Yes, the key word being 'tried.' Had to read Portrait for 12th grade English. It was such a heavy work, full of minutia and details, that it was very hard to pick up.
12th grade English class was fun: Portrait, Heart of Darkness, The Sound and the Fury, Wuthering Heights. I haven't slept that well prior or since.
* leaked resources
* references to pointers that could be NULL
* references to pointers that are guaranteed to be NULL
* use of uninitialized data
* array overruns
* unsafe use of signed values
* use of resources that have been freed
It won't fix misplaced decimals (sorry Mr. Bolton), but it'll probably catch if you try sticking an item into $array[11] when you've defined @array[10].
(Yes, I know I used perl syntax which doesn't give a whit, but it's what I'm familiar with. It's the theory I'm trying to convey.)
If they check 1 line of code every second it would take 133,101.85 years to check 11.5 billion lines of code. At 1000 lines of code every second you are looking at 133.10 years to check that much code. At 4000 lines of code every second (e.g. 4GHz) you are looking at 33.2 years to check that much code.
And if they were only using one system to do this, I'd imagine that would be a problem. I wonder, though, if you spread the processing across, oh, say, 512 processors, if you could get that time down under a month...
Same with Australia. Honestly, I don't think most people care. What percentage of people actually wins something, let alone something large enough to get that much a chunk taken out of? The rest of us are probably bitter at them and secretly get jollies off of watching the winners get reamed by the gov't. (Schaudefreude for the win!)
Seriously, people on average would rather get $75k compared to a neighbor's $50k than get $125k compared to a neighbor's $150k. They'd willingly give up 50k JUST to make more than someone. (Yes, there's a citation on this, even a/. article on it I believe, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Numbers might be off too, but the theory's the same.)
I dunno, I'd be fine with one million. Keep it in a secure location (you can afford a nice fireproof safe with that much) and just use it to augment your current lifestyle. Don't make outlandish purchases. One million in hundreds isn't that large either: http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/million/million.html
That's the rub though: being careful with it. You can't blow it on Rodeo Drive day one. Limit yourself to a grand a month and spread it around. Can probably deposit some in your normal account occassionally. Explaining 1M at once? Problem. Explaining 1M over 20, 30 years? Much easier.
I should amend this comment after doing some research:
Outside pressure is a nonissue at low altitudes. It will become an issue at high altitudes when there's just not enough air to create enough pressure inside.
There ARE sealed hard drives ( http://www.mt-optech.com/ ) but it doesn't look like you get these unless you have a damn good reason to.
Outside pressure is a nonissue. It's the inside pressure that you're worried about. The platter spinning increases the pressure and pushes air out.
Therefore, when you seal the drive, you can't reduce the inside pressure.
Now, I'm going to disclaim that this is all hypothesis, I have no citation, however it stands to reason that this equilibrium between air pressure and volume plays a role in how hard drives work or else manufacturers would not have included a vent in the first place.
It's way too small to provide any cooling functionality, thus the only possible reason I can see it being there is to deal with pressure changes and since outside pressure is a constant (relatively) that leaves inside pressure as the issue.
Anyway, filters don't work if the particles are smaller than air, which works well enough in general for dust, but many smoke particles are smaller than air molecules (ok, N2 and O2).
Yes, but filters do not seal a hard drive. Sealed means nothing gets in, nothing gets out.
Filters say "this can go in and out, but nothing larger."
The problem when we add helium to the mix is it has the tendancy to head skywards and not come back down, so if you make your filter fine enough to only allow helium to pass in or out (let's assume for the sake of argument this is possible) then as pressure increases inside, helium is pushed out. This helium, having free reign over it's journey now, floats up and out.
Now, when the pressure drops in the HD, there's nothing to replenish the volume.
Wouldn't work without a major redesign. Hard drives aren't sealed to the outside world; there has to be an equilibrium between air pressure and volume.
You'd somehow have to work out a closed system for a hard drive possibly leading to some sort of bladder to allow helium to leave and return the main hard drive chassis while not being vented to the outside world.
Ease of use, thermal properties, temperature and aesthetics I don't see ever coming under the realm of legislation. Not on the physical device. What's at stake here is the rights a user has to something they purchase AFTER SALE. You're repairing YOUR coffee maker, that you chose on the aforementioned characteristics.
There's ample precidence in this country allowing the end user to do whatever the hell they want with the product once purchased. (Right of first sale for one example.)
When the company actively impedes efforts by the end user to do what they want to the product after sale, they're no longer selling a product, they're selling a service, or worse: a licence.
Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
What if the government legislation is explicitly written to allow modifications to coffee makers? Consider: you figure out a way to mod your coffee machine to make it more efficient or hotter or percolate better.
In the system you describe, companies could easily end up licencing your coffee machine to you instead of you outright owning your device making any beneficial change you make their property. Or worse, prosecute you for tampering with their device (you had to reverse engineer that coffee maker, didn't you?), even in a beneficial way.
If there's no government intervention, what's to stop them from asserting rights like that? And before you blindly answer, "Companies can't assert rights like that," consider where the laws come from that SAY they can't. Legislation is sometimes required to give rights, not just take them away.
Essentially, this bill is determining what an end user has rights to once a product is purchased. Not on the details of the product before.
IF we have complete control over our purchases after sale, then we need to know what the diagnostic codes translate to, because that is part of what we purchased. If we are not allowed to have these diagnostic codes, however, then we have lost rights to what we have purchased and are at the mercy of the corporation that sold it.
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
You SHOULD be able to fix your own coffee maker and not be forced by some DRM lock-in to take it to this specific certified repairman.
The RIAA didn't become the "big bad meanies" because of going after copyright infringers.
They got that title through their strong arm tactics, legal arguments, twisted logic, abuse of the justice system, extortion... well, pretty much everything associated with how they operate these cases.
Contrast the above to how this infringement was handled.
In defense of the article, it's not imbibing these germs, it's inhaling them. The force of the water coming out spreads the bugs around getting them into the air which you breathe in. I'd wager, without bothering to look it up, that either HCl is not a plesent environment for these or they just can't attach to anything in the digestive system as opposed to the resporatory system.
So the analogy here is, you buy a car. The manufacturer offers a 15 year warranty. 10 years in they find a flaw, they don't fix it and instead tell you to take it to a third party mechanic for a workaround at which point you find some lawyers and sue their contract breaching butt into next year.
this is mostly about the world seeing how US cops are taser-happy and at the same time protected from investigation when something goes wrong, not about whether police should be allowed to use tasers or not
Of course, the small subset of incidents that result in 'Don't taze me, bro!' are the ones that get airtime. You never hear the story, 'suspect was successfully subdued by a taser after resisting arrest while wielding a knife.'
Re:Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain"
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 1
And if every suspect, when faced with an impending arrest, simply lied down on the street peacefully and raised their arms behind them for the handcuffs we wouldn't need tasers or guns.
Ever hear of resisting arrest? Think the officer wants to know everything a suspect might have that the suspect can try resisting with?
I have no imperical evidence to back this up, but I would imagine the odds that the random person you pass on the street has a concealed weapon are likely magnitudes lower than the odds that a random suspect in the process of being arrested has a concealed weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried reading his books?
Yes, the key word being 'tried.' Had to read Portrait for 12th grade English. It was such a heavy work, full of minutia and details, that it was very hard to pick up.
12th grade English class was fun: Portrait, Heart of Darkness, The Sound and the Fury, Wuthering Heights. I haven't slept that well prior or since.
http://scan.coverity.com/faq.html#static
Some examples of the defects include:
* leaked resources
* references to pointers that could be NULL
* references to pointers that are guaranteed to be NULL
* use of uninitialized data
* array overruns
* unsafe use of signed values
* use of resources that have been freed
It won't fix misplaced decimals (sorry Mr. Bolton), but it'll probably catch if you try sticking an item into $array[11] when you've defined @array[10].
(Yes, I know I used perl syntax which doesn't give a whit, but it's what I'm familiar with. It's the theory I'm trying to convey.)
table@diningroom:~ $ mv salt seat1 seat3
Expected magic word not found.
table@diningroom:~ $
The Office 2007 ribbon is very effective for exposing contextual functionality, but it's also capable of being a lightweight interface.
That line alone won me a round of buzz-word bingo...
We are, of course, assuming equal or greater numbers of 2007 users than 2003 users, correct?
Because if you get 10 calls from 100 Office 2007 users and 50 calls from 2000 Office 2003 users, you'd be misrepresenting the sample.
More data required is what I'm saying...
First rule of software is apparently "If it ain't broken, break it."
If they check 1 line of code every second it would take 133,101.85 years to check 11.5 billion lines of code. At 1000 lines of code every second you are looking at 133.10 years to check that much code. At 4000 lines of code every second (e.g. 4GHz) you are looking at 33.2 years to check that much code.
And if they were only using one system to do this, I'd imagine that would be a problem. I wonder, though, if you spread the processing across, oh, say, 512 processors, if you could get that time down under a month...
Same with Australia. Honestly, I don't think most people care. What percentage of people actually wins something, let alone something large enough to get that much a chunk taken out of? The rest of us are probably bitter at them and secretly get jollies off of watching the winners get reamed by the gov't. (Schaudefreude for the win!)
Seriously, people on average would rather get $75k compared to a neighbor's $50k than get $125k compared to a neighbor's $150k. They'd willingly give up 50k JUST to make more than someone. (Yes, there's a citation on this, even a /. article on it I believe, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Numbers might be off too, but the theory's the same.)
I dunno, I'd be fine with one million. Keep it in a secure location (you can afford a nice fireproof safe with that much) and just use it to augment your current lifestyle. Don't make outlandish purchases. One million in hundreds isn't that large either: http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/million/million.html
That's the rub though: being careful with it. You can't blow it on Rodeo Drive day one. Limit yourself to a grand a month and spread it around. Can probably deposit some in your normal account occassionally. Explaining 1M at once? Problem. Explaining 1M over 20, 30 years? Much easier.
I should amend this comment after doing some research:
Outside pressure is a nonissue at low altitudes. It will become an issue at high altitudes when there's just not enough air to create enough pressure inside.
There ARE sealed hard drives ( http://www.mt-optech.com/ ) but it doesn't look like you get these unless you have a damn good reason to.
Outside pressure is a nonissue. It's the inside pressure that you're worried about. The platter spinning increases the pressure and pushes air out.
Therefore, when you seal the drive, you can't reduce the inside pressure.
Now, I'm going to disclaim that this is all hypothesis, I have no citation, however it stands to reason that this equilibrium between air pressure and volume plays a role in how hard drives work or else manufacturers would not have included a vent in the first place.
It's way too small to provide any cooling functionality, thus the only possible reason I can see it being there is to deal with pressure changes and since outside pressure is a constant (relatively) that leaves inside pressure as the issue.
Well, maybe not that persay, but smoke particles are small enough to get through the filter on the hard drive.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/115859.html
Yeah, we broke slashdot's threading...
Anyway, filters don't work if the particles are smaller than air, which works well enough in general for dust, but many smoke particles are smaller than air molecules (ok, N2 and O2).
Smoke = HD killer.
Wow, epic reply fail... Plus side, found a better link.
Short answer: Yes!
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/115859.html
Yes, but filters do not seal a hard drive. Sealed means nothing gets in, nothing gets out.
Filters say "this can go in and out, but nothing larger."
The problem when we add helium to the mix is it has the tendancy to head skywards and not come back down, so if you make your filter fine enough to only allow helium to pass in or out (let's assume for the sake of argument this is possible) then as pressure increases inside, helium is pushed out. This helium, having free reign over it's journey now, floats up and out.
Now, when the pressure drops in the HD, there's nothing to replenish the volume.
Why do you think people are told not to smoke around hard drives?
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/smoke-damages-and-hard-drive-recovery.html
Wouldn't work without a major redesign. Hard drives aren't sealed to the outside world; there has to be an equilibrium between air pressure and volume.
You'd somehow have to work out a closed system for a hard drive possibly leading to some sort of bladder to allow helium to leave and return the main hard drive chassis while not being vented to the outside world.
Ease of use, thermal properties, temperature and aesthetics I don't see ever coming under the realm of legislation. Not on the physical device. What's at stake here is the rights a user has to something they purchase AFTER SALE. You're repairing YOUR coffee maker, that you chose on the aforementioned characteristics.
There's ample precidence in this country allowing the end user to do whatever the hell they want with the product once purchased. (Right of first sale for one example.)
When the company actively impedes efforts by the end user to do what they want to the product after sale, they're no longer selling a product, they're selling a service, or worse: a licence.
Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
What if the government legislation is explicitly written to allow modifications to coffee makers? Consider: you figure out a way to mod your coffee machine to make it more efficient or hotter or percolate better.
In the system you describe, companies could easily end up licencing your coffee machine to you instead of you outright owning your device making any beneficial change you make their property. Or worse, prosecute you for tampering with their device (you had to reverse engineer that coffee maker, didn't you?), even in a beneficial way.
If there's no government intervention, what's to stop them from asserting rights like that? And before you blindly answer, "Companies can't assert rights like that," consider where the laws come from that SAY they can't. Legislation is sometimes required to give rights, not just take them away.
Essentially, this bill is determining what an end user has rights to once a product is purchased. Not on the details of the product before.
IF we have complete control over our purchases after sale, then we need to know what the diagnostic codes translate to, because that is part of what we purchased. If we are not allowed to have these diagnostic codes, however, then we have lost rights to what we have purchased and are at the mercy of the corporation that sold it.
That's a poor analogy.
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
You SHOULD be able to fix your own coffee maker and not be forced by some DRM lock-in to take it to this specific certified repairman.
Middle schools do not always provide those. In my case we had to get our own gym outfits and combination locks.
The RIAA didn't become the "big bad meanies" because of going after copyright infringers.
They got that title through their strong arm tactics, legal arguments, twisted logic, abuse of the justice system, extortion... well, pretty much everything associated with how they operate these cases.
Contrast the above to how this infringement was handled.
I see no moral conflict here.
In defense of the article, it's not imbibing these germs, it's inhaling them. The force of the water coming out spreads the bugs around getting them into the air which you breathe in. I'd wager, without bothering to look it up, that either HCl is not a plesent environment for these or they just can't attach to anything in the digestive system as opposed to the resporatory system.
The problem with all these analogies is Microsoft DID put a long warranty on XP, and SP2 is still covered.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=8&y=10&C2=1173
So the analogy here is, you buy a car. The manufacturer offers a 15 year warranty. 10 years in they find a flaw, they don't fix it and instead tell you to take it to a third party mechanic for a workaround at which point you find some lawyers and sue their contract breaching butt into next year.
this is mostly about the world seeing how US cops are taser-happy and at the same time protected from investigation when something goes wrong, not about whether police should be allowed to use tasers or not
Of course, the small subset of incidents that result in 'Don't taze me, bro!' are the ones that get airtime. You never hear the story, 'suspect was successfully subdued by a taser after resisting arrest while wielding a knife.'
And if every suspect, when faced with an impending arrest, simply lied down on the street peacefully and raised their arms behind them for the handcuffs we wouldn't need tasers or guns.
Ever hear of resisting arrest? Think the officer wants to know everything a suspect might have that the suspect can try resisting with?
I have no imperical evidence to back this up, but I would imagine the odds that the random person you pass on the street has a concealed weapon are likely magnitudes lower than the odds that a random suspect in the process of being arrested has a concealed weapon.