And they overvalue the effect that their optimism or pessimism will have on the outcome.
My mom used to tell me that "worrying will not change the outcome one bit". The same goes for optimism.
Of course, my mom also told me that I could be whatever I wanted to be, and Daniel Craig got to be James Bond and I didn't so what did she know, right?
"turn the experience into the defining event of my life" is also positive thinking, it's called "peak performance" in positive thinking.
It's also called "hindsight in 20/20".
You know who doesn't turn the experience into the defining event" of their lives? The positive thinkers who didn't make it.
Stockdale's comments are easy to make because he got out. It's the story every single motivational speaker tells, but only after they've survived.
I've known a fair number of pessimists who didn't make it.
Some people shrink from the fight because victory is impossible.
I'm with the martial arts masters on this one. If you fight and lose, fight again, lose better.
In sparring we say, "Invest in loss". It's a philosophy that has led to a lot of important wins.
the vein hope
That's what fueled the Gold Rush of '49.
The more he fantasizes about that woman, the more he jerks off to her image, in the long-run -- the even less likely he'll be prepared to deal with her in real life.
And goes on to develop a sincere interest in ethics in game journalism.
You should be negative.
Positively.
With turbo boost, it runs until it hits a thermal limit, then scales the clock speed back a bit at a time until the load stops or it hits a speed at which it can run continuously without overheating. So it almost certainly will eventually throttle back to a lower clock speed, but that may or may not be 1.4 GHz. For example, if you are running only one core at full throttle, it will probably not scale back that far.
But no, it almost certainly cannot run at 2.7 GHz 24x7.
It's simple enough to implement in a shell script. At least three or four of us have done it over the years.
http://www.liquipel.com/
They coat the chips in some sort of coating that insulates them.
My first inclination would be to get the biggest heat sink I could find, fasten it to the motherboard, and build a 12V to 5V and 3.3V DC-DC converter (and 1.8V, if needed). By not starting from 110VAC, you can cut the PSU heat to a level that might be manageable without fans. Then get extension cables for any connectors that you want to keep usable, along with a couple of heavy gauge wires for your 12V leads, stick the whole thing in a plastic box or bag with the cables hanging out the top, and fill it with epoxy....
Mind you, such an approach is almost certainly not advisable, but that would be my first inclination.
That would have been true last decade. It's changed.
Because everyone writes absolutely perfect code, no one ever loses anything, and there are no exploits out there.
No, because there is a difference between looking for the perfect castle and realizing that maybe having a wall isn't so stupid and closing the door and night isn't a bad idea, either.
Making brute force attacks difficult is not a question of perfect code. It's a question of not allowing unlimited tries at unlimited speed (online) or not storing unsalted password hashes (offline). It's not a matter of protecting your server from compromise. A serious defense strategy always includes the assumption that several layers of your protection fail and you should still not suffer a total defeat.
you'd better hope they're salted with a strong salt, per-user, and hashed with a function like bcrypt or PBKDF2.
You see, this is the point. Whether or not they are is not a matter of hope like rain and sunshine. It's something you actively control.
There aren't any magical solutions.
No, but there are good and stupid solutions, and it's time we stop using the stupid ones. It's a feature of this anarchy we love so much, because if software was a car... well, at least in the western world you can't legally sell a car without brakes anymore.
Even that isn't a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because there was no initial flawed assertion, nor a counterexample that disproves that assertion.
As many folks have already pointed out in other threads on the subject, Intel screwed up the Haswell line by using an entirely different pinout on the i7 than on the i5. The result is that any motherboard with soldered-on chips has to be specifically designed for one or the other.
Apple chose the i5, presumably because that's the hardware grade where most of the Mini's sales came from, rather than doubling their R&D cost by building two very different motherboards.
Here's hoping Intel doesn't screw up Broadwell in the same way.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
