(The other thing that I wonder why other file systems haven't adopted is NTFS's alternate streams. They seem like they could be really useful for some stuff...) Yeah - viruses, spyware, rootkits and an assorted array of trojans. If I'm running a program that feels it needs to hide data from me, I'm probably better off without it.
Furthermore, it would probably screw with the tail packing on reiser; but I could be wrong.
That probably came off more hostile than I intended it to...I was going for quasi-dark sarcasm and overshot it like it was a lunar landing site. Sorry.
I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles for a copy protection scheme that doesn't even work.
No worries - you'll be losing many more to Aero, which, most likely, won't work all that much better. Not to mention the new tcp/ip stack chugging away with QOS processing that will likely be nullified as soon as the packet hits your ISP's first server's kernel. Enjoy.
It is with deep regret that I acknowledge that validity of this assertion. That being said, I'll not give in simply because I have picked a fight I cannot win - call it hubris, idealism, stupidity, or whatever you'd like.
I'm not necessarily anti-M$ (ducks), however, unless they tone down their schoolyard-bully tactics, they won't see another dime of my milk money.
On a side note... Seriously, how much surface area does a ship have that could catch solar energy? It might be relatively small, but I'd go so far as to say that near the equator, with 12 hours of sunlight every day, it probably adds up to be signifigant over the course of a day. Solar won't help with this to any significant degree - at least not anything mounted on a ship. On the other hand, you could theoretically make a bunch of little floating hockey-puck shaped robots that would be just smart enough to connect to one another and had just enough propulsion for the job, that would make a sort of "floating carpet" of solar collectors. When you were done, you'd just command them to separate into strips, and you'd reel them in like a rope.
Is there any reason that this is not feasible? It seems to make sense to me. Store the batteries on the solar panels themselves, or just attach a power cord to the array or something. I guess it would add to the storage needs of the ship, but not by too much.
Whether ISO approves of this or not is inconsequential, the only thing that matters is that M$ can now say: Look, we proposed a standard, it's not our fault 'they' think it's not good enough.
My response: I proposed a rational solution for the tech department that I control - it's not my fault that we decided to go to another vendor when you no longer support Office2K. Google gives its love and regards. As does OpenOffice, MySQL, and Linux. Sincerely,
Let me add a few more variables to this equation, just to tick off the math junkies out there.
Let us also take into consideration that missiles are dangerous for the fact that they carry explosives! I'd wager that a good chunk of the setup time for firing a tomahawk is due to the nature of the munition. Most people tend to move a little slower and more carefully when playing with explosives, not to mention the time overhead incurred by redundant safety procedures that I'm sure the Navy has implemented. Furthermore, storage is an issue since there is fuel involved (I think they fuel right before launch - for obvious safety reasons). Which in itself involves more time and precaution.
Now we have this rail gun firing pieces of metal. I don't know about you guys, but even I'm not too afraid of moving a piece of metal. Storage of the 'slugs' should be easy since they have no inherent safety limitations, other than them not falling over on rough seas.
They take up less room, cost less, take less time to move, and now the ship no longer needs to also carry fuel for tomahawks. This reasons that there is probably more room on board. The slugs cost less, too, opening part of the budget. Sounds to me like this sets the stage for an additional amped up (sorry, I couldn't resist) power platforms on the ships in order to increase the net energy output and allow more launches per day.
On a side note...
Seriously, how much surface area does a ship have that could catch solar energy? It might be relatively small, but I'd go so far as to say that near the equator, with 12 hours of sunlight every day, it probably adds up to be signifigant over the course of a day.
Sorry, I blew my mod points yesterday.
My friend, we're in the same boat. I'm supposed to be moving right now, but I happened to stop into work because I promised someone I would check something online (being that I don't have an internet connection since I'm moving), and as I stopped in I realized that I forgot to check one of the machines, and carry over a backup that I bzipped friday before leaving. Speaking of which...I need to start that transfer... And this is me with my adderall!
Just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but with C the problem isn't the char *myString;.
Rather, the problem is that in the underlying code you're probably playing with myString as type void * in order to fit it in a generic function call or method. I think malloc() will handle the call, provided that you actually call malloc(), and check that it doesn't return null .
However, many of us (myself more guilty than most) just take for granted that the memory we need exists. We also usually don't bother to check stuff like isalpha(), etc... Just my $.02.
I fully agree; it seems M$ isn't aware of the Comp. Sci. 101 teaching on 'seperation of concerns'. Implement this on a level where it is the primary concern - far, far, above the network stack.
Nice!
I can only image how you proposed that; "Uh, yeah, let's put the harddrive in the freezer...No, sir, I haven't been drinking...Well, it certainly can't make the situation any worse!"
I'm going to try this next time I lose a drive.
This idea of appliances and harddrives reminds me of something I once read a few weeks ago. Can anyone confirm that placing a harddrive in a freezer for several hours will allow it to run for long enough to recover data? No, seriously, supposedly the contraction of the platters will sometimes allow a drive to read for 30 minutes or so (until it expands back to normal), just long enough for a data recovery...Can anyone confirm/deny this?
True, a megabyte read can be fast in flash, but lots of random 512 byte reads or writes are far slower than a modern hard drive STILL in 2006. (15,000 rpm scsi from 7 diff manufacturers for example).
I call no fair on the speed issue - take into account protocol overhead as opposed to SCSI protocol overhead. Flash drives usually use USB which was not meant for high speed data transfer. That's why firewire800 blows USB 2 out of the water. Then again, being that I have no figures off the top of my head, I could very well still be very wrong.
My good man, are you tring to tell me this hasn't happened yet? This is great news! I mean, I have been waiting for an opportunity to fill up my moped.
The first days of a new technology are always worse than the last days of an old technology;
We're talking about the most ruggedly used mechanical part on a computer, mind you. 5 9's are not acceptable in this instance. Give it some time and they'll be as reliable as the IDE's that we are currently replacing.
Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Don't give M$ any ideas about 'clippy'! I'm going to use their guidelines to make a semi-translucent shotgun application that blows that friggin' paperclick back to M$ Bob where he rightfully belongs. Along with that useless search dog.
Of course, this app will have a search bar in the top right corner conviently placed right next to the "X" for closing the app.
When they say 'every direction possible', are we talking extra-dimensional spinning? IE, depending on your favorite flavor of string theory and/or atomic level structure, was this electron oscilating/spinning only in our visible dimensions, or was this experiment applicable to the other 4,5,8,125,2^8 dimensions(depending on your favorite number of dimensions)...Seems like a horrible waste of effeciency if the electron jumps and loses its spin. On second thought, I have no idea how we would verify this at all - any thoughts?
Am I the only one that still uses source tarballs? Then again, I'm a product of slackware, a distro which has (up until recently with slapt-get) virtually no package management. Why is the good ol' './configure;make;make install' considered such a bad thing? I mean, we're hacking away at a bash prompt no matter how you slice it. At least this way the software is configured how I want it, with my options, optimized for my machine - not some cookie-cutter i386 or x64 package. Has package management gotten us away from our geeky roots to such a point that we no longer care about tweaking a software installation?! I, for one, should hope not!
I keep my source code on a linux box. I'll trade 1/3 disk space as parity for the ability to sleep well at night. Effeciency takes a back seat to sleep.
How nice it would be to frag @ 30K ft. above the ground! At times like these, I wish I had an alienware laptop with built in subwoofer. That way I could pay back the crying little brat in the seat in front of me.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, it would probably screw with the tail packing on reiser; but I could be wrong.
That probably came off more hostile than I intended it to...I was going for quasi-dark sarcasm and overshot it like it was a lunar landing site. Sorry.
No worries - you'll be losing many more to Aero, which, most likely, won't work all that much better. Not to mention the new tcp/ip stack chugging away with QOS processing that will likely be nullified as soon as the packet hits your ISP's first server's kernel. Enjoy.
I'm not necessarily anti-M$ (ducks), however, unless they tone down their schoolyard-bully tactics, they won't see another dime of my milk money.
Is there any reason that this is not feasible? It seems to make sense to me. Store the batteries on the solar panels themselves, or just attach a power cord to the array or something. I guess it would add to the storage needs of the ship, but not by too much.
I'd almost think you're a parent or something. Perhaps you're a predator...but I digress.
My response: I proposed a rational solution for the tech department that I control - it's not my fault that we decided to go to another vendor when you no longer support Office2K. Google gives its love and regards. As does OpenOffice, MySQL, and Linux. Sincerely,
The guy who makes the tech decisions
I stopped using Symantec products when Peter Norton stopped coding them; that is to say, when I was 11 years old running windows 98.
How in the world do you get them to listen intently to you?! Do you talk about everything but the issue at hand? I need some pointers...
Let us also take into consideration that missiles are dangerous for the fact that they carry explosives! I'd wager that a good chunk of the setup time for firing a tomahawk is due to the nature of the munition. Most people tend to move a little slower and more carefully when playing with explosives, not to mention the time overhead incurred by redundant safety procedures that I'm sure the Navy has implemented. Furthermore, storage is an issue since there is fuel involved (I think they fuel right before launch - for obvious safety reasons). Which in itself involves more time and precaution.
Now we have this rail gun firing pieces of metal. I don't know about you guys, but even I'm not too afraid of moving a piece of metal. Storage of the 'slugs' should be easy since they have no inherent safety limitations, other than them not falling over on rough seas.
They take up less room, cost less, take less time to move, and now the ship no longer needs to also carry fuel for tomahawks. This reasons that there is probably more room on board. The slugs cost less, too, opening part of the budget. Sounds to me like this sets the stage for an additional amped up (sorry, I couldn't resist) power platforms on the ships in order to increase the net energy output and allow more launches per day.
On a side note... Seriously, how much surface area does a ship have that could catch solar energy? It might be relatively small, but I'd go so far as to say that near the equator, with 12 hours of sunlight every day, it probably adds up to be signifigant over the course of a day.
Sorry, I blew my mod points yesterday.
My friend, we're in the same boat. I'm supposed to be moving right now, but I happened to stop into work because I promised someone I would check something online (being that I don't have an internet connection since I'm moving), and as I stopped in I realized that I forgot to check one of the machines, and carry over a backup that I bzipped friday before leaving. Speaking of which...I need to start that transfer... And this is me with my adderall!
Just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but with C the problem isn't the char *myString;.
Rather, the problem is that in the underlying code you're probably playing with myString as type void * in order to fit it in a generic function call or method. I think malloc() will handle the call, provided that you actually call malloc(), and check that it doesn't return null .
However, many of us (myself more guilty than most) just take for granted that the memory we need exists. We also usually don't bother to check stuff like isalpha(), etc... Just my $.02.
I fully agree; it seems M$ isn't aware of the Comp. Sci. 101 teaching on 'seperation of concerns'. Implement this on a level where it is the primary concern - far, far, above the network stack.
Nice!
I can only image how you proposed that; "Uh, yeah, let's put the harddrive in the freezer...No, sir, I haven't been drinking...Well, it certainly can't make the situation any worse!"
I'm going to try this next time I lose a drive.
This idea of appliances and harddrives reminds me of something I once read a few weeks ago. Can anyone confirm that placing a harddrive in a freezer for several hours will allow it to run for long enough to recover data? No, seriously, supposedly the contraction of the platters will sometimes allow a drive to read for 30 minutes or so (until it expands back to normal), just long enough for a data recovery...Can anyone confirm/deny this?
Nah, they'll send him a cake.
I call no fair on the speed issue - take into account protocol overhead as opposed to SCSI protocol overhead. Flash drives usually use USB which was not meant for high speed data transfer. That's why firewire800 blows USB 2 out of the water. Then again, being that I have no figures off the top of my head, I could very well still be very wrong.
My good man, are you tring to tell me this hasn't happened yet? This is great news! I mean, I have been waiting for an opportunity to fill up my moped.
The question is, can the US effectively legislate 'good' admin procedures? Where does this jurisdiction end?
The first days of a new technology are always worse than the last days of an old technology; We're talking about the most ruggedly used mechanical part on a computer, mind you. 5 9's are not acceptable in this instance. Give it some time and they'll be as reliable as the IDE's that we are currently replacing. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Don't give M$ any ideas about 'clippy'! I'm going to use their guidelines to make a semi-translucent shotgun application that blows that friggin' paperclick back to M$ Bob where he rightfully belongs. Along with that useless search dog. Of course, this app will have a search bar in the top right corner conviently placed right next to the "X" for closing the app.
When they say 'every direction possible', are we talking extra-dimensional spinning? IE, depending on your favorite flavor of string theory and/or atomic level structure, was this electron oscilating/spinning only in our visible dimensions, or was this experiment applicable to the other 4,5,8,125,2^8 dimensions(depending on your favorite number of dimensions)...Seems like a horrible waste of effeciency if the electron jumps and loses its spin. On second thought, I have no idea how we would verify this at all - any thoughts?
Am I the only one that still uses source tarballs? Then again, I'm a product of slackware, a distro which has (up until recently with slapt-get) virtually no package management. Why is the good ol' './configure;make;make install' considered such a bad thing? I mean, we're hacking away at a bash prompt no matter how you slice it. At least this way the software is configured how I want it, with my options, optimized for my machine - not some cookie-cutter i386 or x64 package. Has package management gotten us away from our geeky roots to such a point that we no longer care about tweaking a software installation?! I, for one, should hope not!
I keep my source code on a linux box. I'll trade 1/3 disk space as parity for the ability to sleep well at night. Effeciency takes a back seat to sleep.
How nice it would be to frag @ 30K ft. above the ground! At times like these, I wish I had an alienware laptop with built in subwoofer. That way I could pay back the crying little brat in the seat in front of me.