In a recent press release, Bill Gates was quoted as saying, "I'm glad to see it's so low. As everyone knows, no one will ever need more than 640K. These scientists have confirmed my theory. I feel vindicated. In your shorts Linus!"
Actually methanol is used as a stabilizing agent because nitro is so explosive. Currently, they use 90% nitro and 10% something else. Just so happens that methanol is still a fairly good fuel yet much more stable than nitro. It helps reprevent catastrophic predetonation.
In the past, before 90/10 was required, huge and very nasty engine explosions were not uncommon. By adding 10% methanol, the number of catastrophic engine explosions were greatly reduced. Didn't take too long for this to become the standard fuel mix.
Umm. Wouldn't juicing take out most of the sugar? After all, when he said carrots, I immediatley assumed the purpose of using carrots was because of their high sugar content.
Actually, I saw something about this not long ago on the History Channel. IIRC, they actually used condoms and dropped it into the fuel tank. Since the fuel will disolve the condom over time (some number of minutes), they had time to get away.
Later, the US started dropping something else like a condom but provided for more reliable means and timing mechanisms. I just don't recall what it was that we started suppling exactly. Nonetheless, I am sure it was dropped into the fuel tank.
I was just looking at that project just the other day for my own use. Anyone actually using Aegis? Is it reliable (no data loss)? Is it muture and stable? I'm curious what the reasons were for using BK over this. Anyone? Has the Aeigis matured enough to be considered a serious contender with BK?
When comparing the two, what features are lacking and/or missing?
Hmmm. I've never heard that it was a misunderstanding before. Have anything to back it up with?
Even the.50 cal sniper rifles are designated as anti-armor/equipment per the several friends I have in the military and brief assocaition with a seal sniper. In fact, his job during the Gulf War was to use his.50 cal rifle to put holes in boat motors. Having said that, I have no doubt that he's use his.50 against people given the chance.
I can only assume that we're talking about the difference between the treaty and practical application. Not sure what to tell you otherwise.
...this being done by or under the NSA? After all, this sounds exactly like what their charter calls for. I am confused as to why the SS is involved with performing these tests as it is clearly the NSA's domain. On top of all that, I'm not really sure that this is a role I want to see our goverment actively persuing.
Ahh...no, the treaty does not make sure a weapon illegal. It makes it illegal to use them against people, not against vehicles and equipment. Just like you're not supposed to use.50 cal and larger against people either. They are used to take out equipment. Sadly, many soldiers seem to be in the line of fire when the rifle in their hand becomes a target or such weapons.;)
With a six mile kill range stated for the laser, the plane shooting the SR-71 would have to be around 32,000 ft or higher AND be able to shoot up rather than down.
Effecient use of hyper threading requires proper kernel schedular support regardless of what OS you use. Without schedular support, you can slow your self down bigtime.
Hmm. Many of your comments strike me as odd. You can certainly cut many scenes or even segments of scenes without losing any value from the movie. How can this be? Well, in order to meet certain length requirements, some scenes are left in or even specifically added. Others are removed even though they make of had subttle undertones and broad artistic experience. Furthermore, it is very common for scenes to be in place for the sole purpose of trying to sale the movie. Scenes with sex and ultra violence or typical of such scenes. Did scenes like these improve the movie. In the vast majority of cases, I feel no remorse in saying, "no". Fact is, if you say, "yes", you're probably not looking for an artistic experience, rather, you're looking to satisfy some cave-man urge. If that's the case, go rent a porn too.
Like it or not, there are often MANY, MANY reasons why scenes are in a movie. Very often, these scenes have absolutely nothing to do with artistic freedom or story telling. After all, how many scenes are in a movie for the sole purpose of product placement, sex, nudity, or violence. TONS! Why? Becaues they fear that their story can't be competitive/compelling without it. Did it add to the story telling experience? Again, in the vast majority of cases, probably not.
Does this mean I feel that every story should be edited? No. Some stories have sex and violence as central themes and clearly little, if any, of their content could be edited witout destroying the story and artistic experience. Because of this, one could certainly argue in some cases, that by editing a story, it actually becomes more true to the original artistic vision.
Having said all that, the risk of having the artistic vision removed from a movie is a risk that some people are willing to take. With that in mind, the issue seems to be between the renter and the company offering this service. After all, if they are unhappy with movie they rented, they can always go rent the uncut version to rectify the situation.
This is rather obvious. If they make this illegal then every network will be required, by law, to either show a film completeltely uncut and unedited (no more "edited for TV"), or they can't show it.
Please tell me why networks can edit for content but these people can't. It's not as if they're hiding what they are doing. In fact, many people go them to specifically for the service they provide. It sounds like they're getting paid for each copy. On top of that, if the people renting later decide they want to see the original, they certainly know how then can do that. I fail to see how this can be illegal.
Flamebait? Wow, guess there was a baised MySQL user that had some points to mod. Not sure how flamebait can be generated by stating what is traditionally accecpted as fact and backed up by several benchmarks. Flamebait??? Come on. Get real people.
That's not the stable release. So, no, it has not been proven. Fact is, the tables may be turning but until the 4.x series is a known stable release, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Second of all, while it really is a nice graph and all, I didn't really see what and how it's testing. People that don't normally know how to test these types things traditionally generate worthless/meaningless results. While I'm not saying that's the case here, without knowing the details, I immediately doubt them.
For what it's worth, IIRC, the same programmer that has been working with the PostgreSQL guys also mentioned that they've been working on MySQL.
It was also noted that MySQL is being done because it's so well known/prevalent but that PostgreSQL is being worked on because they want a true RDBMS work horse.
MySQL wins on only one major front, and as you've noted the degree to which it wins on that front seems to be diminishing: speed.
That's true as long as you only have a couple or fewer users using your MySQL database concurrently and then, only when they are performing very simple selects. Once you start needing concurrent access, moderate to complex queries, or concurrent select, inserts, updates and/or deletes, MySQL falls far, far behind.
At this point, I'll point back at "my rule of thumb posting", which talks when MySQL should be picked.
Um, replication is available both in OS and commercial offerings. I do want to make it clear that only the commercial offering is considered a fairly good solution.
If you would use an Access database for your project, then MySQL *may* be a good choice for your project. Think of MySQL as a faster, feature poor Access database. Think of Access as a slower MySQL feature rich database. Either case, both stick at concurrent (multi-user) access.
If the answer is no, then you should be looking at using PostgreSQL or a commercial database offering.
Your remarks exactly hit the mark. You would be amazed at how often on the mailing lists asks why their inserts are so slow. After being instructed on the proper way of performing multipl inserts within a a single transaction, any remarks on PostgreSQL being slow soon disappear.
MySQL supports a compressed client/server protocol which improves performance over slow links.
To the best of my knowledge, users have never requested that of PostgreSQL. Naturally, you can always tunnel a PostgreSQL connection through a compressed link using third-party products, but really slow links, such as modems, compress automatically anyway.
Actually, it has been asked for and the core developers rejected the notion. One of the commercial PostgreSQL companies currently have an working implementation (Mammoth PostgreSQL). I'm expecting it to be available commercially for 7.3 and then in open source fashion for 7.4.
There are many, many reasons why this is a good idea and many, many reasons why it's a bad idea to rely on modem compression.
For now, for those that need this feature, PostgreSQL is behind, however, hope is right around the corner. In the mean time, you'll have to rely on a kludgely solution by using SSH or some other tunnel that supports compression. There are, of course, several reasons why using a tunnel can result in less than ideal results.
You came real close. Someone stated that I can break the law all I wany by simply downloading another copy, thereby, obtaining a new license to use. In that vein, if such logic were true, then copyright doesn't even come into play as you've granted me right to the software therefore, I'm not in copyrigh violation.
Such assumptions are insane. In other words, simply downloading again does not suddenly make you in compliance with the terms of license if you have previously broken them. This is why when these things happen it's been so important that the violators be forgiven. Which means, they can once again download and then reasonably expect to have a valid license for use.
However, that provision does not imply that the violator is attainted against receiving a new license... which is as simple as downloading a new piece of the covered software.
I'm so tired of seeing this odd logic. The fact of the matter is very simple. The spirit on the license is very clear. You violate, you no longer have a legal license. Period. That's the spirit. Why is it clear? Well, obviously the intent it to prevent people from violating the terms of the license. It's not much of a deterrent if you can simply do a download per day to receive free reign to violate the law.
I have no idea why this concept is so hard for people to grasp.
Why did this get modded up? It's an obvious troll.
First of all, Sun is not an illegal monopoly. Second of all, you're an idiot if you think glibc somehow relates to microsoft bundling a completely unrelated framework and programming language runtime into what is supposed to be a serious of updates for minor application features and mostly bug fixes. You're example is the same thing as saying, no one should be allowed to ever run any application on their OS. Which of course, makes no sense. Which, of course, means people wasted tons of mod points on your post.
Your post is not only illogical, but a troll plain and simple.
.Net has no business being in a service pack anyway. It should of been a distinct download to start with. Maybe they should change the name from Service Pack to Install-anything-we-want-on-your-system-and-oh-ya- we-might-fix-a-couple-of-bugs-too Pack. Anything else is complete dribble on the topic.
Yet another example of how microsoft use's their bundling power and illegal monopoly to push THEIR software to users. Case in point, if they're bundling.NET, they should be bundling a recent Java (1.4) with the service pack as well.
This moves proves two things. One, the agreement is far too weak. Two, Microsoft will do anything to avoid having to compete. Clearly their intent is to maintain their illegal monopoly using any back door and cracked window they can find.
Ya, ya, ya...I'm well aware of the fact that the agreement is currently not binding. That doesn't change the fact that MS has stated they intend to comply with it. Clearly that's not true.
Slashdot Mirror
In a recent press release, Bill Gates was quoted as saying, "I'm glad to see it's so low. As everyone knows, no one will ever need more than 640K. These scientists have confirmed my theory. I feel vindicated. In your shorts Linus!"
Actually methanol is used as a stabilizing agent because nitro is so explosive. Currently, they use 90% nitro and 10% something else. Just so happens that methanol is still a fairly good fuel yet much more stable than nitro. It helps reprevent catastrophic predetonation.
In the past, before 90/10 was required, huge and very nasty engine explosions were not uncommon. By adding 10% methanol, the number of catastrophic engine explosions were greatly reduced. Didn't take too long for this to become the standard fuel mix.
Umm. Wouldn't juicing take out most of the sugar? After all, when he said carrots, I immediatley assumed the purpose of using carrots was because of their high sugar content.
Actually, I saw something about this not long ago on the History Channel. IIRC, they actually used condoms and dropped it into the fuel tank. Since the fuel will disolve the condom over time (some number of minutes), they had time to get away.
Later, the US started dropping something else like a condom but provided for more reliable means and timing mechanisms. I just don't recall what it was that we started suppling exactly. Nonetheless, I am sure it was dropped into the fuel tank.
I was just looking at that project just the other day for my own use. Anyone actually using Aegis? Is it reliable (no data loss)? Is it muture and stable? I'm curious what the reasons were for using BK over this. Anyone? Has the Aeigis matured enough to be considered a serious contender with BK?
When comparing the two, what features are lacking and/or missing?
Anyone in the know what to share?
Hmmm. I've never heard that it was a misunderstanding before. Have anything to back it up with?
.50 cal sniper rifles are designated as anti-armor/equipment per the several friends I have in the military and brief assocaition with a seal sniper. In fact, his job during the Gulf War was to use his .50 cal rifle to put holes in boat motors. Having said that, I have no doubt that he's use his .50 against people given the chance.
Even the
I can only assume that we're talking about the difference between the treaty and practical application. Not sure what to tell you otherwise.
...this being done by or under the NSA? After all, this sounds exactly like what their charter calls for. I am confused as to why the SS is involved with performing these tests as it is clearly the NSA's domain. On top of all that, I'm not really sure that this is a role I want to see our goverment actively persuing.
Ahh...no, the treaty does not make sure a weapon illegal. It makes it illegal to use them against people, not against vehicles and equipment. Just like you're not supposed to use .50 cal and larger against people either. They are used to take out equipment. Sadly, many soldiers seem to be in the line of fire when the rifle in their hand becomes a target or such weapons. ;)
With a six mile kill range stated for the laser, the plane shooting the SR-71 would have to be around 32,000 ft or higher AND be able to shoot up rather than down.
Effecient use of hyper threading requires proper kernel schedular support regardless of what OS you use. Without schedular support, you can slow your self down bigtime.
I read on the lkhml that SUMO is used on 8 or less CPUs while NUMA is used for 9+ CPUs.
If that's true, I don't think the majority of us have to worry about NUMA concerns.
Hmm. Many of your comments strike me as odd. You can certainly cut many scenes or even segments of scenes without losing any value from the movie. How can this be? Well, in order to meet certain length requirements, some scenes are left in or even specifically added. Others are removed even though they make of had subttle undertones and broad artistic experience. Furthermore, it is very common for scenes to be in place for the sole purpose of trying to sale the movie. Scenes with sex and ultra violence or typical of such scenes. Did scenes like these improve the movie. In the vast majority of cases, I feel no remorse in saying, "no". Fact is, if you say, "yes", you're probably not looking for an artistic experience, rather, you're looking to satisfy some cave-man urge. If that's the case, go rent a porn too.
Like it or not, there are often MANY, MANY reasons why scenes are in a movie. Very often, these scenes have absolutely nothing to do with artistic freedom or story telling. After all, how many scenes are in a movie for the sole purpose of product placement, sex, nudity, or violence. TONS! Why? Becaues they fear that their story can't be competitive/compelling without it. Did it add to the story telling experience? Again, in the vast majority of cases, probably not.
Does this mean I feel that every story should be edited? No. Some stories have sex and violence as central themes and clearly little, if any, of their content could be edited witout destroying the story and artistic experience. Because of this, one could certainly argue in some cases, that by editing a story, it actually becomes more true to the original artistic vision.
Having said all that, the risk of having the artistic vision removed from a movie is a risk that some people are willing to take. With that in mind, the issue seems to be between the renter and the company offering this service. After all, if they are unhappy with movie they rented, they can always go rent the uncut version to rectify the situation.
I, personally, fail to see what the problem is.
This is rather obvious. If they make this illegal then every network will be required, by law, to either show a film completeltely uncut and unedited (no more "edited for TV"), or they can't show it.
Please tell me why networks can edit for content but these people can't. It's not as if they're hiding what they are doing. In fact, many people go them to specifically for the service they provide. It sounds like they're getting paid for each copy. On top of that, if the people renting later decide they want to see the original, they certainly know how then can do that. I fail to see how this can be illegal.
Flamebait? Wow, guess there was a baised MySQL user that had some points to mod. Not sure how flamebait can be generated by stating what is traditionally accecpted as fact and backed up by several benchmarks. Flamebait??? Come on. Get real people.
That's not the stable release. So, no, it has not been proven. Fact is, the tables may be turning but until the 4.x series is a known stable release, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Second of all, while it really is a nice graph and all, I didn't really see what and how it's testing. People that don't normally know how to test these types things traditionally generate worthless/meaningless results. While I'm not saying that's the case here, without knowing the details, I immediately doubt them.
For what it's worth, IIRC, the same programmer that has been working with the PostgreSQL guys also mentioned that they've been working on MySQL.
It was also noted that MySQL is being done because it's so well known/prevalent but that PostgreSQL is being worked on because they want a true RDBMS work horse.
Makes perfect sense to me.
MySQL wins on only one major front, and as you've noted the degree to which it wins on that front seems to be diminishing: speed.
That's true as long as you only have a couple or fewer users using your MySQL database concurrently and then, only when they are performing very simple selects. Once you start needing concurrent access, moderate to complex queries, or concurrent select, inserts, updates and/or deletes, MySQL falls far, far behind.
At this point, I'll point back at "my rule of thumb posting", which talks when MySQL should be picked.
Um, replication is available both in OS and commercial offerings. I do want to make it clear that only the commercial offering is considered a fairly good solution.
If you would use an Access database for your project, then MySQL *may* be a good choice for your project. Think of MySQL as a faster, feature poor Access database. Think of Access as a slower MySQL feature rich database. Either case, both stick at concurrent (multi-user) access.
If the answer is no, then you should be looking at using PostgreSQL or a commercial database offering.
Your remarks exactly hit the mark. You would be amazed at how often on the mailing lists asks why their inserts are so slow. After being instructed on the proper way of performing multipl inserts within a a single transaction, any remarks on PostgreSQL being slow soon disappear.
MySQL supports a compressed client/server protocol which improves performance over slow links.
To the best of my knowledge, users have never requested that of PostgreSQL. Naturally, you can always tunnel a PostgreSQL connection through a compressed link using third-party products, but really slow links, such as modems, compress automatically anyway.
Actually, it has been asked for and the core developers rejected the notion. One of the commercial PostgreSQL companies currently have an working implementation (Mammoth PostgreSQL). I'm expecting it to be available commercially for 7.3 and then in open source fashion for 7.4.
There are many, many reasons why this is a good idea and many, many reasons why it's a bad idea to rely on modem compression.
For now, for those that need this feature, PostgreSQL is behind, however, hope is right around the corner. In the mean time, you'll have to rely on a kludgely solution by using SSH or some other tunnel that supports compression. There are, of course, several reasons why using a tunnel can result in less than ideal results.
Somehow you've missed the point completely.
You came real close. Someone stated that I can break the law all I wany by simply downloading another copy, thereby, obtaining a new license to use. In that vein, if such logic were true, then copyright doesn't even come into play as you've granted me right to the software therefore, I'm not in copyrigh violation.
Such assumptions are insane. In other words, simply downloading again does not suddenly make you in compliance with the terms of license if you have previously broken them. This is why when these things happen it's been so important that the violators be forgiven. Which means, they can once again download and then reasonably expect to have a valid license for use.
I'm so tired of seeing this odd logic. The fact of the matter is very simple. The spirit on the license is very clear. You violate, you no longer have a legal license. Period. That's the spirit. Why is it clear? Well, obviously the intent it to prevent people from violating the terms of the license. It's not much of a deterrent if you can simply do a download per day to receive free reign to violate the law.
I have no idea why this concept is so hard for people to grasp.
Why did this get modded up? It's an obvious troll.
First of all, Sun is not an illegal monopoly. Second of all, you're an idiot if you think glibc somehow relates to microsoft bundling a completely unrelated framework and programming language runtime into what is supposed to be a serious of updates for minor application features and mostly bug fixes. You're example is the same thing as saying, no one should be allowed to ever run any application on their OS. Which of course, makes no sense. Which, of course, means people wasted tons of mod points on your post.
Your post is not only illogical, but a troll plain and simple.
.Net has no business being in a service pack anyway. It should of been a distinct download to start with. Maybe they should change the name from Service Pack to Install-anything-we-want-on-your-system-and-oh-ya- we-might-fix-a-couple-of-bugs-too Pack. Anything else is complete dribble on the topic.
.NET, they should be bundling a recent Java (1.4) with the service pack as well.
Yet another example of how microsoft use's their bundling power and illegal monopoly to push THEIR software to users. Case in point, if they're bundling
This moves proves two things. One, the agreement is far too weak. Two, Microsoft will do anything to avoid having to compete. Clearly their intent is to maintain their illegal monopoly using any back door and cracked window they can find.
Ya, ya, ya...I'm well aware of the fact that the agreement is currently not binding. That doesn't change the fact that MS has stated they intend to comply with it. Clearly that's not true.