the two UPSes are both hooked up to the equipment (to allow uninterrupted flow of power during the switch), you would have to precisely phase lock your new UPS to the original one. Two UPSes free running would just make a big short circuit when you connect them together.
I'd like to see you try to splice into a live AC cable. I think that would be lots of fun. And I'd like to see you try to synchronize the two AC phases so you can shut down the original source (the mains or the UPS) and replace it with the new offline source without interrupting the flow of power. That ought to be a whole lot of fun. Maybe you could do it, but my money's on you making a spectacular mess when you try it.
Here's what I think. I don't think the reason is what has been speculated. I think they took the whole rack just to make their life easier, so they wouldn't have to dink around identifying the particular server(s), and so they wouldn't have to dink around with tools inside the victim's premises removing out the particular server(s). Maube there were too many servers they wanted. Or maybe their victim actually did take up a whole rack or a major part of it.
Generally, battles are started during increment weather. The reason is to make it harder for an enemy to know what you are up to.
I hear there are also these things called infrared imaging devices. It's been a LONG time since darkness, fog, and smoke were any hindrance to a properly equipped force. Pearl Harbor? Fine weather. The Invasion of Europe? They sweated out one day of foul weather in order to get to the next day of reasonably good weather so they could launch it. And so on.
Perhaps in the time of Napoleon or the Civil War skulking around in fog could give a significant advantage.
I don't think there is any danger of that. You can make a C++ program just as low level as one in C, if you want. You can still compile any C code with a C++ compiler in C++ mode with generally only very minor tweaks to the expressions, and none of the tweaks changing the binary code generated. You can use as much of the added C++ features as you want; anywhere from none of them to all of them. In an ideal world there would be no reason to use a straight C compiler any more. The ways real life departs from an ideal world is mostly that C++ compilers are not universally available in all environments; none of them are yet fully C++2011 compliant; and they tend to be VERY slow.
Would you like your oppression with pickles or with mayonnaise? It's probably a similar corrupt corporatocracy situation in many parts of the world, with actions which should be dealt with in civil court criminalized. In the US, The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 brought us (among other insults) US Code Title 18, Part 1, Section 1832, which criminalizes such acts, stating that anyone who steals, or receives or possesses or uses without authorization, a trade secret, or merely ATTEMPTS same, shall be fined, or imprisoned up to 10 years, or both. The fine is limited to $5 million for an organization, but is WITHOUT ANY STATED LIMIT for an individual.
Section 1831 deals with basically the same offenses "to benefit a foreign power," which means that section 1832, giving the lie to the name of the bill, has nothing to do with true espionage.
This wonderful legislation, like the DMCA, was brought to you by a cooperation between tweedledee Democrats and tweedledum Republicans in Congress and the White House.
Actually, seeing a lion is a rare event. I have seen one first hand maybe several times in over 60 years; no more. I have seen squirrels on many tens of thousands of occasions. It is people who have never seen a lion who might be fairly rare. It's not the same thing.
This looks like a project to address adding checksums in the md(4) Multiple Device layer (not ideally named, because MD is perfectly usable on a single drive). Because MD is a layer under the filesystem, any filesystem is supported. They only support RAID4C (checksumming RAID4) and RAID5C (checksumming RAID5), though they show how to implement it on a single volume, albeit with a large performance penalty.
There is an excellent paper which analyzes the integrity issue you are trying to address.
I wish this would get into linux kernel mainstream.
Slashdot Mirror
Tragically, the fourth amendment contains a fatal flaw. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." OK, it stood for some for some 200 years without, in the main, anyone twisting it beyond recognition, but evidently government personnel today have become stupider than pandas and more power-mad than Roman emperors.
All the supreme court has to do is deem the TSA searches "reasonable" and they get away with flagrant disregard for fundamental rights. The amendment makes not the slightest effort to clarify "reasonable."
Scott Brown, another cog in the machine. True to form, changed his stripes the instant he stepped into the Senate.
Sheep, you're a one-tune-band.
Government. Rah Rah Rah. Solution to everything ... blah blah blah ... Government, the savior of us all ... blah blah blah. Socialize airports, roads, the police, fire brigade, army, air, water, everything ... subject to confiscation, poverty, inefficiency ... Government. Rah Rah Rah.
How's that working out for you? Huh? Huh?
Slashdot is busted as usual. Cut and paste.
What improvements?
+1, informative.
I thought it was just something wrong on my end.
Care to rephrase that please?
He's got something, and that's for damn sure. Something I don't have any intention of catching.
Bingo. You get it, unlike the idiots.
No. They don't believe it is easier, more user-friendly, or anything else positive. They intend that it be MORE DUMBED DOWN, which is just a continuation of the trend started by switching to the piece of crap called Unity. This is an initiative by which they intend to turn a powerful, full fledged distro into a tinkertoy to suit drooling idiots.
There are two ways to deal with a long waiting list. 1) MAKE MORE freakin cars, dammit. 2) CHARGE MORE for the goddam cars. And, OK, 3) a combination of both. If you have a waiting list, you are paying for it in lost income. Not in THIS PLANET is stopping production a sane response to having a long waiting list. Not unless you can't make the damn cars.
The above is just elementary economics in general. Now, Tesla may have specific strategic reasons to switch production 100% to a new model that addresses a different market. This would have to involve some reason why they couldn't just make both models in parallel.
Yeah, that will fix the patent process for sure. Implement that rule and you will have exactly zero patents issued moving forward.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It's Austrian, not Australian.
You do realize that during the time the two UPSes are both hooked up to the equipment (to allow uninterrupted flow of power during the switch), you would have to precisely phase lock your new UPS to the original one. Two UPSes free running would just make a big short circuit when you connect them together.
I'd like to see you try to splice into a live AC cable. I think that would be lots of fun. And I'd like to see you try to synchronize the two AC phases so you can shut down the original source (the mains or the UPS) and replace it with the new offline source without interrupting the flow of power. That ought to be a whole lot of fun. Maybe you could do it, but my money's on you making a spectacular mess when you try it.
Here's what I think. I don't think the reason is what has been speculated. I think they took the whole rack just to make their life easier, so they wouldn't have to dink around identifying the particular server(s), and so they wouldn't have to dink around with tools inside the victim's premises removing out the particular server(s). Maube there were too many servers they wanted. Or maybe their victim actually did take up a whole rack or a major part of it.
Generally, battles are started during increment weather. The reason is to make it harder for an enemy to know what you are up to.
I hear there are also these things called infrared imaging devices. It's been a LONG time since darkness, fog, and smoke were any hindrance to a properly equipped force. Pearl Harbor? Fine weather. The Invasion of Europe? They sweated out one day of foul weather in order to get to the next day of reasonably good weather so they could launch it. And so on.
Perhaps in the time of Napoleon or the Civil War skulking around in fog could give a significant advantage.
And it shows they should never again make assumptions on finish dates. They never did get it done during the decade they targeted or assumed.
I don't think there is any danger of that. You can make a C++ program just as low level as one in C, if you want. You can still compile any C code with a C++ compiler in C++ mode with generally only very minor tweaks to the expressions, and none of the tweaks changing the binary code generated. You can use as much of the added C++ features as you want; anywhere from none of them to all of them. In an ideal world there would be no reason to use a straight C compiler any more. The ways real life departs from an ideal world is mostly that C++ compilers are not universally available in all environments; none of them are yet fully C++2011 compliant; and they tend to be VERY slow.
You're right, that is very cool.
Would you like your oppression with pickles or with mayonnaise? It's probably a similar corrupt corporatocracy situation in many parts of the world, with actions which should be dealt with in civil court criminalized. In the US, The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 brought us (among other insults) US Code Title 18, Part 1, Section 1832, which criminalizes such acts, stating that anyone who steals, or receives or possesses or uses without authorization, a trade secret, or merely ATTEMPTS same, shall be fined, or imprisoned up to 10 years, or both. The fine is limited to $5 million for an organization, but is WITHOUT ANY STATED LIMIT for an individual.
Section 1831 deals with basically the same offenses "to benefit a foreign power," which means that section 1832, giving the lie to the name of the bill, has nothing to do with true espionage.
This wonderful legislation, like the DMCA, was brought to you by a cooperation between tweedledee Democrats and tweedledum Republicans in Congress and the White House.
Actually, seeing a lion is a rare event. I have seen one first hand maybe several times in over 60 years; no more. I have seen squirrels on many tens of thousands of occasions. It is people who have never seen a lion who might be fairly rare. It's not the same thing.
Worst. Parallels. Ever.
Seriously.
If they use a trivial difference to repatent, then you can use a trivial difference to evade the patent.
This looks like a project to address adding checksums in the md(4) Multiple Device layer (not ideally named, because MD is perfectly usable on a single drive). Because MD is a layer under the filesystem, any filesystem is supported. They only support RAID4C (checksumming RAID4) and RAID5C (checksumming RAID5), though they show how to implement it on a single volume, albeit with a large performance penalty.
There is an excellent paper which analyzes the integrity issue you are trying to address.
I wish this would get into linux kernel mainstream.
Methinks he is wishful thinking and rationalizing. He should be enraged at the DMCA.