Yeah. Like I'd ever be caught DEAD or ALIVE in Arizona. Life is too short for that.

Take all work you've written and entrust it with someone who will publish it a few years after you die and after your estate is settled or a few years after the last company that would have any claim to it ceases to exist, or after any copyrights or patents other than yours that apply can reasonably be presumed to have expired (probably 95 years after you wrote the code), whichever comes later.

Some code is small enough that it's feasible to prove that the code is correct, assuming that the underlying hardware, libraries, operating system, etc.. don't fail. For example, in most languages you really don't need to put error-checking in code as trivial as this pseudo-code:

boolean isGreater(int a, int b)
{return (a>b);}

Sometimes, particularly when running in "small/tight" or real-time environments or when security is more important than debuggability, you may want a failure to be nothing more than something basic like "return -1" or "turn on aralm and halt the CPU" or even "flush caches, destoy security keys, and power off."

But you are corrent, in most cases good souce code will have good, clear, easy-understand debugging code.

Not encumbered by patents, NDAs, or licensing restictions the keep me from making good use of it.

Tell your real estate agent to include a contingency stating that any deal is contingent on acceptable Internet service.

I'll leave the details of what "acceptable" up to you, but it should be something that's widely available in the neighborhood in which you are looking to buy. The intent is to let the seller know to not waste their time or yours if the KNOW their house doesn't qualify and to put them on notice that any offer is void if it turns out that you can't get Internet service similar to the those living in the same general area at a similar price.

You do have a small risk of "losing out" on a suitable home if the seller is summarily rejecting bids with "novel/unfamiliar/non-standard" contingencies, but you are much more likely to avoid wasting time and money on homes you wouldn't want anyway.

G'day has always been the rendering - since at least Regency times, when t'was spoken aloud as such. ;-)

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time," and that's all a politician needs.

I don't vote party, except that I avoid both D and R whenever there's a candidate who doesn't want to put half the people I know in prison for smoking pot.

If anyone but Bruce Rauner had run against Quinn I would have voted for the Republican, becuase Quinn just wasn't a good governor. I think Rauner will be even worse, maybe even as bad as Ryan(R) or Blago(D), both were crooks. I don't know if Rauner is a crook but his policies are terrible. There were only two named on the ballot, so it was indeed a choice between two evils.

Look, Republicans are against the Social Security I paid into all my life and am now enjoying, against unions, without which I would have no pension, against the single payer health care system which has countries with it in place enjoying half the costs we face with far less infant mortality and longer life spans (Obamacare is really Romneycare in disguise); against the Medicare I again paid into and will get in a couple of years; against food stamps (that's simply un-Christian, yet they claim to be Christians?); against taxes (again, an un-Christian stance). Tell me, what Democrat views that the Republicans don't share are detrimental to me, a middle class retired guy?

But both parties are against pot legalization, for our insanely long copyrights, and quite a few more where there really isn't a valid choice.

Well, when a child says bye-bye, it sounds like a contraction (b'bye), but bye-bye is not a contraction. It's more like Cory Doctorow spells sidewalk: side-walk. Wnat contraction uses a hyphen instead of an apostrophe? Not bye-bye, it isn't a contraction of anything.

As to "SyFy", that's a trademark, not a word. It only applies to that bad cable channel. Hi-fi and sci-fi aren't contractions of high fidelity and science fiction, but new words made out of old ones.

I guess that could argue the validity of e-mail and e-books, though.

The results were poisoned by the presence of various caches affecting disk I/O and for that matter memory I/O. On some modern systems, either the disk lies to the computer or the OS lies to the application and the application thinks the data is actually stored on the bare metal before it is really stored (the data may or may not be stored in a "safe" place like a non-volatile cache - the point is that a small write operation returns "success" very quickly, much faster than if it had to wait for the bits to be written to the platter).

The only thing they can really say is "on this hardware, using this operating system, under this workload, these are the results of our experiments."

I'm not saying their results aren't useful - they are. Instead of presenting this as "memory writes are faster than disk writes" they should say "in some or many modern systems, under some circumstances, it may be more efficient for programs or operating systems to write to external storage devices in small bits rather than going to extra work to minimize the number of writes to such devices. Don't assume that what was true about the performance of an application calling an operating system to perform a disk-write operation or of an operating system asking a hard drive to perform a disk-write operation is the same now as it was a decade or two ago."

Just don't call them "disk writes." Call them what they are - "requests by the application or the OS to the OS or hardware to perform a disk write."

In security terms, "air gap" should be taken to mean "direct communications gap".

If two machines an "talk" to each other without involving a human or a third-party computer* to do your dirty work for you.

--
*If the third-party computer is being used "in real time" it doesn't count as a "direct communications gap." However, if the computer hijacks the local router in the stand-alone network so that the next time it is hooked to an external network, it does bad things on behalf of the evil computer, that would be an example of "jumping the direct communications gap".

Don't assume your typical non-military-grade-hardened phone is secure unless it's so-dumb-that-its-unhackable* or the phone resides on an isolated network over which you and only people you trust can see.

Even if nobody knows how to compromise it today, you shouldn't assume someone won't figure out how to compromise it "tomorrow".

* think "analog phone on a cross-bar switch" - but even that is subject to hacking, but few people have the skills to do more than a simple wiretap.