For example, suppose we have RAID-0 with two 60Gb disks, but our filesystem only contains 40Gb of data (so it can fit on one disk). And we want to reconfigure RAID-0 to RAID-1 (switch from striping to mirroring).
It's easy to do this in ZFS but it's impossible to do this with LVM, because filesystem driver needs to know about physical distribution of block device's sectors.
Sometimes, layering HURTS because it abstracts low-level details.
For example, in ZFS you can shrink filesystems, even when they span across multiple devices. So you can easily plug off unused devices (if they are marked as unused after shrinking filesystem). But you need access to low-level MD information to perform this. That's just one example from the top of my head.
It has EVERYTHING to do with inverse square law. Antenna can't catch more energy than that of passing through the space occupied by it.
Additionally, energy density of electromagnetic WAVES is proportional to the cube of its frequency, so it's much easier to transmit a lot of power at high frequences. For example, ELF transmitters use hundreds of kilowatts of electric power but output just a few _watts_ in ELF radio frequences. But the ease of transmission has nothing to do with inverse square law.
And you'll also need antenna with a size comparable to wavelength for good enough reception.
Wardenclyffe tower would have never worked, intensity of electromagnetic field obeys inverse square law, so you'll need a LARGE antennae to catch more than a few milliwatts at a distance more than a few hundred meters.
There are too little really patentable algorithms. Personally, I know only a few algorithms: RSA/DSA encryption (it was NOT obvious in 70-s), some linear programming and schedule optimization algorithms (they are incredibly complex and take years to develop).
For example, our company now is patenting idea which I made up on the spot when asked how we can create a certain device. That's because we might be infringing someones patents (I was told to never EVER do a patent search). I don't think my idea deserves to be patented but we have no choice.
AK-47 is obsoleted by AK-74 (which can use NATO ammo, BTW).
Besides, accuracy at a great distance usually means nothing in city warfare. You almost never have ranges larger than 15-20 meters and AK-47 works great at these distances.
I also suggest BOFH method: "No, mine was sent as an electronic document, so I just cut out the clauses I didn't like, added a couple of my own, printed two copies and signed them. Then your guy signed them too - probably without checking. Or maybe he liked the idea of clause F.3 that I'm allowed to call Managers... 'knobface'."
We've had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN since WWII. It works fairly well for ships and airplanes, I'm sure it will be quite enough to guide airplanes to nearest aerodrome in case of aliens knocking off GPS satellites.
SP are OK for complex tasks like building reports or complex searches. You won't be able to do it DB-independently, anyway. And the speed difference between SP and processing on client can often be measured in orders of magnitude.
So, why can't you add artificial distortions using DSPs? It doesn't seem to be very hard (of course, we can't reproduce effects of tube amplifiers, but they really are much exaggerated).
Sorry, but that means you don't want to learn new things.
Generic code is much easier to maintain and read because you have MORE type information. Another changes like foreach loop and varargs are just syntax sugar and do not deserve more than a few minutes of attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think I can disclose private Microsoft APIs! Never mind the NDA that I've signed.
Russia recognizes double citizenship (I have double citizenship and I live in Russia). See here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship
Trusted Computer Platform/Intellectual Property?
Yes, it's different.
For example, suppose we have RAID-0 with two 60Gb disks, but our filesystem only contains 40Gb of data (so it can fit on one disk). And we want to reconfigure RAID-0 to RAID-1 (switch from striping to mirroring).
It's easy to do this in ZFS but it's impossible to do this with LVM, because filesystem driver needs to know about physical distribution of block device's sectors.
Sometimes, layering HURTS because it abstracts low-level details.
For example, in ZFS you can shrink filesystems, even when they span across multiple devices. So you can easily plug off unused devices (if they are marked as unused after shrinking filesystem). But you need access to low-level MD information to perform this. That's just one example from the top of my head.
But there's a problem - sometimes you need to do something across the layers...
Yes, and dollar is not a currency, it's a banknote.
Representative republic is JUST A FORM OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.
No, he can't be conscripted if he has a double citizenship.
It has EVERYTHING to do with inverse square law. Antenna can't catch more energy than that of passing through the space occupied by it.
Additionally, energy density of electromagnetic WAVES is proportional to the cube of its frequency, so it's much easier to transmit a lot of power at high frequences. For example, ELF transmitters use hundreds of kilowatts of electric power but output just a few _watts_ in ELF radio frequences. But the ease of transmission has nothing to do with inverse square law.
And you'll also need antenna with a size comparable to wavelength for good enough reception.
"Coherer" is NOT a coil. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherer for details.
Wardenclyffe tower would have never worked, intensity of electromagnetic field obeys inverse square law, so you'll need a LARGE antennae to catch more than a few milliwatts at a distance more than a few hundred meters.
Kernel-level webserver has real performance benefits. And it is not enabled by default.
There are too little really patentable algorithms. Personally, I know only a few algorithms: RSA/DSA encryption (it was NOT obvious in 70-s), some linear programming and schedule optimization algorithms (they are incredibly complex and take years to develop).
For example, our company now is patenting idea which I made up on the spot when asked how we can create a certain device. That's because we might be infringing someones patents (I was told to never EVER do a patent search). I don't think my idea deserves to be patented but we have no choice.
That's why I said 'can'.
I don't remember its designation from the top of my head, but I can find it in my notes from my military classes.
AK-47 is obsoleted by AK-74 (which can use NATO ammo, BTW).
Besides, accuracy at a great distance usually means nothing in city warfare. You almost never have ranges larger than 15-20 meters and AK-47 works great at these distances.
I also suggest BOFH method: "No, mine was sent as an electronic document, so I just cut out the clauses I didn't like, added a couple of my own, printed two copies and signed them. Then your guy signed them too - probably without checking. Or maybe he liked the idea of clause F.3 that I'm allowed to call Managers... 'knobface'."
_ episode_24/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/bofh_2004
No, lithium reacts with nitrogen (and hot lithium reacts with nitrogen fast enough to support burning).
What is going to be the name of the first model?
Yes, and it was known that these companies paid much less taxes than they should have. And they refused to allow audit.
We've had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN since WWII. It works fairly well for ships and airplanes, I'm sure it will be quite enough to guide airplanes to nearest aerodrome in case of aliens knocking off GPS satellites.
SP are OK for complex tasks like building reports or complex searches. You won't be able to do it DB-independently, anyway. And the speed difference between SP and processing on client can often be measured in orders of magnitude.
Have you tried VisualAssist for Visual Studio?
It's THE best autocompletion/intellisense engine for C++. Nothing even comes close.
So, why can't you add artificial distortions using DSPs? It doesn't seem to be very hard (of course, we can't reproduce effects of tube amplifiers, but they really are much exaggerated).
Sorry, but that means you don't want to learn new things.
Generic code is much easier to maintain and read because you have MORE type information. Another changes like foreach loop and varargs are just syntax sugar and do not deserve more than a few minutes of attention.
You can use generics without IDE. I do it all the time for small fixes when I don't want to setup a project in IDEA.
There's nothing complex in adding a type parameter in angular brackets.
Please, read about generics in C# and value type usage in generic code. You can create generic collections of value types without overhead of boxing.
For example, here: http://www.artima.com/intv/generics2.html