...but most of 'shred file' utilities don't fill up all the empty space on the drive, but just overwrite the file several times before deleting it. If you have 300K of data on a 16GB drive and want to 'safely delete' it, it would be much faster to use such an utility, without need to fill the empty space - except that will work on hdd, not on a flashdrive. Otherwise you must go through time-consuming process of filling the whole drive with noise, and you must go through standard file creation process, no format utility will suffice.
From the last week, sure not. From just before the last erase - who knows? Loading them full of whatever you want a couple of times is surely better than loading them with it once. But how many is enough? 2, 3, 4 times?
This process is time-consuming considering you need to fill the drive to the brim, sync the buffers and then erase everything and sync again. A drive may be $20, gross cost of a hour of a government employee erasing the drives, putting them on public sale, filling all the paperwork in, supplying proper analysis that guarantees the drives are indeed unrecoverably erased - this may cost more than the pendrives would yield, especially if they have a reliable contracted data shredding company available.
especially that due to wear protection flashdrives are pretty hard to zero. Overwriting files is not guaranteed to delete the data because the 'overwrite' may (and likely will) happen elsewhere than original data was. You can still fill the whole drive with zeros (or better - random noise) but the science concerning recovery of overwritten data from flash memory is nonexistent - nobody knows if whether it can or can't be done.
There were no CHARGES against tanks. Charges, as in "run for a minute, then rush between the enemies and slay them with your saber". There were no major battles where big groups of cavalry would intentionally attack major units of german tanks.
But Cavalry tackled the opportunity destroying 10 tanks at Mokra (though of course their major achievment in that battle was defeating the infantry units and protecting the artillery which was decimating german tanks). Gierlecki's 25 PUWlkp got 3 tanks. Others were taking 1-2 tanks at a time - charging big divisions was out of question. All the successful attacks were results of an ambush, attacking tanks from a side or behind, the whole action taking several seconds at a time, not giving enough time to turn the turret to get the soldiers within the machine gun range before the tank was damaged. And because these were always small skirmishes, they are never listed as results of any major battle. But ask anyone who studied the history of Ulans more precisely and you'll find out - 100 anti-tank guns, special charges attachable to tank armor, unsuccessful 'homebrew' charges and so on.
Claimed by the opponents of the polish government of that time as about the worst leadership decision of the period, because the primary weapon of the light polish cavalry was the sabre, which was pretty good in skirmish against infantry but utterly useless against tanks.
But the opponents forget one of secondary weapons of the polish cavalry, making it one of the best leadership decisions and causing the cavalry to be absolutely murderous against the tanks.
The battles were never fought on wide plains where long range heavy machineguns of the tanks meant serious advantage. Forests, bushes, villages, urban areas with short, narrow streets and multiple places to hide. The horses were taught to stay put, lie down behind a cover, waiting for a signal. The riders were able to get from hiding into action in matter of 3-5 seconds. At the time, the mobility of horses, acceleration and turn rate was way higher than tanks, so they could just outmaneuvre them on short distance, running around faster than the tanks could turn, getting into contact distance and leaving before the tank crew could react. The Ulans (cavalry riders) would stuff grenades right into the continuous track mechanism of the tanks, into the barrels of the canons, and then and the grenades were quite enough to break the chain links and render the tank completely immobile and destroy its ability to fight back. Then it was a matter of time then to finish the enemy off.
As much as I dislike the government of that time (assholes fled to England by a plane leaving the country without leadership of any kind), the cavalry was doing amazing job and while mostly useless on open front, their partisan-like attacks were outright deadly.
Having a large income (independent of financial dividends), requires the ability to do valuable useful work. yay for young and still full of ideals.
Imagine checking in with "real-time" only to find that your tax bracket has been paying 200% taxes for the past 50 years, and both you and your "rich" friends were too busy orbiting a black hole to notice.
That's why you'd need to invest in various assets at varied locations. Unless there's a catastrophic revolt that takes over the whole world and does the 200% tax thing for every single method of investment, then yes. Otherwise even if one profitable investment survives, it will grow to incredible proportions. And the risk of having the whole investment eaten up by some global change either in economy or in any other factor (like, say, total extinction) has to be calculated in as a business risk.
With prices like $5/link threat to pull your ads from given page is not worth much.
Of course Microsoft and Apple wouldn't link from "DRM". DVD Jon's firm would:) (if an opinion is not favorable to one advertizer, it likely is to another.)
Besides, as not-for-profit organization, Wiki shouldn't care about maximizing profit from ads but just about getting enough to continue the mission. And never sacrifice integrity for profit - if they do, they lose crediblity and without crediblity they lose profit...
Some, like senior AMD fellow, Chuck Moore, believe that the industry should move to a new model based on a multiplicity of cores optimized for various tasks
And let's give the cores names like Paula, Agnus, Denise...
Something that adds to the value of the site would be good - paid-for "related" links to commercial sites.
Data recovery - link to services. Bridge construction - links to firms building these. Encryption - encryption software. Every single pharmaceutical - online pharmacy. Every single book or movie - amazon.com or other such. So if you're willing to pay for what you've just learned about, you know where to go to buy it or have it done, or learn more about it.
Actually widest audience = as many platforms as possible.
The choice is "get above break even, given current resources for given platform" trade-offs. If adding Linux functionality was "increase cost by 3%", and Linux market was 5% of the total market, they would make games for Linux. It is more like 10% vs 3% though.
I wrote a few articles myself, that are of very specialist branch. Certain obscure print enrichment techniques and tools of poligraphy. They are partially against the rules of Wikipedia because they could be called "original research". The trick is there are -NO- reference'able sources of these whatsoever, on the net, in libraries, anywhere. They are a knowledge that is passed as word on mouth, master to apprentice, craftsman to customer, "If you want it to work, you need to..." stuff. There are no websites dedicated to it other than commercial offers pages which are forbidden in Wikipedia.
I was writing the articles by recalling my direct knowledge of the facts, adding photos of things I made myself, documenting knowledge I gained from the master of the craft, things he shown me and talked about, but he had his own notes, I had my own, but there was no handbook of any kind - not that any would be printed ever, because there would be maybe 10 customers in my whole country to buy it.
I think this is where Wikipedia can be important, a place to store knowledge which doesn't belong anywhere else and is easily lost permanently. Deletionists, please provide a viable alternative if you think it's wrong.
Silverlight has the ambition to be "Flash with 3D". Something known, with bits that are new, cool and easy.
The others were "3D with small bit of Flash". They had a steep learning curve, offered 3D and little else, and if what I'd seen of them is representative to the whole, they were real crap, clunky, ugly, very slow and lacking all the cool shaders and features of nowadays 3D graphics. You could argue that all of 3D was like that back then and I'd agree, but that only means maybe 3D gfx wasn't mature enough for this market back then.
OTOH Silverlight may appear another in the row of failures, but don't say it's dead before it really is.
At least, can't do sufficiently advanced 3D with sufficient performance.
Is it worth it? I don't know, really. But it's easy to miss the point when a technology turns from 'mature' to 'obsolete' and from 'experimental' to 'cutting edge'.
COBOL programmers kept smirking at JAVA developers too.
dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
Linux is not designed to require proprietary software, it works without it just fine. NDISWrapper without modules it loads is useless. It REQUIRES the modules to operate. Without them it does not operate, it merely sits there doing nothing.
"It's intended as a kind of 'hello world'-like tutorial on writing modules and the NDIS-loading part was just an insignificant after-thought" excuse holds about as much as "I just wanted to transport that bomb by a plane and use it in geological work, I never intended to detonate it on the plane".
dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
Linux is not designed to require proprietary software, it works without it just fine. NDISWrapper without modules it loads is useless. It REQUIRES the modules to operate. Without them it does not operate, it merely sits there doing nothing.
"It's intended as a kind of 'hello world'-like tutorial on writing modules and the NDIS-loading part was just an insignificant after-thought" excuse holds about as much as "I just wanted to transport that bomb by a plane and use it in geological work, I never intended to detonate it on the plane".
Freedom of use of GPL'd code means you can use NDISWrapper with the kernel, no matter what license it is.
But still NDISWrapper can't be included in any binary distribution of the kernel. It can be used if you compile the kernel yourself, if you don't share that compiled kernel. You can slap GPL on your that binary of NDISWrapper too. Except then it's object form and you're not allowed to distribute it without corresponding source and you don't have the full corresponding source.
All major Linux distributions are out.
So by a weird twist of fate YES, I agree you CAN license the resulting binary as GPL. Yeah, great, it's GPL now, yay! Except you can't distribute it.
Okay, let me now go install Vista on my home server. The server has 128MB RAM so it won't be able to run it, but hey, I will have the newest OS installed!
Slashdot Mirror
...but most of 'shred file' utilities don't fill up all the empty space on the drive, but just overwrite the file several times before deleting it. If you have 300K of data on a 16GB drive and want to 'safely delete' it, it would be much faster to use such an utility, without need to fill the empty space - except that will work on hdd, not on a flashdrive. Otherwise you must go through time-consuming process of filling the whole drive with noise, and you must go through standard file creation process, no format utility will suffice.
From the last week, sure not. From just before the last erase - who knows?
Loading them full of whatever you want a couple of times is surely better than loading them with it once. But how many is enough? 2, 3, 4 times?
This process is time-consuming considering you need to fill the drive to the brim, sync the buffers and then erase everything and sync again. A drive may be $20, gross cost of a hour of a government employee erasing the drives, putting them on public sale, filling all the paperwork in, supplying proper analysis that guarantees the drives are indeed unrecoverably erased - this may cost more than the pendrives would yield, especially if they have a reliable contracted data shredding company available.
especially that due to wear protection flashdrives are pretty hard to zero. Overwriting files is not guaranteed to delete the data because the 'overwrite' may (and likely will) happen elsewhere than original data was. You can still fill the whole drive with zeros (or better - random noise) but the science concerning recovery of overwritten data from flash memory is nonexistent - nobody knows if whether it can or can't be done.
There were no CHARGES against tanks. Charges, as in "run for a minute, then rush between the enemies and slay them with your saber". There were no major battles where big groups of cavalry would intentionally attack major units of german tanks.
But Cavalry tackled the opportunity destroying 10 tanks at Mokra (though of course their major achievment in that battle was defeating the infantry units and protecting the artillery which was decimating german tanks). Gierlecki's 25 PUWlkp got 3 tanks. Others were taking 1-2 tanks at a time - charging big divisions was out of question. All the successful attacks were results of an ambush, attacking tanks from a side or behind, the whole action taking several seconds at a time, not giving enough time to turn the turret to get the soldiers within the machine gun range before the tank was damaged. And because these were always small skirmishes, they are never listed as results of any major battle. But ask anyone who studied the history of Ulans more precisely and you'll find out - 100 anti-tank guns, special charges attachable to tank armor, unsuccessful 'homebrew' charges and so on.
Polish cavalry against German tanks.
Claimed by the opponents of the polish government of that time as about the worst leadership decision of the period, because the primary weapon of the light polish cavalry was the sabre, which was pretty good in skirmish against infantry but utterly useless against tanks.
But the opponents forget one of secondary weapons of the polish cavalry, making it one of the best leadership decisions and causing the cavalry to be absolutely murderous against the tanks.
The battles were never fought on wide plains where long range heavy machineguns of the tanks meant serious advantage. Forests, bushes, villages, urban areas with short, narrow streets and multiple places to hide. The horses were taught to stay put, lie down behind a cover, waiting for a signal. The riders were able to get from hiding into action in matter of 3-5 seconds. At the time, the mobility of horses, acceleration and turn rate was way higher than tanks, so they could just outmaneuvre them on short distance, running around faster than the tanks could turn, getting into contact distance and leaving before the tank crew could react. The Ulans (cavalry riders) would stuff grenades right into the continuous track mechanism of the tanks, into the barrels of the canons, and then and the grenades were quite enough to break the chain links and render the tank completely immobile and destroy its ability to fight back. Then it was a matter of time then to finish the enemy off.
As much as I dislike the government of that time (assholes fled to England by a plane leaving the country without leadership of any kind), the cavalry was doing amazing job and while mostly useless on open front, their partisan-like attacks were outright deadly.
I didn't wait so long for the technology to mature to make a wrong choice!!!
I proudly announce 2 weeks ago I bought my first video cassette recorder. For $10.
Having a large income (independent of financial dividends), requires the ability to do valuable useful work.
yay for young and still full of ideals.
Imagine checking in with "real-time" only to find that your tax bracket has been paying 200% taxes for the past 50 years, and both you and your "rich" friends were too busy orbiting a black hole to notice.
That's why you'd need to invest in various assets at varied locations. Unless there's a catastrophic revolt that takes over the whole world and does the 200% tax thing for every single method of investment, then yes. Otherwise even if one profitable investment survives, it will grow to incredible proportions. And the risk of having the whole investment eaten up by some global change either in economy or in any other factor (like, say, total extinction) has to be calculated in as a business risk.
The "Ender's Game" series, all beyond book 1. Ender is obscenely rich thanks to multiple interplanetary travels.
Cargo hold load: 0 tons.
Local investment: -long-term investments in variety of domains and countries, 100% of the capital.
Go there and back, collect percentage.
Income break-up:
- Cinema licenses: 5%
- TV licenses: 25%
- DVD sales: 10%
- Litigation: 60%
External links would stay where they are. I meant something like a separate block of "sponsored links" clearly marked as such.
With prices like $5/link threat to pull your ads from given page is not worth much.
:)
Of course Microsoft and Apple wouldn't link from "DRM". DVD Jon's firm would
(if an opinion is not favorable to one advertizer, it likely is to another.)
Besides, as not-for-profit organization, Wiki shouldn't care about maximizing profit from ads but just about getting enough to continue the mission. And never sacrifice integrity for profit - if they do, they lose crediblity and without crediblity they lose profit...
Some, like senior AMD fellow, Chuck Moore, believe that the industry should move to a new model based on a multiplicity of cores optimized for various tasks
And let's give the cores names like Paula, Agnus, Denise...
Not banners.
Something that adds to the value of the site would be good - paid-for "related" links to commercial sites.
Data recovery - link to services. Bridge construction - links to firms building these. Encryption - encryption software. Every single pharmaceutical - online pharmacy. Every single book or movie - amazon.com or other such. So if you're willing to pay for what you've just learned about, you know where to go to buy it or have it done, or learn more about it.
Yes, that's why 10% and not 100%. If code, data and design was not reusable at all, the cost would (about, +/- platform difficulty) double.
Actually widest audience = as many platforms as possible.
The choice is "get above break even, given current resources for given platform" trade-offs. If adding Linux functionality was "increase cost by 3%", and Linux market was 5% of the total market, they would make games for Linux. It is more like 10% vs 3% though.
nuff said...
'cause then you'd be able to disguise a weapon of mass destruction as a mere tool of rape.
I wrote a few articles myself, that are of very specialist branch. Certain obscure print enrichment techniques and tools of poligraphy. They are partially against the rules of Wikipedia because they could be called "original research". The trick is there are -NO- reference'able sources of these whatsoever, on the net, in libraries, anywhere. They are a knowledge that is passed as word on mouth, master to apprentice, craftsman to customer, "If you want it to work, you need to..." stuff. There are no websites dedicated to it other than commercial offers pages which are forbidden in Wikipedia.
I was writing the articles by recalling my direct knowledge of the facts, adding photos of things I made myself, documenting knowledge I gained from the master of the craft, things he shown me and talked about, but he had his own notes, I had my own, but there was no handbook of any kind - not that any would be printed ever, because there would be maybe 10 customers in my whole country to buy it.
I think this is where Wikipedia can be important, a place to store knowledge which doesn't belong anywhere else and is easily lost permanently. Deletionists, please provide a viable alternative if you think it's wrong.
Silverlight has the ambition to be "Flash with 3D". Something known, with bits that are new, cool and easy.
The others were "3D with small bit of Flash". They had a steep learning curve, offered 3D and little else, and if what I'd seen of them is representative to the whole, they were real crap, clunky, ugly, very slow and lacking all the cool shaders and features of nowadays 3D graphics. You could argue that all of 3D was like that back then and I'd agree, but that only means maybe 3D gfx wasn't mature enough for this market back then.
OTOH Silverlight may appear another in the row of failures, but don't say it's dead before it really is.
Because Flash can't do 3D.
At least, can't do sufficiently advanced 3D with sufficient performance.
Is it worth it? I don't know, really. But it's easy to miss the point when a technology turns from 'mature' to 'obsolete' and from 'experimental' to 'cutting edge'.
COBOL programmers kept smirking at JAVA developers too.
dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
Linux is not designed to require proprietary software, it works without it just fine.
NDISWrapper without modules it loads is useless. It REQUIRES the modules to operate. Without them it does not operate, it merely sits there doing nothing.
"It's intended as a kind of 'hello world'-like tutorial on writing modules and the NDIS-loading part was just an insignificant after-thought" excuse holds about as much as "I just wanted to transport that bomb by a plane and use it in geological work, I never intended to detonate it on the plane".
dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require
Linux is not designed to require proprietary software, it works without it just fine.
NDISWrapper without modules it loads is useless. It REQUIRES the modules to operate. Without them it does not operate, it merely sits there doing nothing.
"It's intended as a kind of 'hello world'-like tutorial on writing modules and the NDIS-loading part was just an insignificant after-thought" excuse holds about as much as "I just wanted to transport that bomb by a plane and use it in geological work, I never intended to detonate it on the plane".
Your point being?
Freedom of use of GPL'd code means you can use NDISWrapper with the kernel, no matter what license it is.
But still NDISWrapper can't be included in any binary distribution of the kernel. It can be used if you compile the kernel yourself, if you don't share that compiled kernel. You can slap GPL on your that binary of NDISWrapper too. Except then it's object form and you're not allowed to distribute it without corresponding source and you don't have the full corresponding source.
All major Linux distributions are out.
So by a weird twist of fate YES, I agree you CAN license the resulting binary as GPL. Yeah, great, it's GPL now, yay! Except you can't distribute it.
Okay, let me now go install Vista on my home server. The server has 128MB RAM so it won't be able to run it, but hey, I will have the newest OS installed!