Here's a link that actually shows what it looks like. Looks pretty effective to me. Zero and capital oh are distinguishable. Capital eye, low case ell, and digit one are distinguishable. Quotation marks all distinguishable. Very readable.
"Low contrast", WTF?! Low contrast typefaces patently suck for readability. I don't think anyone is so stupid as to believe that low contrast is good for readability, but if there is anyone that stupid, see this. There's a website you don't have to squint and strain to read.
Has it FIPS and Common Criteria testing? RedHat 6.x have, 7.x have not.
Red Hat 6.0 Hedwig was a 1999 release. Red Hat 7.0 Guinness was a 2000 release. I well remember buying them each shrink wrapped from a big box store, complete with voluminous paper manuals.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 Santiago was 2010, and RHEL 7.0 Maipo was 2014. I assume these are what you are referring to. If you are referring to RHEL, always call it that; Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or RHEL for short. Talking about a Red Hat version is talking about old history before the split into Fedora and RHEL.
I have done a lot of work with RHEL 6 and I highly respect it. I don't regard RHEL 7 as worth a bucket of warm spit in comparison due to some shitty decisions, notably the adoption of GNOME 3 and systemd.
It is always jarring to find a college grad who is not fluent in the difference between such common words as jive and jibe. "Harlem jive is the argot of jazz." "Your belief does not jibe with reality."
Take a deep breath, accept that you don't know everything and then go here and read about LENR/cold fusion which is about to change the world: http://www.e-catworld.com/ Or just google it...
You can, if you want, allow yourself to be wowed by "man behind the curtain" fraud, but I've got better things to do. At least conventional fusion relies only on well-enunciated and well-accepted physics, something which cannot be said for the E-Cat. If Rossi actually possessed anything beyond ego and selfishness, he would have published and cooperated freely with the scientific community. If he possessed anything which anyone who matters considered worth anything, someone would have stolen his "secret" by now and it would actually be released in service to an energy-thirsty world.
When the snow is falling, stand the panels up to minimize the amount that sticks to the surface. When the storm is over or abating, apply heat to the panel surface to melt the residue.
Have you analyzed how much energy you will expend to melt the snow, relative to the time rate of electric energy produced by the panel? Nice powder snow falls are not a big problem, but freezing rain, rime ice accretions, and slop which then freezes solid when the temperature falls prior to your heat application are all conditions a lot of us live with every winter.
The complication and expense of providing the distributed electric-resistance or other type of heating equipment, not to mention the machinery to tilt the panels 90 degrees, would be substantial. And the machinery would have to operate under extremely unfavorable conditions of icing.
I don't suggest these measures cannot be taken, but I do suggest they might have a serious effect on overall cost (initial capital, maintenance, and energy consumption) -to-production performance.
At Chernobyl, there were many firefighters within meters of an exposed critical core, resulting in a large toll from acute radiation sickness.
For some definition of "large". There were a total of 28 acute radiation exposure deaths, most of them emergency personnel on the premises and emergency responders from outside, at Chernobyl. To put that in perspective, there were 414 deaths of emergency responders at the World Trade Center when 4 assholes crashed two planes into the twin towers.
The following is definitely nitpicking. I rather doubt the Chernobyl core was still critical when most of those people were exposed. Criticality probably terminated promptly at the moment of explosion.
I second that. The AC was a twit. OP did use paragraphs, and if column width on this site was appropriate for easy reading - like a newspaper - the paragraphs would "look" more appropriate. That's the biggest failing of the internet as a whole. Column width.
In the real world in the US, $70/mo for 1 Gbps and $2.08/mo for 5 Mbps sounds like a super offering. I wish the heck I could get it. It costs around $50/mo for 25 Mbps from Comcast now. I believe 100 Mbps from Comcast costs north of $100/mo.
Maybe you could bond several of the 5 Mbps. But it might be that they will not effer you more than one 5 Gb; it sounds like a subsidized offer for the poor to me.
You can't expect software to paper over BUSTED HARDWARE. If a disk drive flat out lies about status, expose the goddam manufacturer and sue him out of existence. If you think anyone can paper over the scenario you just outlined, then what about this - what about a disk drive that NEVER WRITES ANYTHING but lies and says everything is going hunky dory? Pretty damn sure there's nothing you can do in that scenario.
I've heard that story about the "drives that lie about about write-to-physical-media-complete" many times. As far as I am concerned it is apocryphal. Never once have I seen the manufacturers and model numbers specified. I think it probably came from a long long time ago (in technology time). Finally I sure as hell have no idea how "examples exist" turned into "most storage hardware" as the tale is spun and respun over the years.
I was unable to find an accounting of aggregate passenger-miles or passenger-kilometers for each. I am not sure why we are supposing each 747 would fly more miles than each Concorde. Yes, some 747s flew longer routes than the Concordes' routes. And many didn't. And the Concorde is flying twice as fast.
Not the driver, that's a divide-by-zero in a bash-script that only happened when there were 0 reads from the L2arc, which can only happen during a brief window after the system starts up.
There is another way it "might happen". You might not HAVE an L2ARC. I had to fix that nasty script on my system.
I find a "war on terrorism" indeed to be a concept that is lacking. Why focus against a tactic?
But I find the term "Islamic terrorism" quite well-defined. The problem is, though the vast majority of terrorism is Islamic, the term "Islamic" is unfortunately subject to being misunderstood; the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists; also, why rule out religious terrorists of other persuasions?
I wrote above what the difference between Islamic and Muslim is.
Thought you might not want to know. Latest information reinforces the first thoughts about this guy.
Here is what I did not know when I made my post. It emerges he fought with ISIS in Syria - I'd say that for the vast majority of us that makes him ipso facto a terrorist. He was known to intelligence agencies in four European countries. Spanish authorities told French police last year that he was a radical Islamist. He had been in contact with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists before they perpetrated their disgusting horror. He was part of an Islamic terrorist cell which came within hours of carrying out a major attack in Belgium. The revelations go on and on. You can learn about them here.
Just a word about terminology which it appears you may be confused about. Islamic refers to militant Islamic supremacy, which involves terrorism, xenophobia, oppression, and psychopathy. Muslim is just a reference to a religion. Confusing the two is a bit like confusing someone with a psychotic personal saviour complex with someone who is merely a member of the Christian religion. It would be well to be clear on the difference.
But where is the terrorist? All I can see is a crazy person, armed and willing to cause pain and grief.
Yeah, well, the perp denies being a terrorist and claims he "only" wanted to commit an armed robbery and take the passengers' money. Maybe facilitating that was sufficient reason to be carrying an automatic rifle, 300 rounds, and a box cutter. It stretches my credulity awfully goddam far, but it's possible. What I'd really like to know is why does it mean so much to you to have this turn out to be non Islamic terrorist related?
We could rename the whole struggle to be a war on psychopaths instead of a war on terrorists. Would that set you at ease?
Artillery is ordnance not arms. Explosives were not considered personal arms by the framers.
Why? Because you want it to be? And who said anything about "personal" arms. Certainly not the US Constitution.
Arms - 3rd usage - noun - "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm"
"Especially" is not "exclusively". If the framers had meant "personal arms" or "personal firearms", that's what they would have specified.
If you want "artillery" to be excluded, you'd better try to get an amendment passed, because it ain't excluded the way it's worded now. Neither are nuclear weapons, chemicals, or bacteriologicals. I do believe you would be in a world of hurt under various statutes dealing with the general topic of terrorism if you used, or even threatened to use, chemical or bacteriological. As far as artillery goes, I know for a fact there is private ownership and (test/demo) firing.
I am running every day 36 TB of raw storage - 24 TB after redundancy is subtracted - in two 6-drive RAIDZ2 ZPOOLs on a CentOS6 box with 8 GB of RAM devoted to ZFS (total installed RAM is 16 GB). Both pools are nearing 90% full. Performance is excellent and problems nil. So you can push well past the 1 TB/GB rule of thumb.
Yeah, if you traverse the entire system listing files, it's a little slow because my RAM ARC cache is so limited, and I have no SSD L2ARC cache. That's an acceptable tradeoff for my purposes.
I have some directories being snapshotted every 5 minutes. The last 24 5-minute snapshots, 48 hourlies, 62 dailies, and 8 weeklies are currently preserved online. 9 of the 24 provisioned monthlies are there; that's how long I've been running the cron job; and no yearlies so far. Snapshots older than 24 5-minute/48 hourly/62 daily/8 weekly/24 monthly are auto-trimmed.
Altogether I can enumerate in real-time (essentially instantly) 607 directory-hierarchy snapshots (sum of number of directory hierarchies snapshotted times number of snapshots in existence for that directiry hierarchy).
NO WAY is btrfs even in the same class of reliability and robustness as ZFS. So no, it is NOT production ready. And no, I won't be easily impressed just because some dopey distros take a chance on it.
Would it surprise you to know that the Boeing 777-9X is actually destined to be a larger aircraft than the Boeing 747-8I? Its longer, taller and has greater wingspan, with the lower MTOW only really coming from advances in materials allowing lower weight structures.
Interesting indeed, but that is hardly the only reason the MTOW is lower.
Slashdot Mirror
No I'm not. I'm running FreeBSD.
Here's a link that actually shows what it looks like. Looks pretty effective to me. Zero and capital oh are distinguishable. Capital eye, low case ell, and digit one are distinguishable. Quotation marks all distinguishable. Very readable.
"Low contrast", WTF?! Low contrast typefaces patently suck for readability. I don't think anyone is so stupid as to believe that low contrast is good for readability, but if there is anyone that stupid, see this. There's a website you don't have to squint and strain to read.
Red Hat 6.0 Hedwig was a 1999 release. Red Hat 7.0 Guinness was a 2000 release. I well remember buying them each shrink wrapped from a big box store, complete with voluminous paper manuals.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 Santiago was 2010, and RHEL 7.0 Maipo was 2014. I assume these are what you are referring to. If you are referring to RHEL, always call it that; Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or RHEL for short. Talking about a Red Hat version is talking about old history before the split into Fedora and RHEL.
I have done a lot of work with RHEL 6 and I highly respect it. I don't regard RHEL 7 as worth a bucket of warm spit in comparison due to some shitty decisions, notably the adoption of GNOME 3 and systemd.
It is always jarring to find a college grad who is not fluent in the difference between such common words as jive and jibe.
"Harlem jive is the argot of jazz."
"Your belief does not jibe with reality."
Really? Four millibits?
You can, if you want, allow yourself to be wowed by "man behind the curtain" fraud, but I've got better things to do. At least conventional fusion relies only on well-enunciated and well-accepted physics, something which cannot be said for the E-Cat. If Rossi actually possessed anything beyond ego and selfishness, he would have published and cooperated freely with the scientific community. If he possessed anything which anyone who matters considered worth anything, someone would have stolen his "secret" by now and it would actually be released in service to an energy-thirsty world.
Have you analyzed how much energy you will expend to melt the snow, relative to the time rate of electric energy produced by the panel? Nice powder snow falls are not a big problem, but freezing rain, rime ice accretions, and slop which then freezes solid when the temperature falls prior to your heat application are all conditions a lot of us live with every winter.
The complication and expense of providing the distributed electric-resistance or other type of heating equipment, not to mention the machinery to tilt the panels 90 degrees, would be substantial. And the machinery would have to operate under extremely unfavorable conditions of icing.
I don't suggest these measures cannot be taken, but I do suggest they might have a serious effect on overall cost (initial capital, maintenance, and energy consumption) -to-production performance.
For some definition of "large". There were a total of 28 acute radiation exposure deaths, most of them emergency personnel on the premises and emergency responders from outside, at Chernobyl. To put that in perspective, there were 414 deaths of emergency responders at the World Trade Center when 4 assholes crashed two planes into the twin towers.
The following is definitely nitpicking. I rather doubt the Chernobyl core was still critical when most of those people were exposed. Criticality probably terminated promptly at the moment of explosion.
For one example, downloading a linux distro ISO, especially while watching Amazon streaming. Do I have to explain this stuff?
I second that. The AC was a twit. OP did use paragraphs, and if column width on this site was appropriate for easy reading - like a newspaper - the paragraphs would "look" more appropriate. That's the biggest failing of the internet as a whole. Column width.
In the real world in the US, $70/mo for 1 Gbps and $2.08/mo for 5 Mbps sounds like a super offering. I wish the heck I could get it. It costs around $50/mo for 25 Mbps from Comcast now. I believe 100 Mbps from Comcast costs north of $100/mo.
Maybe you could bond several of the 5 Mbps. But it might be that they will not effer you more than one 5 Gb; it sounds like a subsidized offer for the poor to me.
I suppose you can find authoritative references for that claim, complete with manufacturer names and drive model numbers?
You can't expect software to paper over BUSTED HARDWARE. If a disk drive flat out lies about status, expose the goddam manufacturer and sue him out of existence. If you think anyone can paper over the scenario you just outlined, then what about this - what about a disk drive that NEVER WRITES ANYTHING but lies and says everything is going hunky dory? Pretty damn sure there's nothing you can do in that scenario.
I've heard that story about the "drives that lie about about write-to-physical-media-complete" many times. As far as I am concerned it is apocryphal. Never once have I seen the manufacturers and model numbers specified. I think it probably came from a long long time ago (in technology time). Finally I sure as hell have no idea how "examples exist" turned into "most storage hardware" as the tale is spun and respun over the years.
For some piss-poor definition of "works".
I was unable to find an accounting of aggregate passenger-miles or passenger-kilometers for each. I am not sure why we are supposing each 747 would fly more miles than each Concorde. Yes, some 747s flew longer routes than the Concordes' routes. And many didn't. And the Concorde is flying twice as fast.
It's an interesting question to ponder.
So am I. Point?
There is another way it "might happen". You might not HAVE an L2ARC. I had to fix that nasty script on my system.
I find a "war on terrorism" indeed to be a concept that is lacking. Why focus against a tactic?
But I find the term "Islamic terrorism" quite well-defined. The problem is, though the vast majority of terrorism is Islamic, the term "Islamic" is unfortunately subject to being misunderstood; the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists; also, why rule out religious terrorists of other persuasions?
I wrote above what the difference between Islamic and Muslim is.
Thought you might not want to know. Latest information reinforces the first thoughts about this guy.
Here is what I did not know when I made my post. It emerges he fought with ISIS in Syria - I'd say that for the vast majority of us that makes him ipso facto a terrorist. He was known to intelligence agencies in four European countries. Spanish authorities told French police last year that he was a radical Islamist. He had been in contact with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists before they perpetrated their disgusting horror. He was part of an Islamic terrorist cell which came within hours of carrying out a major attack in Belgium. The revelations go on and on. You can learn about them here.
Just a word about terminology which it appears you may be confused about. Islamic refers to militant Islamic supremacy, which involves terrorism, xenophobia, oppression, and psychopathy. Muslim is just a reference to a religion. Confusing the two is a bit like confusing someone with a psychotic personal saviour complex with someone who is merely a member of the Christian religion. It would be well to be clear on the difference.
Yeah, well, the perp denies being a terrorist and claims he "only" wanted to commit an armed robbery and take the passengers' money. Maybe facilitating that was sufficient reason to be carrying an automatic rifle, 300 rounds, and a box cutter. It stretches my credulity awfully goddam far, but it's possible. What I'd really like to know is why does it mean so much to you to have this turn out to be non Islamic terrorist related?
We could rename the whole struggle to be a war on psychopaths instead of a war on terrorists. Would that set you at ease?
Why? Because you want it to be? And who said anything about "personal" arms. Certainly not the US Constitution.
Arms - 3rd usage - noun - "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm"
"Especially" is not "exclusively". If the framers had meant "personal arms" or "personal firearms", that's what they would have specified.
If you want "artillery" to be excluded, you'd better try to get an amendment passed, because it ain't excluded the way it's worded now. Neither are nuclear weapons, chemicals, or bacteriologicals. I do believe you would be in a world of hurt under various statutes dealing with the general topic of terrorism if you used, or even threatened to use, chemical or bacteriological. As far as artillery goes, I know for a fact there is private ownership and (test/demo) firing.
I am running every day 36 TB of raw storage - 24 TB after redundancy is subtracted - in two 6-drive RAIDZ2 ZPOOLs on a CentOS6 box with 8 GB of RAM devoted to ZFS (total installed RAM is 16 GB). Both pools are nearing 90% full. Performance is excellent and problems nil. So you can push well past the 1 TB/GB rule of thumb.
Yeah, if you traverse the entire system listing files, it's a little slow because my RAM ARC cache is so limited, and I have no SSD L2ARC cache. That's an acceptable tradeoff for my purposes.
I have some directories being snapshotted every 5 minutes. The last 24 5-minute snapshots, 48 hourlies, 62 dailies, and 8 weeklies are currently preserved online. 9 of the 24 provisioned monthlies are there; that's how long I've been running the cron job; and no yearlies so far. Snapshots older than 24 5-minute/48 hourly/62 daily/8 weekly/24 monthly are auto-trimmed.
Altogether I can enumerate in real-time (essentially instantly) 607 directory-hierarchy snapshots (sum of number of directory hierarchies snapshotted times number of snapshots in existence for that directiry hierarchy).
NO WAY is btrfs even in the same class of reliability and robustness as ZFS. So no, it is NOT production ready. And no, I won't be easily impressed just because some dopey distros take a chance on it.
Interesting indeed, but that is hardly the only reason the MTOW is lower.
747-8I - MTOW 987,000 lb - EW 470,000 lb = 517,000 lb
passenger capacity 467 (3-class) - 605 (maximum)
777-9X - MTOW 775,000 lb - EW 362,000 lb = 413,000 lb
passenger capacity 406 (3-class) - 425 (2-class)
The 777 is not "larger" in any measure that counts. The 747 lifts more.