Business are REQUIRED to take cash. This includes such things as apartment rental fees. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In the rent direction, if you try to pay in cash and the owner declines, for several months, and then tries to take you to court or evict over failure to pay rent, the judge will laugh the case out of court. I've heard at least one such story. The owner wound up having to null out the past debt, too.
I did watch the video. All he really said about the matter is that other SCMs, you don't always get back what you put in. The only other marginally related thing was at the end of the talk (40 minutes later!) about git using the SHA-1 hashes to verify the integrity. Ok, so git verifies the integrity, but that still does not demonstrate how other SCMs corrupt data. (I am not going to count filesystem corruption against the SCM, either. There are a few filesystems that regularly check the integrity of the data stored on them, which is one way to counteract this problem.)
You're trying to make a persuasive argument that using SVN is a bad choice, and the only thing you have provided to back that claim up is a video of Linus saying the exact same statement you made. So far, I have not found any evidence to back up this argument.
I'm going to guess your (and Linus') reasoning is that because git has the SHA-1 hashes, and checks them, that you get the same data out as you put in. I have not seen anything that ensures that git will not silently overwrite or discard data in the case that there is a hash collision.
Yes, the probability is small, but that does not mean you can ignore it completely. There is a small probability that a hard drive will be DOA (yes, gigantic compared to hash collisions, but bear with me). However, I have had the bad luck of having two different model drives, purchased 9 months apart be bad out of the box. This is without buying large quantities of drives. Just because some is statistically improbable does not mean that it cannot happen.
I don't understand why your lawyers have a say in the matter, but I think you are out of luck. ANY hash function is going to have collisions. That is just the nature of the beast. The only thing you get from SHA-2 or SHA-3 over SHA-1 is better probability of not colliding, and a more difficult time of deliberately creating a collision.
Mod this up. I am dismayed at the number of people that ignore the ninth amendment, who are of the belief that a right does not exist unless it is explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution.
And it's even possible for a browser to alter the registry exactly why???
Because it is a program, just like any other, and needs to be able to store its own settings somewhere. For many windows programs, this somewhere is the registry.
This is correct. The default copyright license is "All Rights Reserved," meaning you are not allowed to make any copies of it. When you install the software from the CD/DVD/Download, you make a copy of it on the hard drive. When you run that copy, you make a copy from the drive into RAM. When you're running enough stuff that some pages of memory need to be swapped out, you're making another copy on disk.
Technically, by the letter of copyright law, you need a license that permits those actions. It may seem absurd, but that's the way it is.
Contrary to what you think, it's difficult if not impossible to even just get DVD distribution on your own.
I don't understand this... It is pretty easy to self-publish DVD. It might be harder to get B&M facings, and all the marketing, but DVD replication isn't terribly difficult. You could even sell it on Amazon. As an example, Cinematic Titanic is capable of self-publishing DVDs, selling through their web store and on EZ-Takes.
I'm not saying that DVD authoring and replication is cheap (by whose standards, anyway?), but that it isn't some huge, insurmountable obstacle.
Yes, but Google's file system makes no attempt to implement either the POSIX standard or the Linux VFS. It's highly specialized to only deal with the types of loads that Google sees. As a general solution, it's worth is debatable.
But that is not what the original question was about. The original question was about sites like Google or Facebook using anything like a distributed file system to keep from losing data.
Google's BigFile/BigTable architecture is a distributed filesystem. if a node goes down, the data that was on that node gets copied to other nodes to keep the replication count up.
Facebook is using apache cassandra, which adopts similar designs.
Bring up task manager. go to the processes tab. select the program, right click, and pick "set affinity". Check the cores you want it to run on, and uncheck the ones you do not want it on. click OK.
Depends on which OS. Windows, for example, has APIs for setting process CPU affinity, as well as thread CPU affinity. Other threading systems may have something similar.
Answer: MCL 257.612 (1)(c)(ii) states in part, "Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make...a left turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 1-way roadway carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device.
The same rules apply to turning right on a steady red signal. Unless prohibited, a right turn on a steady red signal may be made from a 1-way or 2-way street onto a 2-way street or a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn.
I'm sorry about your loss. Unfortunately, in the case of an uncontrolled left, you are still wrong, unless I'm wrong about the area you're in. If I am right about your area, it is the same area I'm from. For an uncontrolled left (that is, no separate signal for the left turn lane), you may enter the intersection on green and wait for an opening, and complete the left immediately after the light turns red and the opposing traffic stops. That is not "parking in the intersection," which would be very stupid. You don't shift the car to park or anything of the sort.
A controlled left, however, is an entirely different manner. You can also do a left on red if turning onto a one-way going left (and any opposing traffic is also stopped, of course).
Though I must add: they have had a number of stupid problems. For example, their toothbrush myth testing is invalid, as they cross-contaminated their toothbrushes with the tube of toothpaste. They rubbed the mouth of the tube against the bristles while applying the toothpaste.
I hear that they actually do a decent amount of science stuff in their testing, but that it winds up on the proverbial cutting room floor, due to trying to pack too much into a 42 minute program.
So the software producing and acting upon those CAN frames keeps the data in CAN frames internally, and has some sort of integrity check at EVERY layer? This could still be a hardware EMI problem. One that is usually caught by the CRC in each CAN frame, but in a few cases is affecting portions of the system that do not have an integrity check on them.
I don't know if his car had a real ignition switch, or just a button that sent a signal to the control computer. However, the transmission lever most likely just sends a signal to the control computer. The same control computer that may have been stuck telling the engine to go faster.
Newer cars are increasingly going to drive-by-wire systems, where the driver controls aren't mechanically connected to the systems they are supposed to control.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the dreaded trap street...
Business are REQUIRED to take cash. This includes such things as apartment rental fees. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In the rent direction, if you try to pay in cash and the owner declines, for several months, and then tries to take you to court or evict over failure to pay rent, the judge will laugh the case out of court. I've heard at least one such story. The owner wound up having to null out the past debt, too.
I did watch the video. All he really said about the matter is that other SCMs, you don't always get back what you put in. The only other marginally related thing was at the end of the talk (40 minutes later!) about git using the SHA-1 hashes to verify the integrity. Ok, so git verifies the integrity, but that still does not demonstrate how other SCMs corrupt data. (I am not going to count filesystem corruption against the SCM, either. There are a few filesystems that regularly check the integrity of the data stored on them, which is one way to counteract this problem.)
You're trying to make a persuasive argument that using SVN is a bad choice, and the only thing you have provided to back that claim up is a video of Linus saying the exact same statement you made. So far, I have not found any evidence to back up this argument.
I'm going to guess your (and Linus') reasoning is that because git has the SHA-1 hashes, and checks them, that you get the same data out as you put in. I have not seen anything that ensures that git will not silently overwrite or discard data in the case that there is a hash collision.
Yes, the probability is small, but that does not mean you can ignore it completely. There is a small probability that a hard drive will be DOA (yes, gigantic compared to hash collisions, but bear with me). However, I have had the bad luck of having two different model drives, purchased 9 months apart be bad out of the box. This is without buying large quantities of drives. Just because some is statistically improbable does not mean that it cannot happen.
an SCM that gives no assurance that what you get back is the same as what committed
I'm going to have to ask for more concrete demonstrations of that claim than "Linus said so" before I believe it.
I don't understand why your lawyers have a say in the matter, but I think you are out of luck. ANY hash function is going to have collisions. That is just the nature of the beast. The only thing you get from SHA-2 or SHA-3 over SHA-1 is better probability of not colliding, and a more difficult time of deliberately creating a collision.
Mod this up. I am dismayed at the number of people that ignore the ninth amendment, who are of the belief that a right does not exist unless it is explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution.
And it's even possible for a browser to alter the registry exactly why???
Because it is a program, just like any other, and needs to be able to store its own settings somewhere. For many windows programs, this somewhere is the registry.
(who modded this insightful?)
This is correct. The default copyright license is "All Rights Reserved," meaning you are not allowed to make any copies of it. When you install the software from the CD/DVD/Download, you make a copy of it on the hard drive. When you run that copy, you make a copy from the drive into RAM. When you're running enough stuff that some pages of memory need to be swapped out, you're making another copy on disk.
Technically, by the letter of copyright law, you need a license that permits those actions. It may seem absurd, but that's the way it is.
Yeah... The icons couldn't possibly have anything to do with the brain being able to locate something faster as a picture than as words...
If the worker can more quickly locate the buttons they're looking for, they can more quickly take the order and serve the customer.
I don't understand this... It is pretty easy to self-publish DVD. It might be harder to get B&M facings, and all the marketing, but DVD replication isn't terribly difficult. You could even sell it on Amazon. As an example, Cinematic Titanic is capable of self-publishing DVDs, selling through their web store and on EZ-Takes.
I'm not saying that DVD authoring and replication is cheap (by whose standards, anyway?), but that it isn't some huge, insurmountable obstacle.
But that is not what the original question was about. The original question was about sites like Google or Facebook using anything like a distributed file system to keep from losing data.
Oh, and I forgot about Amazon Dynamo.
Google's BigFile/BigTable architecture is a distributed filesystem. if a node goes down, the data that was on that node gets copied to other nodes to keep the replication count up.
Facebook is using apache cassandra, which adopts similar designs.
Actually, anything starting with 127 would work. the entire 127/8 network block is loopback.
Actually, it was all a zoom-in on Rimmer's H.
Bring up task manager. go to the processes tab. select the program, right click, and pick "set affinity". Check the cores you want it to run on, and uncheck the ones you do not want it on. click OK.
Depends on which OS. Windows, for example, has APIs for setting process CPU affinity, as well as thread CPU affinity. Other threading systems may have something similar.
Yes, mine is from Michigan. I mistook a series of coincidences to connect you with someone else. My mistake.
I'm sorry about your loss. Unfortunately, in the case of an uncontrolled left, you are still wrong, unless I'm wrong about the area you're in. If I am right about your area, it is the same area I'm from. For an uncontrolled left (that is, no separate signal for the left turn lane), you may enter the intersection on green and wait for an opening, and complete the left immediately after the light turns red and the opposing traffic stops. That is not "parking in the intersection," which would be very stupid. You don't shift the car to park or anything of the sort.
A controlled left, however, is an entirely different manner. You can also do a left on red if turning onto a one-way going left (and any opposing traffic is also stopped, of course).
Though I must add: they have had a number of stupid problems. For example, their toothbrush myth testing is invalid, as they cross-contaminated their toothbrushes with the tube of toothpaste. They rubbed the mouth of the tube against the bristles while applying the toothpaste.
I hear that they actually do a decent amount of science stuff in their testing, but that it winds up on the proverbial cutting room floor, due to trying to pack too much into a 42 minute program.
So the software producing and acting upon those CAN frames keeps the data in CAN frames internally, and has some sort of integrity check at EVERY layer? This could still be a hardware EMI problem. One that is usually caught by the CRC in each CAN frame, but in a few cases is affecting portions of the system that do not have an integrity check on them.
I don't know if his car had a real ignition switch, or just a button that sent a signal to the control computer. However, the transmission lever most likely just sends a signal to the control computer. The same control computer that may have been stuck telling the engine to go faster.
Newer cars are increasingly going to drive-by-wire systems, where the driver controls aren't mechanically connected to the systems they are supposed to control.