Use clang (http://clang.llvm.org/) instead, it actually gives you useful error messages. Plus, it tries to recover form common errors (misspellings, missing semi colons and so on), meaning that you will not get a cascade of errors and warnings from code after the initial error. This in turn means that you can fix more than one error / warning reported by the compiler, before you rebuild.
Also, note that the free books (Gutenberg project) you can download in iBooks are free from DRM (they do contain your user name in some metadata though), and you can put them on any ePub supporting reader.
I never buy books from iBooks as they are infected by DRM, but i do download Gutenberg files through the iBooks store.
I am pretty sure that you will re-encode your video after you have edited it. Your camera has nothing to do with the final distribution format of the movie. If you distribute unedited video, it is most likely free of charge in youtube, in that case you do not have to worry, since free internet distribution is royalty free.
The issue is thus mostly non existing. However, if they would try to extract royalty fees for video which was re-encoded from AVC to a patent free format, then it would be an issue. However, I would be very surprised if they could do that from a legal point of view.
MPEG cannot say that, they have nothing to do with MPEG-LA that administers the patent pools for MPEG2 and 4. MPEG is a group formed by ISO and IEC. MPEG-LA is a private group that collect patent royalties and distributes these to their stakeholders.
Why send instruments like that, why not just send up a robust microscope with a HD camera? It will never be seen as confirmed unless you see the buggers moving around.
Like other people said, the search space is to large to find random hosts in (especially when it takes 20-40 milliseconds on average to verify your target). If you want at least 50% (necessary for a sustained infection) chance of finding one host in a/64, you would taking the birthday paradox into account need to spend around 5.6 years of active searching with a ping time of 30 ms. You could parallelise this a bit, but really... for spreading malware it is not really practical to find a random host.
Also, while, not really the cheapest one, the AirPort routers (from Apple) do have RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO CONFIGURE IPv6 firewalls that naturally defaults to on and to not let any ingoing traffic through.
There are no usable/8 blocks remaining. If you are talking of the reserved blocks that are currently not in use, they are not usable as many systems will just drop packets coming from those addresses.
APNIC is burning through a full/8 in something like 3 months, and allocation in general was twice last year compared to the year before. Reclaiming the class A blocks would do nothing to prevent the inevitable, just delay it by perhaps a year at most, while at the same time cause massive disruptions for those who have them. In order to reclaim them, you would first have to convert those organisations to other IP blocks (guess what, that takes time, a lot of time). By the time they where done converting their networks to the new IP-assignments, we would already be out of addresses in many parts of the world.
While the idea looks nice at first looks, it is unfortunately neither practical nor would it give anything but a couple of months extra time before we run out again.
NAT on that level will cause so many customer complaints and support issues, that the problems and support issues introduced by phasing in IPv6 will seem like a piss in the Nile.
Yes, really...
I just got an IPv6 tunnel running, and I can tell you that (after setting up the initial tunnel, which end users will not need if the ISPs just do proper RA) getting my machines set up was a lot easier than getting proper IPv4 connections working, especially since I don't have to bother about that really crappy portmapping stuff in the NAT-box anymore. IPv6 firewalls are ridiculously simple to work with.
I would not be surprised if support costs after the initial transition period dropped by at least 50%.
You should also not discount the network effect. Presently, many people rely on having access to a friendly techie (sibling, child, best friend or whatever) in order to set up their Internet connections. When these techies start recommending that they switch ISP to someone who do support IPv6, the un-profitability of not having support will most likely be felt quite substantially.
Something has to be done about all the cows though. If cows become redundant we need to get rid of the cows. I doubt someone will let them out loose in the nature.
Good budget estimates require experience in the field, especially having been involved in previous construction projects. The reason that the new plant in Finland went so much over budget is that no one had built any plants since the 60s-70s.
Now there is again some sort of infrastructure for the project, so a 4 b EUR price tag is not unreasonable for a new plant. But as usual, everyone is complaining that something goes over budget, despite this was most likely expected by both the company and the government.
Take this as a rule, that all major projects that have not been done before, or where carried out so long ago that there is no experience left, will go over budget with around 100%. This is well known, and I would be surprised if the government did not plan for it.
Udev is part of the Linux project, so it is very much to the point. The problem has already been solved by replacing devfs with udev, so it is a non issue.
I think this is already done in Linux. At least, if you clone your system to another machine with different MAC addresses, you will get new ethX identifiers. That is, if eth0 and eth1 was used on the original machine, when you clone the OS to another one, its device names will be eth2 and eth3.
I really do not understand what the article is talking about.
Indeed, my observations seem to indicate that the device name is assigned once when detected and it gets an increasing number. If you clone your system to another machine with other MAC addresses, there will be new device identifiers for the new cards since the old ones are bound to other MAC addresses.
Is the initial assignment random? I don't know, but I would assume that the built-in are assigned first and then any PCI cards. At least, this is what I have observed, also, I have never seen a built in wireless take up eth0 when there is also an ethernet port built in.
Can someone explain why they change this and actually give a valid reason?.
Not all countries that have death penalty have "death row". China for example tend to execute their prisoners within a few weeks.
The point is that it is wrong to claim that the ECHR bans extradition if death penalty is a possibility. The EU does however ban this, so the AC was right in his statement.
The ECHR does not explicitly ban the extradition of people if they face the death penalty, actually, article 2(1) explicitly allows for the application of the death penalty. However, with protocol 6 and 13 the application of the death penalty is banned within the signatory states.
There are cases where the existance of death row has been seen as degrading inhuman treatment. But, I know of no cases where the use of death penalty has been used to avoid extradition.
The EU has its own charter of human rights, which is based on the ECHR, but not exactly the same, it extends on the ECHR substantially. Article 2 clearly bans the death penalty within the EU explicitly, and secondly, article 19 clearly bans the extradition when the death penalty is an option in the receiving state. Now, the charter is not legally binding to the UK and Poland (as they where complaining about workers rights and abortion issues respectively).
If I where Assange, I would be more concerned with the UK about the risk of being handed over to the US and facing the death penalty. Granted, the UK has the right to reject extradition if the US does not give guarantees that the death penalty is not carried out, but it does not have an obligation to do so. Even tough I would say it is very likely that the European Court of Human Rigths would rule against extradition in the case of death penalty being on the table, I have not heard or found any cases where this has actually been tested.
Zero governments are elected in Europe, they are appointed by parliament. In a few cases the head of the government is elected, but the normal way is that the prime minister is appointed by the speaker of the parliament / king / queen and then forms the government. The government is then approved by parliament.
The same happens in the EU. The commission is appointed by the states and then subject to the approval of parliament. The commission is further fully accountable to the parliament. The parliament have the powers of no confidence votes.
I do not claim to be an expert in how the Chinese politburo is assembled, but it is certainly not subject to the wills of an elected parliament.
No scientists dug him up. If you RTFA, you will see that he was dug up during the French revolution and posthumously decapitated. The head was then stolen and passed along in "private collections".
The scientists found the head, confirmed that it was the dead kings missing head and, there will be a national burial of the head in a cathedral.
So, essentially, the scientists did exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
She is about as unelected as the German prestident, or the British prime minister. That is, they are elected to their posts by parliament. In the EU commission, the commissioners are appointed by the member states' governments and elected by the parliament. In a standard parliamentary democracy, like Sweden, UK et.c., the prime minister (who then appoints other ministers) is appointed by the king / queen / speaker of parliament and thereafter elected by the parliament. I have always wondered why people are complaining about the commission being unelected, I cannot really see the issue here.
The Schuman declaration (May 9, 1950) made it very clear that the goal was federation:
"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."
Now, will this be like the US? Probably not, but it will be a country to some extent.
Slashdot Mirror
You are allowed to run OS X Server in a VM under condition that the VM is running on a Mac.
Use clang (http://clang.llvm.org/) instead, it actually gives you useful error messages. Plus, it tries to recover form common errors (misspellings, missing semi colons and so on), meaning that you will not get a cascade of errors and warnings from code after the initial error. This in turn means that you can fix more than one error / warning reported by the compiler, before you rebuild.
How can you violate the "System Software Licence Agreement" if you remove the said system software from the system?
Also, note that the free books (Gutenberg project) you can download in iBooks are free from DRM (they do contain your user name in some metadata though), and you can put them on any ePub supporting reader.
I never buy books from iBooks as they are infected by DRM, but i do download Gutenberg files through the iBooks store.
I am pretty sure that you will re-encode your video after you have edited it. Your camera has nothing to do with the final distribution format of the movie. If you distribute unedited video, it is most likely free of charge in youtube, in that case you do not have to worry, since free internet distribution is royalty free.
The issue is thus mostly non existing. However, if they would try to extract royalty fees for video which was re-encoded from AVC to a patent free format, then it would be an issue. However, I would be very surprised if they could do that from a legal point of view.
MPEG cannot say that, they have nothing to do with MPEG-LA that administers the patent pools for MPEG2 and 4. MPEG is a group formed by ISO and IEC. MPEG-LA is a private group that collect patent royalties and distributes these to their stakeholders.
MPEG is not the same as MPEG-LA. These are two completely separate organizations that have nothing to do with each other.
I would say that WebM is likely patent encumbered. MPEG-LA is assembling a patent pool for WebM, so it will not be royalty-free.
Why send instruments like that, why not just send up a robust microscope with a HD camera? It will never be seen as confirmed unless you see the buggers moving around.
Like other people said, the search space is to large to find random hosts in (especially when it takes 20-40 milliseconds on average to verify your target). If you want at least 50% (necessary for a sustained infection) chance of finding one host in a /64, you would taking the birthday paradox into account need to spend around 5.6 years of active searching with a ping time of 30 ms. You could parallelise this a bit, but really... for spreading malware it is not really practical to find a random host.
Also, while, not really the cheapest one, the AirPort routers (from Apple) do have RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO CONFIGURE IPv6 firewalls that naturally defaults to on and to not let any ingoing traffic through.
There are no usable /8 blocks remaining. If you are talking of the reserved blocks that are currently not in use, they are not usable as many systems will just drop packets coming from those addresses.
APNIC is burning through a full /8 in something like 3 months, and allocation in general was twice last year compared to the year before. Reclaiming the class A blocks would do nothing to prevent the inevitable, just delay it by perhaps a year at most, while at the same time cause massive disruptions for those who have them. In order to reclaim them, you would first have to convert those organisations to other IP blocks (guess what, that takes time, a lot of time). By the time they where done converting their networks to the new IP-assignments, we would already be out of addresses in many parts of the world.
While the idea looks nice at first looks, it is unfortunately neither practical nor would it give anything but a couple of months extra time before we run out again.
NAT on that level will cause so many customer complaints and support issues, that the problems and support issues introduced by phasing in IPv6 will seem like a piss in the Nile.
Yes, really...
I just got an IPv6 tunnel running, and I can tell you that (after setting up the initial tunnel, which end users will not need if the ISPs just do proper RA) getting my machines set up was a lot easier than getting proper IPv4 connections working, especially since I don't have to bother about that really crappy portmapping stuff in the NAT-box anymore. IPv6 firewalls are ridiculously simple to work with.
I would not be surprised if support costs after the initial transition period dropped by at least 50%.
You should also not discount the network effect. Presently, many people rely on having access to a friendly techie (sibling, child, best friend or whatever) in order to set up their Internet connections. When these techies start recommending that they switch ISP to someone who do support IPv6, the un-profitability of not having support will most likely be felt quite substantially.
Something has to be done about all the cows though. If cows become redundant we need to get rid of the cows. I doubt someone will let them out loose in the nature.
Not really, unlike soya-based alternatives, in-vitro meat is actually really meat.
Good budget estimates require experience in the field, especially having been involved in previous construction projects. The reason that the new plant in Finland went so much over budget is that no one had built any plants since the 60s-70s.
Now there is again some sort of infrastructure for the project, so a 4 b EUR price tag is not unreasonable for a new plant. But as usual, everyone is complaining that something goes over budget, despite this was most likely expected by both the company and the government.
Take this as a rule, that all major projects that have not been done before, or where carried out so long ago that there is no experience left, will go over budget with around 100%. This is well known, and I would be surprised if the government did not plan for it.
Udev is part of the Linux project, so it is very much to the point. The problem has already been solved by replacing devfs with udev, so it is a non issue.
I think this is already done in Linux. At least, if you clone your system to another machine with different MAC addresses, you will get new ethX identifiers. That is, if eth0 and eth1 was used on the original machine, when you clone the OS to another one, its device names will be eth2 and eth3.
I really do not understand what the article is talking about.
Indeed, my observations seem to indicate that the device name is assigned once when detected and it gets an increasing number. If you clone your system to another machine with other MAC addresses, there will be new device identifiers for the new cards since the old ones are bound to other MAC addresses.
Is the initial assignment random? I don't know, but I would assume that the built-in are assigned first and then any PCI cards. At least, this is what I have observed, also, I have never seen a built in wireless take up eth0 when there is also an ethernet port built in.
Can someone explain why they change this and actually give a valid reason?.
Not all countries that have death penalty have "death row". China for example tend to execute their prisoners within a few weeks.
The point is that it is wrong to claim that the ECHR bans extradition if death penalty is a possibility. The EU does however ban this, so the AC was right in his statement.
The ECHR does not explicitly ban the extradition of people if they face the death penalty, actually, article 2(1) explicitly allows for the application of the death penalty. However, with protocol 6 and 13 the application of the death penalty is banned within the signatory states.
There are cases where the existance of death row has been seen as degrading inhuman treatment. But, I know of no cases where the use of death penalty has been used to avoid extradition.
The EU has its own charter of human rights, which is based on the ECHR, but not exactly the same, it extends on the ECHR substantially. Article 2 clearly bans the death penalty within the EU explicitly, and secondly, article 19 clearly bans the extradition when the death penalty is an option in the receiving state. Now, the charter is not legally binding to the UK and Poland (as they where complaining about workers rights and abortion issues respectively).
If I where Assange, I would be more concerned with the UK about the risk of being handed over to the US and facing the death penalty. Granted, the UK has the right to reject extradition if the US does not give guarantees that the death penalty is not carried out, but it does not have an obligation to do so. Even tough I would say it is very likely that the European Court of Human Rigths would rule against extradition in the case of death penalty being on the table, I have not heard or found any cases where this has actually been tested.
Yep! Fully functional and anatomically correct as most androids are...
Zero governments are elected in Europe, they are appointed by parliament. In a few cases the head of the government is elected, but the normal way is that the prime minister is appointed by the speaker of the parliament / king / queen and then forms the government. The government is then approved by parliament.
The same happens in the EU. The commission is appointed by the states and then subject to the approval of parliament. The commission is further fully accountable to the parliament. The parliament have the powers of no confidence votes.
I do not claim to be an expert in how the Chinese politburo is assembled, but it is certainly not subject to the wills of an elected parliament.
No scientists dug him up. If you RTFA, you will see that he was dug up during the French revolution and posthumously decapitated. The head was then stolen and passed along in "private collections".
The scientists found the head, confirmed that it was the dead kings missing head and, there will be a national burial of the head in a cathedral.
So, essentially, the scientists did exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
She is about as unelected as the German prestident, or the British prime minister. That is, they are elected to their posts by parliament. In the EU commission, the commissioners are appointed by the member states' governments and elected by the parliament. In a standard parliamentary democracy, like Sweden, UK et.c., the prime minister (who then appoints other ministers) is appointed by the king / queen / speaker of parliament and thereafter elected by the parliament. I have always wondered why people are complaining about the commission being unelected, I cannot really see the issue here.
The Schuman declaration (May 9, 1950) made it very clear that the goal was federation:
"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."
Now, will this be like the US? Probably not, but it will be a country to some extent.