"What is the proper format for the program main method?"
You should get a blank stare. "Typically two tabs in" is another reasonable response.
Sorry, but when you're testing the knowledge of the candidate, your knowledge is being tested too. The worst developers I've had to share code with haven't known what a "function signature" was, and I figure that's a pretty good rule of thumb.
As a sum it's not profitable. However, this is basically how organized crime works: "if you get to the big time, kid, you'll have someone else be a patsy for you. Until then, you're the patsy."
If you look hard at the statistics, playing that game is bad... but for the ones that rise to the top, it's very profitable.
In reality, both would continue to cooperate ad infinitum, since no one would defect at the first turn.
Not if there is noise, which is precisely what naoursla was talking about. However, the alternation won't necessarily happen either; noise can also cause them to stop.
Well, if skinfitz doesn't think ditto (which generates cpio archives with resource forks preserved) counts, then I doubt he or she thinks hfspax and hfstar count either.
Which is reasonable to some degree... you can build backup mechanisms with either, but neither is Backup Software in the sense that normal Mac users are accustomed.
Then again, I cringe at some of the shit that kind of backup software does- backing up a live filesystem? While the user is using it? No thanks.
Funny... you'd think that with such a cogent explanation of the half of the problem that grep+find doesn't solve, file(1) would leap to mind as a reasonable start to the solution of it.
It doesn't handle everything, you still need utilities for most file types to convert them to text, but it's a damned good start.
The internet we have happens to be the only worldwide internetwork, but it
would certainly be possible to have another.
Yes. That's the point. The one we have is one among many networks; there are thousands of them. Many of them have names too, regardless of how stupid or trite all of the names are.
Signifying a unique thing. Any old network isn't capitalized, but (for example) Usenet isn't just any old NNTP connection, it's a public, widely used network of NNTP and UUCP and whatever else connections.
The Internet is the same- it's not just a bunch of machines connected together via TCP/IP, it's the collection of machines connected together via TCP/IP.
More importantly, though, a LAN is a net, but not the Net. A couple machines hooked up through NNTP isn't Usenet, it's a newsfeed. A web of HTML documents accessible via HTTP isn't the Web, it's just a web unless it's on the Internet.
You can play these games in emulators, of course, but my real interest is playing them on a TV- with the GameCube GBP, you can do that. The GameCube essentially becomes a proxy for all your Nintendo platforms that way, which is a bit easier to handle in terms of video switches:-)
Actually, the article is not entirely clear on this matter. I went ahead and verified (in IE, can't verify that that's the problem in every browser;-) that it was more serious than that before I considered it serious, too.
Different windows. Open a new copy of your browser, doesn't matter how...
This is a vulnerability because no matter how separate the user tries to keep two windows (for instance, using a bookmark to open ImportantBanking.com rather than clicking on a link to ImportantBanking.com from an untrusted external website), an untrusted external website can change the content in a frame of the ImportantBanking.com window.
...and when you were thinking RAID 0, what made you think you would lose the capacity of any of the drives? RAID 0 is not redundant- redundancy is what reduces usable capacity beneath the summed capacity of the arrayed disks- ergo, a level 0 RAID has the summed capacity of the arrayed disks with no loss.
There, no insults- you do an awesome job yourself.
Are you always this stupid?
If you want two drives' worth of capacity, RAID 1 requires four drives. RAID5 requires 3. That's the difference between "lose the capacity of one drive" and "lose half the capacity." If you want three drives' worth of capacity, RAID 1 requires six drives. RAID5 requires 4. Are you seeing the pattern yet?
You don't lose "a full drive worth" of capacity- you lose half capacity.
If you have two drives, you get one. If you have four drives, you get two.
With RAID5, you lose "a full drive worth," and you have to start with three. For one disk worth of capacity, RAID1 is the way to go- two disks, full redundancy, yadayada. For two disks or more, RAID5.
As mentioned by other people, software RAID5 isn't as bad as you make it out- at 2n capacity, hardware RAID5 costs about as much as RAID1, and for 3+n capacity, RAID5 wins out.
They provide significantly more functionality than paper, though. There are three things that make PDAs great: faster access to data, more reliable storage of data, and the fact that it's a combination database and calculator.
If you don't really use its computational power (scheduling recurring appointments, automated calculations, dynamic views, etc.), it doesn't do nearly as much. I got hooked on PDAs as a student, where recurring appointments and the need to constantly stay on top of homework (as well as prioritizing it, tracking state, etc.) was a real boon. Now I use it primarily as a better dialer than my cell phone, and to store financial information (again, taking advantage of its computational ability, as well as its constant closeness to my person so that all transactions are documented).
Lacking those needs, it doesn't matter whether you spend $99 or $700: it can only solve problems that you actually have.
My finances are already basically all tied up in my PDA; just about any personal application development or service rollout I consider has to take into account access from a PDA, too. It's not as powerful nor can it handle complex tasks as well as my computer, but it's an extremely valuable data entry device and it can handle basic computing tasks quite handily. In the past, people ran an entire small business on a computer with less power.
The user interface was a bizarre mishmash of copying from Windows and MacOS, with no real understanding of why MS and Apple did the things they did. Sometimes it depended exclusively on the mouse, sometimes it depended on memorizing short cuts that directly contradicted prior training experience (I'm thinking of the whole Ctrl/Alt terminal thing here). It was definitely minimalist, but elegant?
It had some neat ideas on querying the filesystem, and hence using the filesystem as a general organizational system; it had a nice typing system (although restricting typing to MIME has lost favor, mostly because there are a lot of filetypes that have poorly regulated MIME types).
But OS/2 had both of these things at the same time or earlier (OS/2 had an inferior filesystem query system, but it was there; the typing system was vastly superior, however, and even allowed third party types to have customized file properties). And although OS/2 did not provide an OO API, it provided something far better: a real OO UI.
The whole idea of BeOS as the media OS is laughable, too: at inception they were only a few years away from having to compete with Voodoo for OpenGL speed, and their highly optimized real-time A/V support was a few years away from processors being so fast that it, too, ceased to be relevant.
Get a simple firewall that blocks ports both ways; restrict what can come and go. Use your judgement, try to allow games and anything that might be helpful if some poor worker has a business emergency on vacation, but not much else.
Slashdot Mirror
You should get a blank stare. "Typically two tabs in" is another reasonable response.
Sorry, but when you're testing the knowledge of the candidate, your knowledge is being tested too. The worst developers I've had to share code with haven't known what a "function signature" was, and I figure that's a pretty good rule of thumb.
Yep, sorry. Nothing is user-servicable... it's too damned small to be modular enough.
...then it will stop being a good duct tape for systems.
From the perspective of the host going down... no.
The matter of its status as advertisement has no relevance to its status as art.
As a sum it's not profitable. However, this is basically how organized crime works: "if you get to the big time, kid, you'll have someone else be a patsy for you. Until then, you're the patsy."
If you look hard at the statistics, playing that game is bad... but for the ones that rise to the top, it's very profitable.
Not if there is noise, which is precisely what naoursla was talking about. However, the alternation won't necessarily happen either; noise can also cause them to stop.
Uh... tape is usually around USD0.35/GB. It's just that 200G backups take a lot of tapes, not that it's expensive.
Well, if skinfitz doesn't think ditto (which generates cpio archives with resource forks preserved) counts, then I doubt he or she thinks hfspax and hfstar count either.
Which is reasonable to some degree... you can build backup mechanisms with either, but neither is Backup Software in the sense that normal Mac users are accustomed.
Then again, I cringe at some of the shit that kind of backup software does- backing up a live filesystem? While the user is using it? No thanks.
Funny... you'd think that with such a cogent explanation of the half of the problem that grep+find doesn't solve, file(1) would leap to mind as a reasonable start to the solution of it.
It doesn't handle everything, you still need utilities for most file types to convert them to text, but it's a damned good start.
retard with a lower-case 'r'
Yes. That's the point. The one we have is one among many networks; there are thousands of them. Many of them have names too, regardless of how stupid or trite all of the names are.
Signifying a unique thing. Any old network isn't capitalized, but (for example) Usenet isn't just any old NNTP connection, it's a public, widely used network of NNTP and UUCP and whatever else connections.
The Internet is the same- it's not just a bunch of machines connected together via TCP/IP, it's the collection of machines connected together via TCP/IP.
More importantly, though, a LAN is a net, but not the Net. A couple machines hooked up through NNTP isn't Usenet, it's a newsfeed. A web of HTML documents accessible via HTTP isn't the Web, it's just a web unless it's on the Internet.
Nah. I hate the DC gamepad.
You can play these games in emulators, of course, but my real interest is playing them on a TV- with the GameCube GBP, you can do that. The GameCube essentially becomes a proxy for all your Nintendo platforms that way, which is a bit easier to handle in terms of video switches :-)
Actually, the article is not entirely clear on this matter. I went ahead and verified (in IE, can't verify that that's the problem in every browser ;-) that it was more serious than that before I considered it serious, too.
Different windows. Open a new copy of your browser, doesn't matter how...
This is a vulnerability because no matter how separate the user tries to keep two windows (for instance, using a bookmark to open ImportantBanking.com rather than clicking on a link to ImportantBanking.com from an untrusted external website), an untrusted external website can change the content in a frame of the ImportantBanking.com window.
...and when you were thinking RAID 0, what made you think you would lose the capacity of any of the drives? RAID 0 is not redundant- redundancy is what reduces usable capacity beneath the summed capacity of the arrayed disks- ergo, a level 0 RAID has the summed capacity of the arrayed disks with no loss. There, no insults- you do an awesome job yourself.
Are you always this stupid? If you want two drives' worth of capacity, RAID 1 requires four drives. RAID5 requires 3. That's the difference between "lose the capacity of one drive" and "lose half the capacity." If you want three drives' worth of capacity, RAID 1 requires six drives. RAID5 requires 4. Are you seeing the pattern yet?
Eh?
You don't lose "a full drive worth" of capacity- you lose half capacity.
If you have two drives, you get one. If you have four drives, you get two.
With RAID5, you lose "a full drive worth," and you have to start with three. For one disk worth of capacity, RAID1 is the way to go- two disks, full redundancy, yadayada. For two disks or more, RAID5.
As mentioned by other people, software RAID5 isn't as bad as you make it out- at 2n capacity, hardware RAID5 costs about as much as RAID1, and for 3+n capacity, RAID5 wins out.
whoops, forgot to add: and tries to start flamewars (i.e., posts things that if they were comments, would be -1, Flamebait)?
Am I the only one who thinks michael uses Slashdot to post stupid crap that just supports his own uninformed bias?
They provide significantly more functionality than paper, though. There are three things that make PDAs great: faster access to data, more reliable storage of data, and the fact that it's a combination database and calculator.
If you don't really use its computational power (scheduling recurring appointments, automated calculations, dynamic views, etc.), it doesn't do nearly as much. I got hooked on PDAs as a student, where recurring appointments and the need to constantly stay on top of homework (as well as prioritizing it, tracking state, etc.) was a real boon. Now I use it primarily as a better dialer than my cell phone, and to store financial information (again, taking advantage of its computational ability, as well as its constant closeness to my person so that all transactions are documented).
Lacking those needs, it doesn't matter whether you spend $99 or $700: it can only solve problems that you actually have.
My finances are already basically all tied up in my PDA; just about any personal application development or service rollout I consider has to take into account access from a PDA, too. It's not as powerful nor can it handle complex tasks as well as my computer, but it's an extremely valuable data entry device and it can handle basic computing tasks quite handily. In the past, people ran an entire small business on a computer with less power.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The user interface was a bizarre mishmash of copying from Windows and MacOS, with no real understanding of why MS and Apple did the things they did. Sometimes it depended exclusively on the mouse, sometimes it depended on memorizing short cuts that directly contradicted prior training experience (I'm thinking of the whole Ctrl/Alt terminal thing here). It was definitely minimalist, but elegant?
It had some neat ideas on querying the filesystem, and hence using the filesystem as a general organizational system; it had a nice typing system (although restricting typing to MIME has lost favor, mostly because there are a lot of filetypes that have poorly regulated MIME types).
But OS/2 had both of these things at the same time or earlier (OS/2 had an inferior filesystem query system, but it was there; the typing system was vastly superior, however, and even allowed third party types to have customized file properties). And although OS/2 did not provide an OO API, it provided something far better: a real OO UI.
The whole idea of BeOS as the media OS is laughable, too: at inception they were only a few years away from having to compete with Voodoo for OpenGL speed, and their highly optimized real-time A/V support was a few years away from processors being so fast that it, too, ceased to be relevant.
Ghost the disk between renters.
Get a simple firewall that blocks ports both ways; restrict what can come and go. Use your judgement, try to allow games and anything that might be helpful if some poor worker has a business emergency on vacation, but not much else.