So now what are you doing about the advertising on the download page? I just checked and still had two fake download buttons, one of which was directly next to the real one.
Actually there are no lockpicks in this case, we have unbreakable encryption. It is just that in order for a lock to be useful you can't leave your key in it. If you do there is, in fact, no reason to have a lock.
You proposal is still O(n) complexity overhead, you are looping over the array once to assign each item to a processor. It is better then the other proposal in the average case, but to claim it is no significant overhead is false. The entire point he was making is yes it can be done more quickly, but the total work is greater and this is bad if you are mainly concerned about battery life. Furthermore your proposal has very bad worst case performance, consider an array with all entries that start with 'a', you would basically be running the sort as single core and still have O(n) overhead. Multicore processing is hard, that is why it is still so little used.
Actually I posted a clarification to my post noting the ambiguity there and going straight to the press release. The summary is wrong, he refuted the incorrect press releases which stated that he had created a functioning kidney. Is that unclear enough...
Actually that sentence is terrible.. from the wake forest site: "Reports in the media that Dr. Anthony Atala printed a real kidney at the TED conference in Long Beach, Calif., are completely inaccurate. At the conference, Dr. Atala used a new type of technology to print a kidney-shaped mold and explained how one day – many years from now – the technology might be used to print actual organs."
TFS: "He refutes reported claims that it's just a kidney shaped mold, as reported by some"
TFA: "Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney."
TFA says "Gigabyte says owners of affected boards are entitled to a full refund or replacement—and it recommends that users seek refunds" but I cant find anything in the press release that even hints at that. I find it VERY unusual that a company would encourage returns, not replacements. The press release is exactly what I would expect, wait till the new stuff is ready and trade it in.
The Gigabye press release is here http://www.gigabyte.us/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=984 and it says nothing like what this article says, there is no mention at all of returns.
Q: What action should I take if I have already purchased a GIGABYTE 6 series motherboard?
A: Firstly, please determine your computer setup. No action will be needed if you only use the SATA 3 ports. If you are using the SATA2 ports, then there are possibilities that the device’s performance will decrease after a period of usage. To ensure the highest standard of customer support & services, GIGABYTE recommends that all customers who purchased GIGABYTE 6 series motherboards contact their local dealer (retail store where you purchased the motherboard) at the end of April for a motherboard exchange. GIGABYTE will provide an equivalent new motherboard replacement.
That lies, from the ripoff report page which I assume is what you are reading:
Submitted: Friday, October 31, 2003
Last posting: Tuesday, December 29, 2009...
Unwilling to accept the court’s decision, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 27, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling which affirmed the district court’s decision in all respects. So on the page claiming to have been edited in 2009 is a reference to an event in 2010.
You are missing his point. On a non-deduplicated system if one block goes bad you lose one file, on a deduplicated system you can lose any number of files due to one bad block. It gets worse when you consider the panacea of non-backup deduplication, consider all of your servers are VMs and reside on the same deduplicated storage, one bad block can take them ALL DOWN. Now admittedly any dedupe solution will sit on some type of raid, however there is still the possibility of something terrible, and this is made worse by the likelihood of a URE during a raid-5 rebuild.
For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is:
Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.com
Microsoft's top result?
Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws...
So you think an article from 2005 is more relevant then one from 2009? Because the first Google result there is an article from 12/29/05.
Yes to reduce DIFFRACTION not DIVERGENCE. I was simplifying but that does not disprove my point. Diffraction would be the light getting scattered while passing through smoke for example. The GGP was describing divergence being an issue. Optic focusing is useless unless the target is a fixed distance away, the scenario he was describing would require some system to determine range and focus the beam.
That's not how lasers work. you are not focusing a light source to a point you are generating a beam of light where all the waves are running parallel. Distance is moot to lasers the impact point does not grow significantly the further away you get. Lasers don't use heavy optics to focus they are just generating a light source that does not diverge in the first place.
They do not throttle you to a particular bandwidth limit. They put your traffic and a second queue, this queue will only empty if the first queue is empty. A two queue system as they are implementing is susceptible to starvation, so if the network is congested your service could drop entirely. However if there is no congestion your service is not affected.
Slashdot Mirror
Is 0000 not a valid four digit number?
So now what are you doing about the advertising on the download page? I just checked and still had two fake download buttons, one of which was directly next to the real one.
He is suggesting a solution, use a plaintext file and restrict it to root only. You are just demanding a "better" solution which would require magic.
Actually there are no lockpicks in this case, we have unbreakable encryption. It is just that in order for a lock to be useful you can't leave your key in it. If you do there is, in fact, no reason to have a lock.
You proposal is still O(n) complexity overhead, you are looping over the array once to assign each item to a processor. It is better then the other proposal in the average case, but to claim it is no significant overhead is false. The entire point he was making is yes it can be done more quickly, but the total work is greater and this is bad if you are mainly concerned about battery life. Furthermore your proposal has very bad worst case performance, consider an array with all entries that start with 'a', you would basically be running the sort as single core and still have O(n) overhead. Multicore processing is hard, that is why it is still so little used.
You're right, they should just block 0.0.0.0/0 and block all spam 100%!
Does this title make anyone else think "ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" or is it just me...
No he did not, The summary is wrong. Wake forest actually clarified he had NOT produce a working kidney.
Actually I posted a clarification to my post noting the ambiguity there and going straight to the press release. The summary is wrong, he refuted the incorrect press releases which stated that he had created a functioning kidney. Is that unclear enough...
Actually that sentence is terrible.. from the wake forest site: "Reports in the media that Dr. Anthony Atala printed a real kidney at the TED conference in Long Beach, Calif., are completely inaccurate. At the conference, Dr. Atala used a new type of technology to print a kidney-shaped mold and explained how one day – many years from now – the technology might be used to print actual organs."
So no real kidney, just a mold.
TFS: "He refutes reported claims that it's just a kidney shaped mold, as reported by some"
TFA: "Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney."
TFA says "Gigabyte says owners of affected boards are entitled to a full refund or replacement—and it recommends that users seek refunds" but I cant find anything in the press release that even hints at that. I find it VERY unusual that a company would encourage returns, not replacements. The press release is exactly what I would expect, wait till the new stuff is ready and trade it in.
The Gigabye press release is here http://www.gigabyte.us/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=984 and it says nothing like what this article says, there is no mention at all of returns. Q: What action should I take if I have already purchased a GIGABYTE 6 series motherboard? A: Firstly, please determine your computer setup. No action will be needed if you only use the SATA 3 ports. If you are using the SATA2 ports, then there are possibilities that the device’s performance will decrease after a period of usage. To ensure the highest standard of customer support & services, GIGABYTE recommends that all customers who purchased GIGABYTE 6 series motherboards contact their local dealer (retail store where you purchased the motherboard) at the end of April for a motherboard exchange. GIGABYTE will provide an equivalent new motherboard replacement.
That lies, from the ripoff report page which I assume is what you are reading: Submitted: Friday, October 31, 2003 Last posting: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 ...
Unwilling to accept the court’s decision, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 27, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling which affirmed the district court’s decision in all respects. So on the page claiming to have been edited in 2009 is a reference to an event in 2010.
You are missing his point. On a non-deduplicated system if one block goes bad you lose one file, on a deduplicated system you can lose any number of files due to one bad block. It gets worse when you consider the panacea of non-backup deduplication, consider all of your servers are VMs and reside on the same deduplicated storage, one bad block can take them ALL DOWN. Now admittedly any dedupe solution will sit on some type of raid, however there is still the possibility of something terrible, and this is made worse by the likelihood of a URE during a raid-5 rebuild.
I can't be the only one that just types a couple of letters into the Start Menu to find the option I want.
No you are not, I have not used control panel since Vista....
SCOTUS has not upheld anything, they have agreed to hear the case. We shall see what they say when they say it.
Ahh... you must live in New York (the STATE not the city damn it... 99% of the god damn state is not a void....)
For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is: Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.com Microsoft's top result? Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws ...
So you think an article from 2005 is more relevant then one from 2009? Because the first Google result there is an article from 12/29/05.
Yes to reduce DIFFRACTION not DIVERGENCE. I was simplifying but that does not disprove my point. Diffraction would be the light getting scattered while passing through smoke for example. The GGP was describing divergence being an issue. Optic focusing is useless unless the target is a fixed distance away, the scenario he was describing would require some system to determine range and focus the beam.
That's not how lasers work. you are not focusing a light source to a point you are generating a beam of light where all the waves are running parallel. Distance is moot to lasers the impact point does not grow significantly the further away you get. Lasers don't use heavy optics to focus they are just generating a light source that does not diverge in the first place.
They do not throttle you to a particular bandwidth limit. They put your traffic and a second queue, this queue will only empty if the first queue is empty. A two queue system as they are implementing is susceptible to starvation, so if the network is congested your service could drop entirely. However if there is no congestion your service is not affected.
Yes, and someone mod this up. Also note that this is what people said when they started this charade.
windows is more like: 1,2,3,3.1,3.11,95,98,2000,ME,XP,Vista,7... I have yet to figure out the scheme.
I presume this means built-in browser?
No they meant "inbuilt browser", note the co.uk domain... not everyone speaks English like we do in America. Grammar nazi fail.