How to gamers carry PCs, wires, cables, keyboards, etc to lanparties?
Certainly companies like Targus, Kensington, Pacific Design, etc, have a knapsack that can carry a minitower, to sell to such people?
However, desktop PC engineering presumes a relatively stable environment, whereas laptops designers presume that you'll be moving it around a lot, occasionally dropping an edge a few inches, etc.
So, I'd look for a beefy laptop and a "notebook backpack".
Possibly. But the article seems to say that it is no longer socially acceptable, and when it is done, it causes turmoil. Far cry from the whole damn country doing it, which is what you imply.
You know, I read about a case of parent sexually abusing a four year old here in America, I guess that makes all us Americans paedophiles.
TTBOMK, paedophilia has never been socially acceptable in the US. That's the difference between paedophilia and Sati.
In any large, diverse "modern" culture, there will be pockets of poor, religious traditionalists. Here, it's snake-handling holy rollers, in India there might be some selfish pseudo-traditionalists who don't want to take care of the widow.
I bet it still goes on in the smaller, poorer villages where the husband's family does not wish to take care of this woman for the rest of her life. Especially if they don't like her, or can't afford to.
In case of the microkernel it would probably be a linear relationship.
You blythely ignore my proof that solved just buy getting a faster hardware is invalid. Congratulations.
The bottom line is that microkernel s are already used in real-time OSes and other mission critical appliations,
These are rigidly-defined, almost always UP, systems where most of the grunt-work is controlled by the Ada run-time.
it is a work-able architecture and not just a lab toy
I remember QNX's first advertisements in the dearly departed/Compuler Language/ magazine, so I know full-well that ukernels are not lab toys. If you can find where I've written such, please point it out to me.
Then show me that QNX can scale well from the low-end, where it does great, to ultra-high-end NUMA systems like SGI Altrix systems.
Even comparable-to-Linux performance on a 4x Opteron would be extremely interesting to read.
And Exchange, and QuickBooks, and all the other important apps that are only written for Win32.
As someone who has solely used Linux at home for 5 years, and who must use Win2K at work, it is painfully but sadly obvious to me that there aren't enough apps (I said apps, not languages and utilities) for Linux/Unix.
Yes, it's MSFT's fault for illegally strong-arming itself into monopoly, but that's not the point. Until the ISVs start writing for *ix, *ix can's be brought onto the common user's desktop.
But I'll say, if you do demand source you should be able to find and fix any security flaws yourself and report them for the benefit of those who can't and/or don't.
That has nothing to do with whether there are security flaws in the "virgin" source code. Assuming that you write your s/w in a pathetic language like C.
execs heads who are still staring at the bottom line proposal of Firewall/IDS/IPS systems you have proposed with NO real ROI for the business.
What you need to to is quantify the costs of the last 2 or 3 security breaches and worm/virus infestations, and those of other companies, and also the rules and fines and PR black eyes for exposing private information to the world.
Then compare those costs to to the cost of your proposed Firewall/IDS/IPS systems.
You need to realize that Functionality will always reside over Security unless you have a legal requirement.
The speed problem can often be solved just buy getting a faster hardware.
A bubble sort can be proved "correct" and thus "secure", but faster hardware won't help much if you're using such an algorith/implementation to sort 4,000,000 items.
Why should you avoid using a perfectly grammatical English construction such as the passive, just because of the superstitions of a bunch of self-righteous idiots who don't know what they're talking about?
Superstitions???? In what way will supernatural bad-luck fall upon someone for using passive voice.
I don't like regular/continuous use of the passive voice because it's weak, limp, and wussy-ish.
Stand up, get a spine and tell us what happened, or what needs to happen.
Writing, "You must supply the transistor size in this field," ends up misdirecting the user to perform an action which is often more appropriate for another person. "You, your CAD administrator, your foundry, or translation software must supply the transistor size in this field," is unwieldy (and mind-numbing after the 30th time). "The transistor size must be supplied in this field," leaves the appropriate amount of wiggle-room -- the user can verify that it's there and move onward, or stop and take the appropriate action.
I believe that I made perfectly clear that the correct way to reduce code size is removing redundancy, not removing line breaks. Reducing redundancy makes the code easier to maintain, not harder.
That goes without saying, though. Modularity and data-hiding were the very first things we were taught in CompSci 210 (COBOL I, it was a long time ago).
For young C coders, though, "brilliance" is writing routines in as few physical SLOCs as possible, using every obscure technique possible.
Well, it was 15 years ago, when 32MB was a lot, and DOS was king and VAX/VMS still popular.
Then if I want to do my own debugging, I should only put half my effort into coding!
Funny, and almost right.
Put all your brains, but half of your cleverness into coding.
IOW, use all your intellect to simplify the code, and only be "clever" (that's a mild pejorative if you haven't figured it out by now) when there's no other way to accomplish the task.
I have to admit, though, that I was young once, and foolish, and thought it was the height of brilliance to write code (especially C, but even Pascal) in as few lines as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly companies like Targus, Kensington, Pacific Design, etc, have a knapsack that can carry a minitower, to sell to such people?
However, desktop PC engineering presumes a relatively stable environment, whereas laptops designers presume that you'll be moving it around a lot, occasionally dropping an edge a few inches, etc.
So, I'd look for a beefy laptop and a "notebook backpack".
But eggs are, well, female. Estrogen, shopping, etc.
How does that sync?
Whatever happened to cohones?
have the huevos to employ people.
The eggs to employ people??
You know, I read about a case of parent sexually abusing a four year old here in America, I guess that makes all us Americans paedophiles.
TTBOMK, paedophilia has never been socially acceptable in the US. That's the difference between paedophilia and Sati.
In any large, diverse "modern" culture, there will be pockets of poor, religious traditionalists. Here, it's snake-handling holy rollers, in India there might be some selfish pseudo-traditionalists who don't want to take care of the widow.
I bet it still goes on in the smaller, poorer villages where the husband's family does not wish to take care of this woman for the rest of her life. Especially if they don't like her, or can't afford to.
Maybe the employee should buy some shares.
10:1 that at least part of your employer's 401(k) contributions are in company stock.
Any country that tosses widows on funeral pyres is, by definition, backwards.
without court warrants for call tapping
RTFA. This program does not tap domestic calls. I still, though, don't like the fact that the NSA shares this "product" with the FBI & the DEA.
If it were kept private to the NSA and only used for traffic analysis, it could more easily be sold to the public.
since women don't know what they want!
That's not true. They know they want to go shopping!
You blythely ignore my proof that solved just buy getting a faster hardware is invalid. Congratulations.
The bottom line is that microkernel s are already used in real-time OSes and other mission critical appliations,
These are rigidly-defined, almost always UP, systems where most of the grunt-work is controlled by the Ada run-time.
it is a work-able architecture and not just a lab toy
I remember QNX's first advertisements in the dearly departed
Then show me that QNX can scale well from the low-end, where it does great, to ultra-high-end NUMA systems like SGI Altrix systems.
Even comparable-to-Linux performance on a 4x Opteron would be extremely interesting to read.
It's just inertia
And Exchange, and QuickBooks, and all the other important apps that are only written for Win32.
As someone who has solely used Linux at home for 5 years, and who must use Win2K at work, it is painfully but sadly obvious to me that there aren't enough apps (I said apps, not languages and utilities) for Linux/Unix.
Yes, it's MSFT's fault for illegally strong-arming itself into monopoly, but that's not the point. Until the ISVs start writing for *ix, *ix can's be brought onto the common user's desktop.
z/VSE
Is this the decendant of DOS/VSE/SP?
Definitely ack-uhl. And S.Q.L. And Lie-nuhks, pronounced like Lucy's younger brother.
But I'll say, if you do demand source you should be able to find and fix any security flaws yourself and report them for the benefit of those who can't and/or don't.
That has nothing to do with whether there are security flaws in the "virgin" source code. Assuming that you write your s/w in a pathetic language like C.
Meh. If I you don't demand source you should expect security flaws.
I've got some bad news for you: Linux, FreeBSD, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Firefox, pretty much every large app & library all have security flaws.
execs heads who are still staring at the bottom line proposal of Firewall/IDS/IPS systems you have proposed with NO real ROI for the business.
What you need to to is quantify the costs of the last 2 or 3 security breaches and worm/virus infestations, and those of other companies, and also the rules and fines and PR black eyes for exposing private information to the world.
Then compare those costs to to the cost of your proposed Firewall/IDS/IPS systems.
You need to realize that Functionality will always reside over Security unless you have a legal requirement.
Or a monetary imbalance.
The speed problem can often be solved just buy getting a faster hardware.
A bubble sort can be proved "correct" and thus "secure", but faster hardware won't help much if you're using such an algorith/implementation to sort 4,000,000 items.
Temporary Philipine girlfriend?? I thought that was illegal.
Superstitions???? In what way will supernatural bad-luck fall upon someone for using passive voice.
I don't like regular/continuous use of the passive voice because it's weak, limp, and wussy-ish.
Stand up, get a spine and tell us what happened, or what needs to happen.
Or you could use the imperative voice:
But low-wattage CPUs were too understrength at the time.
Maybe if someone tried again now, Newton would a better job.
I believe that I made perfectly clear that the correct way to reduce code size is removing redundancy, not removing line breaks. Reducing redundancy makes the code easier to maintain, not harder.
That goes without saying, though. Modularity and data-hiding were the very first things we were taught in CompSci 210 (COBOL I, it was a long time ago).
For young C coders, though, "brilliance" is writing routines in as few physical SLOCs as possible, using every obscure technique possible.
Well, it was 15 years ago, when 32MB was a lot, and DOS was king and VAX/VMS still popular.
4-5 years ago, sure, with CRT monitors. Now, maybe, with certain laptops that have weird dimensions and cheap video chips.
You're a clueless turd who doesn't get that http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/ is political & social satire.
It is.
Only if your definition of brilliance includes
Then if I want to do my own debugging, I should only put half my effort into coding!
Funny, and almost right.
Put all your brains, but half of your cleverness into coding.
IOW, use all your intellect to simplify the code, and only be "clever" (that's a mild pejorative if you haven't figured it out by now) when there's no other way to accomplish the task.
I have to admit, though, that I was young once, and foolish, and thought it was the height of brilliance to write code (especially C, but even Pascal) in as few lines as possible.