It does make some sense in a way: most, if not all, of the U.S. power grid is heavily interconnected and controlled by networked computer. If the computer network would be compromised, and this is much "safer" and easier than physically severing connections, it would actually be rather simple to induce a cascade failure that takes down a significant portion of the nationwide grid. It is even possible that the cascade could be designed to significantly overload substations and interconnects past what the breakers are designed to handle, making it much easier to destroy essential equipment.
That doesn't hide the fact that there is almost no physical security pretty much anywhere other than the actual power generation facilities, but it is an area where concern should be had.
And the "article" was misconstruing the actual research. The actual study didn't say RADIANT heat from the Earth somehow magically went through the vacuum of space. The latent heat of the impact could very well keep many silicate minerals in a gaseous form on early Earth though.
The study indicates that mathematically, higher levels of reflected solar radiation ("Earthshine") - which again, could be possible with post-impact silicate gas atmospheric compositions - contributed to the side that always faces the earth, while the side that only faces the sun had much less solar radiation heat input so cooled much faster.
I know this is/. , but god damn, read the fucking summary at least.
Oh, and your analogy is flawed as well:
Until the mid 1980s, computers were used via terminals. The company would have one computer used by dozens of people. Obviously, one person shouldn't be able to mess with a different person's files, processes, etc. Since these computers were used over a network, they ran a network operating system such as Unix...... Consider also my use case, the model that probably should be used by anyone who actually cares about the security of certain files. I don't decrypt and mount my most confidential information every time I want to read Slashdot or XKCD. I mount my encrypted volumes only when I need to access those confidential files. So 99% of the time, my computer is -running- and those files are completely -inaccessible- . A Flash exploit which provides access to my machine shouldn't mean they have access to my encrypted file system, which I haven't opened since July.
First: these "exploits" being mentioned require someone have access to the system already (in other words you are boned from the beginning). In your analogy this would be someone looking over your shoulder when you log into your terminal session and copying down your username and password, then later logging in to see / copy your files.
Secondly: if you would bother to take the time to read TFS you would realize that the entire second half of what you posted is exactly how truecrypt volumes are working right now. As of right now there are no known vulnerabilities or exploits to read (or write) usable data from an UNMOUNTED truecrypt volume.
Should heavily pro-AGW academics be allowed to remove any references to critics of anthropogenic climate change?
Is there any repeatable and testable data sets that argue against AGW?
No, there is only hand-waving and vague ideas that have already been incorporated into current and past working models? Then you mention the doubters in a brief passage and actually teach science .
As for the rest of the drivel, that is exactly why there should be a mixed board reviewing what is being taught, so bullshit without fact can be caught and stomped out. As a matter of fact, without a review and fact checking body, it is more likely that your examples can happen.
You can now contribute to VS Code: Submit bugs and help us verify fixes as they are checked in. Review the source code changes. Contribute bug fixes through pull requests. Update and add to the documentation.
Anyways, joking aside, it's cool that stuff is being released in a more open way than it was traditionally with Microsoft. Hopefully they will keep up the trend and not revert to their old ways.
Umm, you are aware that we are talking about the "Surface Pro", not the discontinued "Surface" that came with the crippled ARM version of Windows right? Pretty sure the worst processor you can get on the cheapest pro4 is a m3 / i3, or for ~100$ more an i5, with options to get an i7. RAM and HDD specs are pretty similar to my Macbook Pro as well, with lowest being 4GB RAM / 128GB ssd.
It's basically a desktop in tablet form with an optional keyboard case ( no idea how good / bad these are, but can't be worse than some of the bluetooth crap that gets peddled for Android / iOS tablets).
I will also admit I don't know what real usage battery life is like on these either, but if it is in the 6-8 hour range it could be a pretty damn nice machine. If I was in the market for something new I would definitely check into it some more since at first glance the specs are pretty decent, but the machines I have now serve me well enough.
If it can't do everything a desktop can do, people are going to need the desktop.
Neither can my Macbook Pro ( or Windows / Linux laptops ) since laptop GFX cards suck compared to Desktop GFX cards. Should I throw out all of my laptops since obviously a desktop is better?
Guess what I usually use my laptops for.... Office apps, some games, and some more demanding programs like Lightroom / PS.
A surface Pro would work just as well as any of the laptops I use on the go, better in some cases because of the digitizer and pen.
In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.
Actually reactor 3 more than likely could have cooled itself. The problem was that the operator took power levels down way below what the tests had been designed for, and then tried to overcompensate for the xenon core poisoning by retracting way too many control rods manually to raise power levels instead of doing the sane thing and aborting the test and finishing with a full shutdown.
That said, the reactor did have some rather large design flaws that after the initial operator error that lead it to an extremely out of spec state allowed it to cascade out of control, but it should not have ever encountered those states in normal operating conditions.
Operator error does not indicate an underlying test failure of the base principle being tested. It merely indicates a point of failure other than what was meant to be tested.
For all we know right now, the train could have been going exactly the speed that was calculated as safe for the tracks being tested, but some unforeseen variable contraindicated that speed being safe in real life conditions.
Only if all of you non-American English speakers stop adding "u"'s to every damn thing you can fit them in...
That said, this is the name of a law. Laws seem to have a few quirks in naming conventions, possibly stemming from the date they have been first written.
There are no technical limitations other than artificial ones in this case. If their network can't handle the traffic after using QoS, then it only means they should have taken at least a small portion of the utterly fucking massive profits they rake in on service charges and stuck some back into the network.
That's it, end of story. Period.
The whole shitstorm of carriers not wanting to offer unlimited anymore is because they realized they would have to actually spend money on infrastructure since they vastly over-estimated what their shitty network could handle. But it is easier to gouge more money out of customers for less services sold.... and the best thing? You don't have to SPEND any money. At all.
No one said ARM would instantly replace X86 hardware, there would be no reason for it.
But software will follow hardware, if Intel _would_ suddenly, or even over a period of time, increase prices to an extreme amount both companies and consumers would opt for the much cheaper alternatives that would crop up. Especially companies, once the price points of hardware outweighed the cost of porting to a new architecture... it's porting time. And once companies start switching it will trickle down to consumers faster and faster, much like how windows is used the most common in business and so is also most used commonly in the home since it is what the PC purchasers were familiar with.
Basically you have the time T1, the span of time where prices start to increase to the breaking point and the time T2, the span of time from the price breaking point, where life of the hardware in use should last. T1 + T2 would be years, possibly up to a decade or longer depending on hardware stockpiles.
That is more than enough time for things to be ported. Even if it was a short lead up time, I am very sure Microsoft and Apple, much less Linux, would have very little trouble coming up with something like Rosetta, the program that let Power architecture Mac software run on Intel Macs on their own OS.
I do dread the day when Intel becomes the sole x86 - vendor and can practically demand whatever they want, do whatever they want and laugh all the way to the bank.
The likelihood of that happening now is actually fairly small. ARM chips these days are getting pretty decent, with some ARM servers even being looked at for datacenters. If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM.
Add in that there is already a - rather crippled right now, but easily open-able - version of Windows that runs on ARM, as well as many Linux distros and O/S.X builds that run on ARM.... it would be pretty much a death sentence for Intel and X86. There might be some pain at first for hardware integrators, but with what is already out there right now, it wouldn't be impossible to phase out ( majorly expensive ) Intel X86_64 systems for ARM systems in a short amount of time.
If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM. Then Intel would be relegated to the high end server market, until ARM or another architecture ( IBM ramps up POWER CPU, someone releases cheap OpenSPARC chips ETC ) and either forces them down in price or just outcompetes them from the market.
What would be truly interesting would be if you could get an ARM system that can use all of your existing external peripherals I.E. PCI / PCIE addon cards. You could run a few "high end" cores for stuff that is good for single threading, and have tons of lower / slower cores you can dynamically power up for stuff that benefits from massive parallelization, all in approximately the same thermal envelope as X86.
I keep the systems configured so that in the event of a complete power outage, EVERYTHING must come back up without any intervention required. This is saves a lot of explaining when it's time to put out a fire and -- oh shit, the admin forgot to document how to get everything back up and running when somebody crashed their car into a nearby transformer and the UPS failed to signal the diesel generator to start, and now we're spending 3 days trying to get shit working again because the guy who set it all up quit about 5 months earlier. (Yes, I've seen exactly this happen before.)
It's called disaster recovery. Any, and I mean any, system engineer / admin should be testing for situations like these regularly. Especially simulated long term power outages. For example: you really REALLY don't want to find out you have a shit bank of batteries that can't last the X number of seconds it takes the backup generator to start and spin up to stable power output as a surprise. Or worst case scenario the backup generator doesn't even start. These kind of things need to be known immediately.
Not only testing, but if there isn't a "disaster bible" both written and kept current for the place you are working at, that is available to all of your main system admins / reboot monkeys you should RUN, not walk for the exits and a better job.
Isn't it distro specific? I.E., if I remember correctly, most distros set an alias "rm" to "rm --preserve-root" in.bashrc so the command gets called to preserve root by default and needing --no-preserve-root explicitly called if you REALLY want to delete / for some reason?
Not only that, but we are almost always writing for a specific targeted audience, not the general public.
It would be horribly boring to read papers written in the field you are studying if they all explained the same thing over and over again as half of the papers content. Well written papers will explain less common jargon / terms once, the first time they are used, while not having to explain common jargon to the field.
I for one don't want to write to the lowest common denominator about my research. I write so other people in the field will be able to look at my work and see how it fits in with all the other research that has been done, as well as give them ideas as to what they could research next.
I don't care if some random person from the general public doesn't understand what I am writing about, as it really has no effect on them. They can either 1: not understand what I am writing about, or 2: make the effort to understand what I am writing about ( you know, actually LEARN something by doing further research ).
Either that or they realized that, like the AC below me in this thread said, whoever they lost after FFX / FFX-2 was vital to the series. From FFXII onward the stories are weaker, and the battle systems and / or gameplay are absolute shit . In a series as long running as Final Fantasy it is practically always suicide to make huge deviations like Square/Enix did; you will almost NEVER attract new gamers into the series that late, and you will lose the hardcore fan following. The chance that you actually improve on the old system with the new ( completely different, not just tweaked ) system is very slim.
That was the main complaints about XII and XIII, 12 the battle system was completely changed from all main series systems, and the main complaint was that it didn't even feel like a Final Fantasy game. The story was also pretty weak, and the characters just didn't grow on many people.
13 had a pretty decent story, and generally likable characters, but you literally ran along hallways between battles and cutscenes. The cutscenes and game looked great, but the play was rather... well boring. It just didn't feel worth it to slog through the "game play" just to get the advanced story when you could eventually go on youtube and watch the cutscene videos that covered the vast majority of the story.
Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
There are some studies ( and more that are needed ) that show that people living in areas with a "high" ( at least higher than normal ) background radiation have a significantly reduced risk of cancer over-all. Whether that is from the elevated radiation levels destroying mutations faster than they form, or an evolutionary process where people with resistance to genetic mutations that lead to cancer survive to make up the population is what is being looked into.
I personally don't think that it is the evolutionary process, at least not predominantly. Usually fatal cancers from radiation show up after decades, long enough for people to reach breeding age and reproduce. That said, it's not impossible though.
Therefore, spending $1 billion to buy a company worth less than $1B HURTS the company's value. See HP for some dramatic examples.
Not always true. For one example: Company A buys company B for $2.2B, but company B is only "worth" $2B. You say company A is taking a $200M loss. Looks bad at the outset, but looks can be deceiving... read on:
But what if Company B had the potential to be a $4B value, but lacked, say for the sake of argument, $800M to ramp up production. Then Company A, that has the capital, would GAIN $1B for their investment ( 2.2B + 0.8B = $3B spent for a $4B company ). I would consider this a "good deal" on the purchase, even if it LOOKS bad at the outset.
The Win10 "upgrade" shouldn't affect a Linux install at all.
I don't know about on other machines, but on my laptop the upgrade didn't even touch the grub install. Grub was still installed and booting both partitions, both after I "upgraded" to Win10 and when I "downgraded" the partition back to Win8.1. And here I never thought I would say switching to Winows 8.x would be an upgrade....
Simple, the Kernel does one thing, that being be a kernel. Same with X11, it is a display server. They both do the ONE thing that they were designed to do, and do it well.... in the case of X11 it is debatable, but you can usually get some form of display running even if it is horribly inefficient. The UNIX philosophy is looked at two ways: 1 - many smaller programs that can be combined to do a task. OR 2 - do one thing and do it well.
SystemD, what started out as an init system + service manager ( see how it's doing more than one thing from the get-go? ), now does init + service manager + DHCP + NTP + login + its own fucked up form of journaling + who the fuck knows what else was thrown in recently.
Bit of a difference there, no? And it's not like you can easily ( as far as I know anyways* ) pick and choose what "modular" parts you use without recompiling the whole damn thing. That also means any vulnerability in say NTP would require a full on recompile of the whole source instead of the "modular" NTP portion only.
*If it's not true, I would appreciate getting pointed in the right direction to see where I may be wrong...
It's an interesting study, but just by looking at the methodology in the abstract there are a few things that pop out as mildly suspicious immediately:
1: No mention of prior healthcare records from the subjects studied. If a large portion of the subjects didn't have healthcare prior to gas and oil field work provided insurance it will definitely impact how the pregnancy progresses. There was also no mention of what, if any, jobs these women were performing during pregnancy, how many drank alcohol or consumed other street drugs while pregnant, or incidence rates of other known pregnancy affecting actions.
2: Again, from the abstract only - they didn't provide so much as a ratio equating pregnancy outcomes from this area pre-gas boom. They do have some sort of non-defined ratios that are "adjusted", but don't tell what they are adjust TO. Is it pre-gas boom pregnancies at those localities or is it against nationwide pregnancies?
3: There are weasel words in the abstract. Stating something may affect something means your study was either flawed or inconclusive, and the authors are trying to weasel their way out of saying that they can't really support what they are saying.
4: There is nothing in the abstract that states a hypothesis as to WHY living near an active gas extraction zone would cause changes in pregnancy progression, hence the weasel words. The authors can't support that living near gas extraction causes the effects observed in the study, only that the findings in this particular study CORRELATE earlier than "normal" deliveries near site for the data set examined.
Now maybe the paper addresses these specific issues, but I don't have the time right now to track down if my University Library has access to this particular Journal so that I can read the whole paper.
Umm, no. The heavy users will pay the extra $20 and keep being heavy users since there is nowhere else they can go for the same price service, meanwhile the vast majority of grandfathered in users that I have talked to ( and I was one myself for many a year ) keep the unlimited data "in case of emergency" I.E. their internet at home goes down. Verizon will lose the people who didn't use an excessive amount of data, while STILL having to keep the big users.
It's lose / lose. The customers lose their "safety net" and go somewhere else with cheaper data plans, and Verizon loses loyal customers ( all grandfathered in people have been with Verizon for more than a few years ). Verizon also gets bad PR, and bad word of mouth from the once loyal customers, who previously probably extolled the virtues of VZW.
A happy long term customer is worth a LOT more than a new signed customer. You know the long term customer is going to stay if you keep with the times and don't try to screw them over, you also know they will pay their bills, and probably recommend you to friends and family. VZW should really learn this, the old steady customer is worth a lot more in the long turn than possibly flaky "carrier switching cruisers".
U.S. Cellular roams off of Verizon towers, and vice versa. I switched about 2 years ago from Verizon, where I had the grandfathered unlimited data plan... and had been a Verizon customer for 10+ years, when they wouldn't let me upgrade phones without either losing my unlimited data plan or paying $600+ for a phone.
U.S. Cellular _IS_ a little spottier in some very remote areas of my state, and roams on VZW towers anywhere ~1-2 hours north of my hometown, but otherwise is pretty comparable to VZW coverage... with a ~30+% reduction in my bill every month.
Choice? Options? These people were going to leave kernel dev anyway, now we get to see them try something new. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but what's the harm in trying?
The way I read it was thus: Dev - this Idea sounds pretty rad, here is some code, merge it into the mainline kernel.
Linus - this doesn't fit with the direction I see the kernel going in
Then come the big DUMBASS moment, the Dev, instead of saying "OK I will build a branch like the mm-kernel branch ETC" and then shows how his code both works with the kernel without breaking stuff and proves that there are real world advantages to his inclusions, but instead screams out " you all are big meanies", then essentially steals a clone of Linus' ball, goes and sets up a "fork" that is completely separated from the mainline kernel devs and feels smug "because he knows better than Linus" what the kernel needs.
Hell, even providing a branch with his contributions on github without all the histrionics would be fine, but that wouldn't get nearly as much attention as whining about Linus " being a big meanie with BSD hatred / envy".
Slashdot Mirror
It does make some sense in a way: most, if not all, of the U.S. power grid is heavily interconnected and controlled by networked computer. If the computer network would be compromised, and this is much "safer" and easier than physically severing connections, it would actually be rather simple to induce a cascade failure that takes down a significant portion of the nationwide grid. It is even possible that the cascade could be designed to significantly overload substations and interconnects past what the breakers are designed to handle, making it much easier to destroy essential equipment.
That doesn't hide the fact that there is almost no physical security pretty much anywhere other than the actual power generation facilities, but it is an area where concern should be had.
And the "article" was misconstruing the actual research. The actual study didn't say RADIANT heat from the Earth somehow magically went through the vacuum of space. The latent heat of the impact could very well keep many silicate minerals in a gaseous form on early Earth though.
The study indicates that mathematically, higher levels of reflected solar radiation ("Earthshine") - which again, could be possible with post-impact silicate gas atmospheric compositions - contributed to the side that always faces the earth, while the side that only faces the sun had much less solar radiation heat input so cooled much faster.
I know this is /. , but god damn, read the fucking summary at least.
Oh, and your analogy is flawed as well:
Until the mid 1980s, computers were used via terminals. The company would have one computer used by dozens of people. Obviously, one person shouldn't be able to mess with a different person's files, processes, etc. Since these computers were used over a network, they ran a network operating system such as Unix...... Consider also my use case, the model that probably should be used by anyone who actually cares about the security of certain files. I don't decrypt and mount my most confidential information every time I want to read Slashdot or XKCD. I mount my encrypted volumes only when I need to access those confidential files. So 99% of the time, my computer is -running- and those files are completely -inaccessible- . A Flash exploit which provides access to my machine shouldn't mean they have access to my encrypted file system, which I haven't opened since July.
First: these "exploits" being mentioned require someone have access to the system already (in other words you are boned from the beginning). In your analogy this would be someone looking over your shoulder when you log into your terminal session and copying down your username and password, then later logging in to see / copy your files.
Secondly: if you would bother to take the time to read TFS you would realize that the entire second half of what you posted is exactly how truecrypt volumes are working right now. As of right now there are no known vulnerabilities or exploits to read (or write) usable data from an UNMOUNTED truecrypt volume.
Should heavily pro-AGW academics be allowed to remove any references to critics of anthropogenic climate change?
Is there any repeatable and testable data sets that argue against AGW?
No, there is only hand-waving and vague ideas that have already been incorporated into current and past working models? Then you mention the doubters in a brief passage and actually teach science .
As for the rest of the drivel, that is exactly why there should be a mixed board reviewing what is being taught, so bullshit without fact can be caught and stomped out. As a matter of fact, without a review and fact checking body, it is more likely that your examples can happen.
You can now contribute to VS Code:
Submit bugs and help us verify fixes as they are checked in.
Review the source code changes.
Contribute bug fixes through pull requests.
Update and add to the documentation.
Anyways, joking aside, it's cool that stuff is being released in a more open way than it was traditionally with Microsoft. Hopefully they will keep up the trend and not revert to their old ways.
Umm, you are aware that we are talking about the "Surface Pro", not the discontinued "Surface" that came with the crippled ARM version of Windows right? Pretty sure the worst processor you can get on the cheapest pro4 is a m3 / i3, or for ~100$ more an i5, with options to get an i7. RAM and HDD specs are pretty similar to my Macbook Pro as well, with lowest being 4GB RAM / 128GB ssd.
It's basically a desktop in tablet form with an optional keyboard case ( no idea how good / bad these are, but can't be worse than some of the bluetooth crap that gets peddled for Android / iOS tablets).
I will also admit I don't know what real usage battery life is like on these either, but if it is in the 6-8 hour range it could be a pretty damn nice machine. If I was in the market for something new I would definitely check into it some more since at first glance the specs are pretty decent, but the machines I have now serve me well enough.
If it can't do everything a desktop can do, people are going to need the desktop.
Neither can my Macbook Pro ( or Windows / Linux laptops ) since laptop GFX cards suck compared to Desktop GFX cards. Should I throw out all of my laptops since obviously a desktop is better?
Guess what I usually use my laptops for.... Office apps, some games, and some more demanding programs like Lightroom / PS.
A surface Pro would work just as well as any of the laptops I use on the go, better in some cases because of the digitizer and pen.
In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.
Actually reactor 3 more than likely could have cooled itself. The problem was that the operator took power levels down way below what the tests had been designed for, and then tried to overcompensate for the xenon core poisoning by retracting way too many control rods manually to raise power levels instead of doing the sane thing and aborting the test and finishing with a full shutdown.
That said, the reactor did have some rather large design flaws that after the initial operator error that lead it to an extremely out of spec state allowed it to cascade out of control, but it should not have ever encountered those states in normal operating conditions.
Operator error does not indicate an underlying test failure of the base principle being tested. It merely indicates a point of failure other than what was meant to be tested.
For all we know right now, the train could have been going exactly the speed that was calculated as safe for the tracks being tested, but some unforeseen variable contraindicated that speed being safe in real life conditions.
Only if all of you non-American English speakers stop adding "u"'s to every damn thing you can fit them in...
That said, this is the name of a law. Laws seem to have a few quirks in naming conventions, possibly stemming from the date they have been first written.
There are no technical limitations other than artificial ones in this case. If their network can't handle the traffic after using QoS, then it only means they should have taken at least a small portion of the utterly fucking massive profits they rake in on service charges and stuck some back into the network.
That's it, end of story. Period.
The whole shitstorm of carriers not wanting to offer unlimited anymore is because they realized they would have to actually spend money on infrastructure since they vastly over-estimated what their shitty network could handle. But it is easier to gouge more money out of customers for less services sold.... and the best thing? You don't have to SPEND any money. At all.
No one said ARM would instantly replace X86 hardware, there would be no reason for it.
But software will follow hardware, if Intel _would_ suddenly, or even over a period of time, increase prices to an extreme amount both companies and consumers would opt for the much cheaper alternatives that would crop up. Especially companies, once the price points of hardware outweighed the cost of porting to a new architecture... it's porting time. And once companies start switching it will trickle down to consumers faster and faster, much like how windows is used the most common in business and so is also most used commonly in the home since it is what the PC purchasers were familiar with.
Basically you have the time T1, the span of time where prices start to increase to the breaking point and the time T2, the span of time from the price breaking point, where life of the hardware in use should last. T1 + T2 would be years, possibly up to a decade or longer depending on hardware stockpiles.
That is more than enough time for things to be ported. Even if it was a short lead up time, I am very sure Microsoft and Apple, much less Linux, would have very little trouble coming up with something like Rosetta, the program that let Power architecture Mac software run on Intel Macs on their own OS.
I do dread the day when Intel becomes the sole x86 - vendor and can practically demand whatever they want, do whatever they want and laugh all the way to the bank.
The likelihood of that happening now is actually fairly small. ARM chips these days are getting pretty decent, with some ARM servers even being looked at for datacenters. If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM.
Add in that there is already a - rather crippled right now, but easily open-able - version of Windows that runs on ARM, as well as many Linux distros and O/S.X builds that run on ARM.... it would be pretty much a death sentence for Intel and X86. There might be some pain at first for hardware integrators, but with what is already out there right now, it wouldn't be impossible to phase out ( majorly expensive ) Intel X86_64 systems for ARM systems in a short amount of time.
If Intel jacks up the prices System vendors will just move to ARM. Then Intel would be relegated to the high end server market, until ARM or another architecture ( IBM ramps up POWER CPU, someone releases cheap OpenSPARC chips ETC ) and either forces them down in price or just outcompetes them from the market.
What would be truly interesting would be if you could get an ARM system that can use all of your existing external peripherals I.E. PCI / PCIE addon cards. You could run a few "high end" cores for stuff that is good for single threading, and have tons of lower / slower cores you can dynamically power up for stuff that benefits from massive parallelization, all in approximately the same thermal envelope as X86.
I keep the systems configured so that in the event of a complete power outage, EVERYTHING must come back up without any intervention required. This is saves a lot of explaining when it's time to put out a fire and -- oh shit, the admin forgot to document how to get everything back up and running when somebody crashed their car into a nearby transformer and the UPS failed to signal the diesel generator to start, and now we're spending 3 days trying to get shit working again because the guy who set it all up quit about 5 months earlier. (Yes, I've seen exactly this happen before.)
It's called disaster recovery. Any, and I mean any, system engineer / admin should be testing for situations like these regularly. Especially simulated long term power outages. For example: you really REALLY don't want to find out you have a shit bank of batteries that can't last the X number of seconds it takes the backup generator to start and spin up to stable power output as a surprise. Or worst case scenario the backup generator doesn't even start. These kind of things need to be known immediately.
Not only testing, but if there isn't a "disaster bible" both written and kept current for the place you are working at, that is available to all of your main system admins / reboot monkeys you should RUN, not walk for the exits and a better job.
Isn't it distro specific? I.E., if I remember correctly, most distros set an alias "rm" to "rm --preserve-root" in .bashrc so the command gets called to preserve root by default and needing --no-preserve-root explicitly called if you REALLY want to delete / for some reason?
Not only that, but we are almost always writing for a specific targeted audience, not the general public.
It would be horribly boring to read papers written in the field you are studying if they all explained the same thing over and over again as half of the papers content. Well written papers will explain less common jargon / terms once, the first time they are used, while not having to explain common jargon to the field.
I for one don't want to write to the lowest common denominator about my research. I write so other people in the field will be able to look at my work and see how it fits in with all the other research that has been done, as well as give them ideas as to what they could research next.
I don't care if some random person from the general public doesn't understand what I am writing about, as it really has no effect on them. They can either 1: not understand what I am writing about, or 2: make the effort to understand what I am writing about ( you know, actually LEARN something by doing further research ).
Either that or they realized that, like the AC below me in this thread said, whoever they lost after FFX / FFX-2 was vital to the series. From FFXII onward the stories are weaker, and the battle systems and / or gameplay are absolute shit . In a series as long running as Final Fantasy it is practically always suicide to make huge deviations like Square/Enix did; you will almost NEVER attract new gamers into the series that late, and you will lose the hardcore fan following. The chance that you actually improve on the old system with the new ( completely different, not just tweaked ) system is very slim.
That was the main complaints about XII and XIII, 12 the battle system was completely changed from all main series systems, and the main complaint was that it didn't even feel like a Final Fantasy game. The story was also pretty weak, and the characters just didn't grow on many people.
13 had a pretty decent story, and generally likable characters, but you literally ran along hallways between battles and cutscenes. The cutscenes and game looked great, but the play was rather... well boring. It just didn't feel worth it to slog through the "game play" just to get the advanced story when you could eventually go on youtube and watch the cutscene videos that covered the vast majority of the story.
Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
There are some studies ( and more that are needed ) that show that people living in areas with a "high" ( at least higher than normal ) background radiation have a significantly reduced risk of cancer over-all.
Whether that is from the elevated radiation levels destroying mutations faster than they form, or an evolutionary process where people with resistance to genetic mutations that lead to cancer survive to make up the population is what is being looked into.
I personally don't think that it is the evolutionary process, at least not predominantly. Usually fatal cancers from radiation show up after decades, long enough for people to reach breeding age and reproduce. That said, it's not impossible though.
Therefore, spending $1 billion to buy a company worth less than $1B HURTS the company's value. See HP for some dramatic examples.
Not always true. For one example: Company A buys company B for $2.2B, but company B is only "worth" $2B. You say company A is taking a $200M loss. Looks bad at the outset, but looks can be deceiving... read on:
But what if Company B had the potential to be a $4B value, but lacked, say for the sake of argument, $800M to ramp up production. Then Company A, that has the capital, would GAIN $1B for their investment ( 2.2B + 0.8B = $3B spent for a $4B company ). I would consider this a "good deal" on the purchase, even if it LOOKS bad at the outset.
Shouldn't
rm -r --no-preserve-root
still work?
The Win10 "upgrade" shouldn't affect a Linux install at all.
I don't know about on other machines, but on my laptop the upgrade didn't even touch the grub install. Grub was still installed and booting both partitions, both after I "upgraded" to Win10 and when I "downgraded" the partition back to Win8.1. And here I never thought I would say switching to Winows 8.x would be an upgrade....
Simple, the Kernel does one thing, that being be a kernel. Same with X11, it is a display server. They both do the ONE thing that they were designed to do, and do it well.... in the case of X11 it is debatable, but you can usually get some form of display running even if it is horribly inefficient. The UNIX philosophy is looked at two ways:
1 - many smaller programs that can be combined to do a task.
OR
2 - do one thing and do it well.
SystemD, what started out as an init system + service manager ( see how it's doing more than one thing from the get-go? ), now does init + service manager + DHCP + NTP + login + its own fucked up form of journaling + who the fuck knows what else was thrown in recently.
Bit of a difference there, no? And it's not like you can easily ( as far as I know anyways* ) pick and choose what "modular" parts you use without recompiling the whole damn thing. That also means any vulnerability in say NTP would require a full on recompile of the whole source instead of the "modular" NTP portion only.
*If it's not true, I would appreciate getting pointed in the right direction to see where I may be wrong...
It's an interesting study, but just by looking at the methodology in the abstract there are a few things that pop out as mildly suspicious immediately:
1: No mention of prior healthcare records from the subjects studied. If a large portion of the subjects didn't have healthcare prior to gas and oil field work provided insurance it will definitely impact how the pregnancy progresses. There was also no mention of what, if any, jobs these women were performing during pregnancy, how many drank alcohol or consumed other street drugs while pregnant, or incidence rates of other known pregnancy affecting actions.
2: Again, from the abstract only - they didn't provide so much as a ratio equating pregnancy outcomes from this area pre-gas boom. They do have some sort of non-defined ratios that are "adjusted", but don't tell what they are adjust TO. Is it pre-gas boom pregnancies at those localities or is it against nationwide pregnancies?
3: There are weasel words in the abstract. Stating something may affect something means your study was either flawed or inconclusive, and the authors are trying to weasel their way out of saying that they can't really support what they are saying.
4: There is nothing in the abstract that states a hypothesis as to WHY living near an active gas extraction zone would cause changes in pregnancy progression, hence the weasel words. The authors can't support that living near gas extraction causes the effects observed in the study, only that the findings in this particular study CORRELATE earlier than "normal" deliveries near site for the data set examined.
Now maybe the paper addresses these specific issues, but I don't have the time right now to track down if my University Library has access to this particular Journal so that I can read the whole paper.
Umm, no. The heavy users will pay the extra $20 and keep being heavy users since there is nowhere else they can go for the same price service, meanwhile the vast majority of grandfathered in users that I have talked to ( and I was one myself for many a year ) keep the unlimited data "in case of emergency" I.E. their internet at home goes down. Verizon will lose the people who didn't use an excessive amount of data, while STILL having to keep the big users.
It's lose / lose. The customers lose their "safety net" and go somewhere else with cheaper data plans, and Verizon loses loyal customers ( all grandfathered in people have been with Verizon for more than a few years ). Verizon also gets bad PR, and bad word of mouth from the once loyal customers, who previously probably extolled the virtues of VZW.
A happy long term customer is worth a LOT more than a new signed customer. You know the long term customer is going to stay if you keep with the times and don't try to screw them over, you also know they will pay their bills, and probably recommend you to friends and family. VZW should really learn this, the old steady customer is worth a lot more in the long turn than possibly flaky "carrier switching cruisers".
U.S. Cellular roams off of Verizon towers, and vice versa. I switched about 2 years ago from Verizon, where I had the grandfathered unlimited data plan... and had been a Verizon customer for 10+ years, when they wouldn't let me upgrade phones without either losing my unlimited data plan or paying $600+ for a phone.
U.S. Cellular _IS_ a little spottier in some very remote areas of my state, and roams on VZW towers anywhere ~1-2 hours north of my hometown, but otherwise is pretty comparable to VZW coverage... with a ~30+% reduction in my bill every month.
Choice? Options? These people were going to leave kernel dev anyway, now we get to see them try something new. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but what's the harm in trying?
The way I read it was thus:
Dev - this Idea sounds pretty rad, here is some code, merge it into the mainline kernel.
Linus - this doesn't fit with the direction I see the kernel going in
Then come the big DUMBASS moment, the Dev, instead of saying "OK I will build a branch like the mm-kernel branch ETC" and then shows how his code both works with the kernel without breaking stuff and proves that there are real world advantages to his inclusions, but instead screams out " you all are big meanies", then essentially steals a clone of Linus' ball, goes and sets up a "fork" that is completely separated from the mainline kernel devs and feels smug "because he knows better than Linus" what the kernel needs.
Hell, even providing a branch with his contributions on github without all the histrionics would be fine, but that wouldn't get nearly as much attention as whining about Linus " being a big meanie with BSD hatred / envy".