Choose the paint scheme carefully, and you won't even feel the need to cover it with art.
If you do find areas that can be improved with the tasteful selection of art, be sure to present the work correctly. So oftem I see very nice works lost or dimished through poor framing and/or lighting (or just poor placement). In short, it is more important that you pay attention to the basics rather than spend a lot of time on 'theme'
Well, in the world of computing the phrase 'real time' doesn't mean what you think.
It means that the operations take a predictable - and usually constant - amount of time, and usually before the next event trigger.
In the case of a market data feed you'd want the trade to be published in X milliseconds - and always before the next trade occurs (on the same instrument), in this way the data is following the market in 'real time' (i.e. although your view of the market is delayed, the events occur at the correct intervals in the correct order)
You can't sense *anything* in your definition of 'real time' - light, sound, electricity, etc take time to travel. Everything you experience has already occurred. The sunlight on your face took 8 1/2 minutes to get there. Then it took a few milliseconds for you to sense it.
No offense Google, but I've had free real time quotes for years. Give me a stream of prices and I might sit up and notice. Having to continuously request the latest price is dumb, let me subscribe to the latest price and then provide me a continuously updating stream. Hell, I'd pay a reasonable fee ($1.00/day/symbol for DJIA constituents) for that service - as long as I don't have to pay the prices Reuters, Bloomberg, or the others charge (not to mention having to code to their idiotic API's.!
Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words...,/em>
Good catch - very funny !
OK, zero is indeed two syllables. Odd, make me wonder what else does zero have in common with the letter 'W' and the number '7' ?
Which further supports my claim that the phrase is meaningless. It's an exploit with no 'patch' as of yet. Aren't all (working) exploits unpatched ?. When the patch (which probably isn't a 'patch' at all, but a new version of an application - binary patches are pretty rare ) arrives but is not deployed on a particular site, is that site a 'zero day' site still ? Does it become a "-X day" site ? On the day the the patch is released is the exploit named a X-Day exploit (X being elapsed days between discovery and patch), What happens the next day, does the name change again ?
Face it, the phrase is empty. For the love of Dog, please stop using it, it's driving me insane !!!!
Besides, isn't this just an Sql Injection exploit ? They've been around for years.
The 'zero day' status merely refers to how long the exploit has been known - the 'zeroth' day being the day it is publicly disclosed
If that's your definition, ('zero day' == <time of publication>) then it still hasn't been used correctly, since the linked article is already a day old.
Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words, I can understand the propensity for its use. However, it conveys no information, except to indicate that the author is a buzz-word junkie. Why not call it a 'Same Day exploit ' or 'This Day exploit ', or even a 'Today exploit' ?? Because then people would realize that it's a vacuous phrase. Oddly, when there's a number involved, it sounds technical, and confusing, and causes alarm ! Do you think that's a coincidence ?
Furthermore, it is practically inconceivable that a vulnerability could have been discovered, incorporated into a 'Chinese version of the MPack exploit kit', whatever that is - as a side note: do you suppose they do a pre-release test on the new version of MPack kit? - , and reported by Ryan Naraine, 'security evangelist' - another meaningless phrase - at Kapersky Lab - can you say conflict of interest - at "11:19 am" on ZDNet all within the space of 24 hours.
Of particular interest is a phrase in a linked article (published some time on May 27) that states "At the moment these domains [Chinese hosted MPack sites] do not appear to be resolving"
I find it very suspicious that a 'dangerous' exploit was discovered on a 'Chinese' website, analysed, and made public all within the space of a day, and in the same day (presumably within a very few hours) the 'Chinese' had already taken the site offline. It's also suspicious that there are so few real details about when and how it was discovered.
If you wish to use the idiotic phrase 'zero day', at least use it correctly.
This is a previously unknown exploit for several versions, not an exploit which targets the latest version and discovered/released on the same day as that version (which would qualify it for 'zero-day' status)
A zero-day (or zero-hour) attack or threat is a computer threat that tries to exploit unknown, undisclosed or unpatched computer application vulnerabilities.
So, it's a newly discovered exploit. Can't we use that phrase instead of the uber-lame "0-day"
...When are we going to be able to read an article written by anyone other than some jerk-off using buzz-phrases whenever possible.
"0-day" doesn't mean a f$%^&ing thing ! There is no information being transmitted by that phrase, it is empty of any meaning and might as well be a punction mark.
This post is truly a sad indictment upon how brainwashed Church (religious) followers are - imagine believing you needed 'permission' to stop attending church....How f&%$ed up must you be to think like that ??
I think the UN Commission on Human Rights should really do something about such practices - making it a written fundamental human right to leave a religion at any time with no penalty whatsoever.
Any religion that didn't obey this rule would be classified as a cult instead.
I disagree with your calculations, even though I don't really follow...at all.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 18 pounds of CO2.
OP is being generous - EPA estimates are more like 19.4 lbs per Gallon
It only takes 111 gallons to equal a ton
a 'ton' (idiotic 'short ton' in the U.S.) is 2000 lbs so 2000 lbs per ton / 18 lbs per gallon = 111 gallons per ton of CO2
or almost $500 of gas[oline].
$3.50 per gallon is about the current average price, so, I'll agree that the figure $500 is a little high. Perhaps $388 (say $400) is better.
For their 126M, they are going to sequester 100M tons [the heading says 1 million not 100 million], so they are paying over 126M per ton of CO2 sequestered . Are they completely frigging nuts???
By my math this should be $126 per ton, which is about 1/2 - 1/3 of the price of the gasoline required to produce that same amount of CO2. I think that's relatively inexpensive. (How much CO2 is produced to power the sequestering is another issue)
However. The amount of CO2 that is to be sequestered is a drop in the ocean, it's the equivalent of about 1/3 of 1 day worth of gasoline consumption in the U.S. or less than 1/10th of a percent of the CO2 emitted by gasoline consumption per year(which accounts for only a relatively small part of total U.S. CO2 emissions (approx 7Billion tons per year) ); so, by this standard, although the sequestering seems cost efficient, it is still a total waste of money because it is eliminating a mere 1/100th of a percent of the annual CO2 emmissions. Should we build 7,000 of these things for a cost of $882 Billion Where would we put them. California would need to find room for about 700 of them, L.A. would need over 300 , one for every square mile (yep, you'd have one in your neighbourhood)
I can't read 'First Nation' without wanting to stick a long finger down my throat.
Can't we come up with a better phrase to describe them. Why do we need to describe them at all, anyway. Isn't the label part of what makes segregation and discrimination work.
What happens when their ('First Person' tribes) claim as the first settlers is found to be incorrect; and evidence is uncovered showing that - actually - a Previous People (let's call them that already) were established in central and south America for 10,000 years before the 'First People' arrived in North America from Asia (Yes, you read it here first, they migrated from Australia)
This study hardly worthy of a PhD student, let alone a Professor of anything, fails to mention (let alone consider) well known side effects (which translates to costs) of the ever changing amount of daylight. These range from statistically significant changes in the number of violent crimes, property crime, traffic fatalities, and SADDly suicides which all can be directly associated with more or less waking hour daylight. The attempt to shift the working day to coincide with the available daylight is an obvious solution to a very difficult problem.
I have tried to come up with a better solution, and I always end up with the same conclusion. The 'official' working day needs to follow the sun.
To illustrate: At the Winter Solstice my day is just under 8 hours, waking 15 minutes before sunrise is quite reasonable, and I have a 1 hour commute (typical for people living in metropolitan areas), so I would be expected to wake at 0750, and be in the office by 0905. It is also reasonable to expect to be home within 15 minutes past sunset, so I leave the office at office at 1510. That gives me an effective workday of just over 6 hours, so I need only take a 15 minute break in the middle. Now summer comes along and on June 21st I wake at about 0430 (This is daylight savings time, I get confused when I try to figure this out in standard time), and am in the office by 0545, I have a purely notional deficit of 2 hours (when I try to compensate for 21st December), so I need to work a 10 hour day, thus I work until 1545 (you could add in an hour for lunch and still have a very reasonable day), but that's fine, because sunset isn't until 2125, so I still get home with plenty of daylight left.
Using this system, I am always traveling to work and back home in good light. My circadian rhythm is not being tortured by being forcibly de-synchronised with the sun. The office and home lighting and heating/cooling requirements are hugely reduced ( BTW: how much (percentage) cooling occurs as a result of heat from artificial light ?) and the work year still contains the same number of hours.
If I ever get to the point of employing people, I'll definitely allow that system.
Slashdot Mirror
my tomatos would grow there, cause they sure don't like to grow in my garden
...
Single-tasking is the new Multi-tasking
Be subtle.
Choose the paint scheme carefully, and you won't even feel the need to cover it with art.
If you do find areas that can be improved with the tasteful selection of art, be sure to present the work correctly. So oftem I see very nice works lost or dimished through poor framing and/or lighting (or just poor placement). In short, it is more important that you pay attention to the basics rather than spend a lot of time on 'theme'
Well, in the world of computing the phrase 'real time' doesn't mean what you think.
It means that the operations take a predictable - and usually constant - amount of time, and usually before the next event trigger.
In the case of a market data feed you'd want the trade to be published in X milliseconds - and always before the next trade occurs (on the same instrument), in this way the data is following the market in 'real time' (i.e. although your view of the market is delayed, the events occur at the correct intervals in the correct order)
You can't sense *anything* in your definition of 'real time' - light, sound, electricity, etc take time to travel. Everything you experience has already occurred. The sunlight on your face took 8 1/2 minutes to get there. Then it took a few milliseconds for you to sense it.
... a real time price data feed.
No offense Google, but I've had free real time quotes for years. Give me a stream of prices and I might sit up and notice. Having to continuously request the latest price is dumb, let me subscribe to the latest price and then provide me a continuously updating stream. Hell, I'd pay a reasonable fee ($1.00/day/symbol for DJIA constituents) for that service - as long as I don't have to pay the prices Reuters, Bloomberg, or the others charge (not to mention having to code to their idiotic API's.!
Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words ... ,/em>
Good catch - very funny !
OK, zero is indeed two syllables.
Odd, make me wonder what else does zero have in common with the letter 'W' and the number '7' ?
tomorrow, this will STILL be a zero day exploit.
Which further supports my claim that the phrase is meaningless. It's an exploit with no 'patch' as of yet. Aren't all (working) exploits unpatched ?. When the patch (which probably isn't a 'patch' at all, but a new version of an application - binary patches are pretty rare ) arrives but is not deployed on a particular site, is that site a 'zero day' site still ? Does it become a "-X day" site ? On the day the the patch is released is the exploit named a X-Day exploit (X being elapsed days between discovery and patch), What happens the next day, does the name change again ?
Face it, the phrase is empty. For the love of Dog, please stop using it, it's driving me insane !!!!
Besides, isn't this just an Sql Injection exploit ? They've been around for years.
Adobe, it's shit
The 'zero day' status merely refers to how long the exploit has been known - the 'zeroth' day being the day it is publicly disclosed
If that's your definition, ('zero day' == <time of publication>) then it still hasn't been used correctly, since the linked article is already a day old.
Given that the phrase 'zero day' is made of two single syllable words, I can understand the propensity for its use. However, it conveys no information, except to indicate that the author is a buzz-word junkie. Why not call it a 'Same Day exploit ' or 'This Day exploit ', or even a 'Today exploit' ?? Because then people would realize that it's a vacuous phrase. Oddly, when there's a number involved, it sounds technical, and confusing, and causes alarm ! Do you think that's a coincidence ?
Furthermore, it is practically inconceivable that a vulnerability could have been discovered, incorporated into a 'Chinese version of the MPack exploit kit', whatever that is - as a side note: do you suppose they do a pre-release test on the new version of MPack kit? - , and reported by Ryan Naraine, 'security evangelist' - another meaningless phrase - at Kapersky Lab - can you say conflict of interest - at "11:19 am" on ZDNet all within the space of 24 hours.
Of particular interest is a phrase in a linked article (published some time on May 27) that states "At the moment these domains [Chinese hosted MPack sites] do not appear to be resolving"
I find it very suspicious that a 'dangerous' exploit was discovered on a 'Chinese' website, analysed, and made public all within the space of a day, and in the same day (presumably within a very few hours) the 'Chinese' had already taken the site offline. It's also suspicious that there are so few real details about when and how it was discovered.
....ARGH....
If you wish to use the idiotic phrase 'zero day', at least use it correctly.
This is a previously unknown exploit for several versions, not an exploit which targets the latest version and discovered/released on the same day as that version (which would qualify it for 'zero-day' status)
From the Wikipedia article cited
A zero-day (or zero-hour) attack or threat is a computer threat that tries to exploit unknown, undisclosed or unpatched computer application vulnerabilities.
So, it's a newly discovered exploit. Can't we use that phrase instead of the uber-lame "0-day"
...When are we going to be able to read an article written by anyone other than some jerk-off using buzz-phrases whenever possible.
"0-day" doesn't mean a f$%^&ing thing ! There is no information being transmitted by that phrase, it is empty of any meaning and might as well be a punction mark.
This post is truly a sad indictment upon how brainwashed Church (religious) followers are - imagine believing you needed 'permission' to stop attending church....How f&%$ed up must you be to think like that ??
I think the UN Commission on Human Rights should really do something about such practices - making it a written fundamental human right to leave a religion at any time with no penalty whatsoever.
Any religion that didn't obey this rule would be classified as a cult instead.
.... $7.87 per hour ......... no thanks.
A cheap whore could do better
I disagree with your calculations, even though I don't really follow...at all.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 18 pounds of CO2.
OP is being generous - EPA estimates are more like 19.4 lbs per Gallon
It only takes 111 gallons to equal a ton
a 'ton' (idiotic 'short ton' in the U.S.) is 2000 lbs so 2000 lbs per ton / 18 lbs per gallon = 111 gallons per ton of CO2
or almost $500 of gas[oline].
$3.50 per gallon is about the current average price, so, I'll agree that the figure $500 is a little high. Perhaps $388 (say $400) is better.
For their 126M, they are going to sequester 100M tons [the heading says 1 million not 100 million], so they are paying over 126M per ton of CO2 sequestered . Are they completely frigging nuts???
By my math this should be $126 per ton, which is about 1/2 - 1/3 of the price of the gasoline required to produce that same amount of CO2. I think that's relatively inexpensive. (How much CO2 is produced to power the sequestering is another issue)
However. The amount of CO2 that is to be sequestered is a drop in the ocean, it's the equivalent of about 1/3 of 1 day worth of gasoline consumption in the U.S. or less than 1/10th of a percent of the CO2 emitted by gasoline consumption per year(which accounts for only a relatively small part of total U.S. CO2 emissions (approx 7Billion tons per year) ); so, by this standard, although the sequestering seems cost efficient, it is still a total waste of money because it is eliminating a mere 1/100th of a percent of the annual CO2 emmissions. Should we build 7,000 of these things for a cost of $882 Billion Where would we put them. California would need to find room for about 700 of them, L.A. would need over 300 , one for every square mile (yep, you'd have one in your neighbourhood)
'American Pie' meme warning !
I can't read 'First Nation' without wanting to stick a long finger down my throat.
Can't we come up with a better phrase to describe them. Why do we need to describe them at all, anyway. Isn't the label part of what makes segregation and discrimination work.
What happens when their ('First Person' tribes) claim as the first settlers is found to be incorrect; and evidence is uncovered showing that - actually - a Previous People (let's call them that already) were established in central and south America for 10,000 years before the 'First People' arrived in North America from Asia (Yes, you read it here first, they migrated from Australia)
Is this yet another meme ?
Becuse it's highly unlikely that that code is bug free, and by letting the rest of the community review or use your code, you will
1.) Find out about those bugs
2.) Receive fixes for free !
3.) Impress your clients
4.) Go to heaven with good karma.
So, now what's stopping you ?
I hope they put the thing in cat handcuffs.
Why would GCC make an assumption about a register, shouldn't it (GCC) set the register to a known value if it needs it ?
So what? I have the right to say what I feel.
Only if it's true.
You've also forgotten that any very large bank will be bailed out by the Fed, so they don't really care !
the next digit (i.e: 99.9999 instead of 99.999) only gains you a little over 4 minutes, but will cost way more than your time is worth !
This study hardly worthy of a PhD student, let alone a Professor of anything, fails to mention (let alone consider) well known side effects (which translates to costs) of the ever changing amount of daylight. These range from statistically significant changes in the number of violent crimes, property crime, traffic fatalities, and SADDly suicides which all can be directly associated with more or less waking hour daylight. The attempt to shift the working day to coincide with the available daylight is an obvious solution to a very difficult problem.
I have tried to come up with a better solution, and I always end up with the same conclusion. The 'official' working day needs to follow the sun.
To illustrate:
At the Winter Solstice my day is just under 8 hours, waking 15 minutes before sunrise is quite reasonable, and I have a 1 hour commute (typical for people living in metropolitan areas), so I would be expected to wake at 0750, and be in the office by 0905. It is also reasonable to expect to be home within 15 minutes past sunset, so I leave the office at office at 1510. That gives me an effective workday of just over 6 hours, so I need only take a 15 minute break in the middle.
Now summer comes along and on June 21st I wake at about 0430 (This is daylight savings time, I get confused when I try to figure this out in standard time), and am in the office by 0545, I have a purely notional deficit of 2 hours (when I try to compensate for 21st December), so I need to work a 10 hour day, thus I work until 1545 (you could add in an hour for lunch and still have a very reasonable day), but that's fine, because sunset isn't until 2125, so I still get home with plenty of daylight left.
Using this system, I am always traveling to work and back home in good light. My circadian rhythm is not being tortured by being forcibly de-synchronised with the sun. The office and home lighting and heating/cooling requirements are hugely reduced ( BTW: how much (percentage) cooling occurs as a result of heat from artificial light ?) and the work year still contains the same number of hours.
If I ever get to the point of employing people, I'll definitely allow that system.