Actually, I've had several job listings specifically require either a Word document or text pasted into a web form (usually HR software from Aspex or similar). You can't submit a PDF. You couldn't submit a.docx, either, since the version I used required a.doc file extension. It's a huge pain in the ass to anonymize a Word document and remove all tracked changes.
I suppose it makes sense. Even an idiot can upload a badly formatted Word document, but a fair portion of the general population has no idea what a PDF printer is.
1,200 websites on one IP address? Looking at the list, I see things that are obviously gambling websites. The IP is held by a US-based hosting company (DimeNOC). I understand that yes, this is suspicious, but with 1,199 other potential causes for black holing an IP address, I'm not convinced that MFU caused government to impost a black hole request on an arbitrary (and, if summary is to be believed, incomplete) set of ISPs.
I was in my early teens as the 90s began, and I played a lot of games. Eventually, I wrote a menu system and put it on a boot disk for MS-DOS 6. I had to do it this way because it was my parent's computer, and they just wanted the damn thing to boot to Windows 3.1. Their version used (1) below, but autoexec.bat also started win.com
It had (roughly) these options: 1. Boot with just HIMEM.SYS using all memory for extended memory. Load smartdrv.exe disk caching, mscdex.exe CD-ROM driver, and mouse.com mouse driver. Load as many drivers and services into high and upper memory ranges with DOS=HIGH,UMB. Load DOSKEY with various macros to make DOS life easier. Set permanent command environment to the C: drive. I got this down to about 585 K of available conventional memory, and this covers about 85-90% of games by 1995 or so, many of which used DOS/4G or DOS/4GW anyway. 2. As (1), but configure some memory to be configured as expanded memory with EMM386.exe. Remaining memory is extended memory still loaded for use with smartdrv.exe. IIRC, you couldn't use both HIGH and UMB, but I don't remember which couldn't be used here. This had closer to 560K of memory, IIRC. 3. As (1), but load all memory as expanded. Do not load smartdrv.exe (which did not work with expanded memory, IIRC) or mscdex.exe (it can be started later with a batch command, and IIRC, without extended memory doesn't get a cache so performance will suck anyway). Do not load mouse driver by default. Do not use DOS=HIGH,UMB. No DOSKEY except via batch command. 4. As (1), but boot with absolutely nothing but extended memory. This gave you about 600 K of conventional memory. Very few games required this, but some extremely greedy games did. 5. Boot with nothing loaded. No drivers, no memory managers. Just MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, and COMMAND.COM. Keep A:\ as the command environment. This was a diagnostic configuration, and you ended up with like 550K of conventional memory available.
I learned a lot, but given the number of friends I had that copied this disk, it didn't surprise me that DOS/4G and Windows gaming took off like a rocket.
It will allow those with secure boot, that is on and has no user visible way of shutting it off. Because every extra option in a uefi/bios costs system builders like dell and hp money. a way of disableing it by flashing a bios,uefi image with that option or it permanently set to off.
Did you write my stereo instructions in the 1980s?
400 years ago, "nigger" meant someone with black skin (it derives from the French word for "black"). As recently as the mid 1800s, it was not considered too overtly offensive to use as the name of a major character in one of the most beloved books of the time (Huckleberry Finn's Nigger Jim). Time and hatred have turned the term into an incredibly offensive racial slur so taboo that I actually risk getting modded down just by mentioning it the way I have.
A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century in the United States that it became a slur against male homosexuals. It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that "gay" meant anything other than happy and enjoyable. Neither word is particularly well received now.
"Xian" is used as a slur against Christians with the intent to be offensive, while very few English-speaking Christians will use any other spelling than "Christian". Modern usage, intent, and context make the word unsuitable for polite use. Don't blame me. Blame hate-mongering anti-Christians.
Please do not use this term. It's a slur. The term was adopted by vitriolic anti-Christians as literally "Christianity without Christ" and is extremely offensive to anybody that knows that. If you're actually looking to have intelligent discourse, it's best not to start out by offending people with your choice of language. If the word "Christ" offends you so much that you cannot even type it, you should probably reconsider your objectivity.
You have no idea the number of technical people that cannot distinguish between NAT and a stateful firewall. They believe that the "obscurity" that NAT provides somehow provides actual security, rather than the fact that a NAT or PAT enabled router is necessarily operating as a stateful firewall and that is what's providing the security benefits of NAT. NAT appears secure and simple because the stateful firewall has a default allow for outgoing connections and default deny for incoming connections. NAT's security is simply a stateful firewall with sane defaults.
This, I fear, is the foremost reason that NAT will never, ever die. People think they can make their networks "secure" by configuring their external routers to lie to adjacent Internet routers. They think that this obscuring of reality somehow increases their security when it does not, and they fail to appreciate that NAT prevents any possibility of clean network fail-overs because the router has told the Internet that it's an endpoint node instead of a router so external devices drop the packets rather than route them to a secondary destination.
Actually, the "militia" and the "people" were considered synonymous at the time of the Constitution. That is, the "militia" was every able bodied man capable of carrying and using a rifle.
The Supreme Court actually did an excellent job of detailing the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is
The main culprits I've seen which do this are telephone system providers (Mitel/iPecs etc).
The issue being that people are very touchy about updating telephony software, primarily following the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
The problem is that it is IS broken.
There's a significant difference between "broken" meaning "functions in an anachronistic or extremely sub-optimal fashion" and "broken" meaning "complete loss of function". If you've got the latter, you'd gladly take the former.
This is why people tend to dislike new technology when it completely replaces an existing old system rather than complimenting it or existing along side it. Systems don't survive to be old if they don't meet the needs of the people who use them, and almost any new system will have some period of time where the new system does not meet their needs.
Guns aren't the only means to fight tyranny. They are, among civilized peoples, considered the last resort. That they are a last resort does not imply that they should be eliminated or otherwise prohibited until such a time as they become necessary.
IMO, the most important thing people can do to understand the American thought process on this matter is to read the introduction and preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"Look, we know this is pretty crazy and that giant title is freaking you out. Let us explain why it's important that we do this."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Equality and irrevocable rights are the fundamental element of the human condition. We all deserve to exist, we deserve to exist in the manner of our own making and choosing, and we deserve to strive to better our existence if we so choose."
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
"People create governments to protect what we deserve, and the government has power only as long as the people agree that it does."
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
"We deserve to have a government that uses the power we invest in it to protect what we deserve. When they stop doing that, we deserve to have the ability to change the government."
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Since governments are created for the benefit of the people, so we deserve a government that actually benefits the people."
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
"Changing a government is a tremendous pain in the ass, however, so people tend to put up with a lot of bullshit they really shouldn't have to."
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
"Enough is enough. We gettin' real tired of your shit. That's all we can stands; we can't stands no more."
Personally, I feel that you'd have to be stupid or dead for that ideal to not to light a fire in your heart, but I'm a romantic. This is the moral fiber that America *should* be trying to reach. It's so sad that we forget every 50 years or so what this document really means.
No, that would be stupid. I schedule a maintenance window, shut the system down, move the system, and then power it back up. Power isn't the only thing our systems need. They're useless without a network, and most of them have fiber attached or IP attached disks back on the SAN. Its ridiculously impractical to move a server powered on while rotating the network and disk controller connections to keep the failsafes alive. And that's to say nothing of how dangerous it is to jar around a spinning hard drive, plus sometimes we're moving the server between the main site and the DR site 10 miles away.
It's not Oracle MySQL, primarily. And it's operated by Monty Widenius, the founder and main author of the original MySQL. But mainly it's taking off because it's not Oracle.
You have no idea if the system can start from a cold boot. And if it fails to start from a cold boot, you have no idea which of the hundreds of patches you've applied in the last 10 years is the one that is causing the boot process to fail, or if it's hardware that's randomly gone sketchy. The last known-good cold state is 10 years ago.
Power systems fail. Backup power is limited. Buildings get damaged and remodeled. For these reasons it is unwise to assume you will never need to power a system off. Even with the super hotswapping of the VAX you would occasionally need to move the system to a different building with new server rooms. If you never demonstrate that a server can safely power back on to a running state, you have no idea what state the system will be in when you do it.
Consider the system in this article for a moment. The last service was removed last year. Why was it left powered on? It was literally doing nothing but counting the seconds until it was shut down today. That's a disgusting waste of power.
System A is connected to network port. System A: "Hello? Can I have an IP address and network information?" DHCP Server: "Sure, here you go. And here's the gateway if you want to go outside the network, and the DNS server if you want to perform lookups." System A: "Where is the JSTOR server?" DNS Server: "It's right here." System A: "Hey, JSTOR, can I have an article?" JSTOR: "What's the password?" System A: "******" JSTOR: "Sure, here you go." System A: "Thanks." System A: "Hey, JSTOR, can I have an article?" JSTOR: "What's the password?" System A: "******" JSTOR: "Sure, here you go." System A: "Thanks."...
You have to consider the point of the hearing and the appeal. This docket is only concerned with the extradition request. It is not a trial.
The US is asking NZ to turn Dotcom over. Dotcom is fighting the request in NZ court, and he appears to have requested the entire case against him in complete detail. That makes no sense at an extradition hearing, because NZ only has to decide if extradition for trial for the actual charges is warranted. The appeals court is correct: a summary of the evidence the US has would be more than enough to determine if the extradition request should be granted. Dotcom wants the evidence so he can get the court to rule in his favor by weighing the evidence. That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.
Obviously it is nonsensical for something to be nearly infinite using that first definition, but that should be a warning sign that you're not using the definition that people mean, not that everyone else is speaking nonsense.
But that would mean I'd have to agree that context carries as much information as the lexical meaning! How can I be an asshole on the Internet if I can't equivocate!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've had several job listings specifically require either a Word document or text pasted into a web form (usually HR software from Aspex or similar). You can't submit a PDF. You couldn't submit a .docx, either, since the version I used required a .doc file extension. It's a huge pain in the ass to anonymize a Word document and remove all tracked changes.
I suppose it makes sense. Even an idiot can upload a badly formatted Word document, but a fair portion of the general population has no idea what a PDF printer is.
When's the last time a US company actually built a US product in the US with US workers?
Don't like it? Make us do it without your country's help. Who said it was a one-way street?
So? Don't like it? Build it yourself. I don't see anything stopping you from doing that.
That's what I was thinking, too.
1,200 websites on one IP address? Looking at the list, I see things that are obviously gambling websites. The IP is held by a US-based hosting company (DimeNOC). I understand that yes, this is suspicious, but with 1,199 other potential causes for black holing an IP address, I'm not convinced that MFU caused government to impost a black hole request on an arbitrary (and, if summary is to be believed, incomplete) set of ISPs.
To be fair, BRIAN BLESSED would be more sonorous dead than most people are alive.
I was in my early teens as the 90s began, and I played a lot of games. Eventually, I wrote a menu system and put it on a boot disk for MS-DOS 6. I had to do it this way because it was my parent's computer, and they just wanted the damn thing to boot to Windows 3.1. Their version used (1) below, but autoexec.bat also started win.com
It had (roughly) these options:
1. Boot with just HIMEM.SYS using all memory for extended memory. Load smartdrv.exe disk caching, mscdex.exe CD-ROM driver, and mouse.com mouse driver. Load as many drivers and services into high and upper memory ranges with DOS=HIGH,UMB. Load DOSKEY with various macros to make DOS life easier. Set permanent command environment to the C: drive. I got this down to about 585 K of available conventional memory, and this covers about 85-90% of games by 1995 or so, many of which used DOS/4G or DOS/4GW anyway.
2. As (1), but configure some memory to be configured as expanded memory with EMM386.exe. Remaining memory is extended memory still loaded for use with smartdrv.exe. IIRC, you couldn't use both HIGH and UMB, but I don't remember which couldn't be used here. This had closer to 560K of memory, IIRC.
3. As (1), but load all memory as expanded. Do not load smartdrv.exe (which did not work with expanded memory, IIRC) or mscdex.exe (it can be started later with a batch command, and IIRC, without extended memory doesn't get a cache so performance will suck anyway). Do not load mouse driver by default. Do not use DOS=HIGH,UMB. No DOSKEY except via batch command.
4. As (1), but boot with absolutely nothing but extended memory. This gave you about 600 K of conventional memory. Very few games required this, but some extremely greedy games did.
5. Boot with nothing loaded. No drivers, no memory managers. Just MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, and COMMAND.COM. Keep A:\ as the command environment. This was a diagnostic configuration, and you ended up with like 550K of conventional memory available.
I learned a lot, but given the number of friends I had that copied this disk, it didn't surprise me that DOS/4G and Windows gaming took off like a rocket.
It will allow those with secure boot, that is on and has no user visible way of shutting it off. Because every extra option in a uefi/bios costs system builders like dell and hp money. a way of disableing it by flashing a bios,uefi image with that option or it permanently set to off.
Did you write my stereo instructions in the 1980s?
A few days later, you get a salesman from ABC [...]
A. Always
B. Be
C. Closing
Always be closing. ALWAYS BE CLOSING.
The leads are weak? You're weak.
Meanings change.
400 years ago, "nigger" meant someone with black skin (it derives from the French word for "black"). As recently as the mid 1800s, it was not considered too overtly offensive to use as the name of a major character in one of the most beloved books of the time (Huckleberry Finn's Nigger Jim). Time and hatred have turned the term into an incredibly offensive racial slur so taboo that I actually risk getting modded down just by mentioning it the way I have.
A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century in the United States that it became a slur against male homosexuals. It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that "gay" meant anything other than happy and enjoyable. Neither word is particularly well received now.
"Xian" is used as a slur against Christians with the intent to be offensive, while very few English-speaking Christians will use any other spelling than "Christian". Modern usage, intent, and context make the word unsuitable for polite use. Don't blame me. Blame hate-mongering anti-Christians.
Xians
Please do not use this term. It's a slur. The term was adopted by vitriolic anti-Christians as literally "Christianity without Christ" and is extremely offensive to anybody that knows that. If you're actually looking to have intelligent discourse, it's best not to start out by offending people with your choice of language. If the word "Christ" offends you so much that you cannot even type it, you should probably reconsider your objectivity.
You have no idea the number of technical people that cannot distinguish between NAT and a stateful firewall. They believe that the "obscurity" that NAT provides somehow provides actual security, rather than the fact that a NAT or PAT enabled router is necessarily operating as a stateful firewall and that is what's providing the security benefits of NAT. NAT appears secure and simple because the stateful firewall has a default allow for outgoing connections and default deny for incoming connections. NAT's security is simply a stateful firewall with sane defaults.
This, I fear, is the foremost reason that NAT will never, ever die. People think they can make their networks "secure" by configuring their external routers to lie to adjacent Internet routers. They think that this obscuring of reality somehow increases their security when it does not, and they fail to appreciate that NAT prevents any possibility of clean network fail-overs because the router has told the Internet that it's an endpoint node instead of a router so external devices drop the packets rather than route them to a secondary destination.
Actually, the "militia" and the "people" were considered synonymous at the time of the Constitution. That is, the "militia" was every able bodied man capable of carrying and using a rifle.
The Supreme Court actually did an excellent job of detailing the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller :
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is
The main culprits I've seen which do this are telephone system providers (Mitel/iPecs etc).
The issue being that people are very touchy about updating telephony software, primarily following the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
The problem is that it is IS broken.
There's a significant difference between "broken" meaning "functions in an anachronistic or extremely sub-optimal fashion" and "broken" meaning "complete loss of function". If you've got the latter, you'd gladly take the former.
This is why people tend to dislike new technology when it completely replaces an existing old system rather than complimenting it or existing along side it. Systems don't survive to be old if they don't meet the needs of the people who use them, and almost any new system will have some period of time where the new system does not meet their needs.
If you call them and actually get to speak with a human being, it was probably an attack.
Guns aren't the only means to fight tyranny. They are, among civilized peoples, considered the last resort. That they are a last resort does not imply that they should be eliminated or otherwise prohibited until such a time as they become necessary.
IMO, the most important thing people can do to understand the American thought process on this matter is to read the introduction and preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"Look, we know this is pretty crazy and that giant title is freaking you out. Let us explain why it's important that we do this."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Equality and irrevocable rights are the fundamental element of the human condition. We all deserve to exist, we deserve to exist in the manner of our own making and choosing, and we deserve to strive to better our existence if we so choose."
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
"People create governments to protect what we deserve, and the government has power only as long as the people agree that it does."
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
"We deserve to have a government that uses the power we invest in it to protect what we deserve. When they stop doing that, we deserve to have the ability to change the government."
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Since governments are created for the benefit of the people, so we deserve a government that actually benefits the people."
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
"Changing a government is a tremendous pain in the ass, however, so people tend to put up with a lot of bullshit they really shouldn't have to."
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
"Enough is enough. We gettin' real tired of your shit. That's all we can stands; we can't stands no more."
Personally, I feel that you'd have to be stupid or dead for that ideal to not to light a fire in your heart, but I'm a romantic. This is the moral fiber that America *should* be trying to reach. It's so sad that we forget every 50 years or so what this document really means.
No, that would be stupid. I schedule a maintenance window, shut the system down, move the system, and then power it back up. Power isn't the only thing our systems need. They're useless without a network, and most of them have fiber attached or IP attached disks back on the SAN. Its ridiculously impractical to move a server powered on while rotating the network and disk controller connections to keep the failsafes alive. And that's to say nothing of how dangerous it is to jar around a spinning hard drive, plus sometimes we're moving the server between the main site and the DR site 10 miles away.
It's not Oracle MySQL, primarily. And it's operated by Monty Widenius, the founder and main author of the original MySQL. But mainly it's taking off because it's not Oracle.
You have no idea if the system can start from a cold boot. And if it fails to start from a cold boot, you have no idea which of the hundreds of patches you've applied in the last 10 years is the one that is causing the boot process to fail, or if it's hardware that's randomly gone sketchy. The last known-good cold state is 10 years ago.
Power systems fail. Backup power is limited. Buildings get damaged and remodeled. For these reasons it is unwise to assume you will never need to power a system off. Even with the super hotswapping of the VAX you would occasionally need to move the system to a different building with new server rooms. If you never demonstrate that a server can safely power back on to a running state, you have no idea what state the system will be in when you do it.
Consider the system in this article for a moment. The last service was removed last year. Why was it left powered on? It was literally doing nothing but counting the seconds until it was shut down today. That's a disgusting waste of power.
As opposed to what Schwartz did:
System A is connected to network port. ...
System A: "Hello? Can I have an IP address and network information?"
DHCP Server: "Sure, here you go. And here's the gateway if you want to go outside the network, and the DNS server if you want to perform lookups."
System A: "Where is the JSTOR server?"
DNS Server: "It's right here."
System A: "Hey, JSTOR, can I have an article?"
JSTOR: "What's the password?"
System A: "******"
JSTOR: "Sure, here you go."
System A: "Thanks."
System A: "Hey, JSTOR, can I have an article?"
JSTOR: "What's the password?"
System A: "******"
JSTOR: "Sure, here you go."
System A: "Thanks."
Such a leet haxxor.
No, it's just annual. Nobody complains in the fall when they get an extra hour on their weekend.
Considering Saudi Arabia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the United States, this will not happen.
New Zealand, however, does.
Holy God, people, do you even understand what extradition means?
Because nobody is trying to prosecute him for breaking NZ laws.
You have to consider the point of the hearing and the appeal. This docket is only concerned with the extradition request. It is not a trial.
The US is asking NZ to turn Dotcom over. Dotcom is fighting the request in NZ court, and he appears to have requested the entire case against him in complete detail. That makes no sense at an extradition hearing, because NZ only has to decide if extradition for trial for the actual charges is warranted. The appeals court is correct: a summary of the evidence the US has would be more than enough to determine if the extradition request should be granted. Dotcom wants the evidence so he can get the court to rule in his favor by weighing the evidence. That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.
Is it also the application you use the most? And was that RAM actually in contention for other processes?
Obviously it is nonsensical for something to be nearly infinite using that first definition, but that should be a warning sign that you're not using the definition that people mean, not that everyone else is speaking nonsense.
But that would mean I'd have to agree that context carries as much information as the lexical meaning! How can I be an asshole on the Internet if I can't equivocate!