That's almost as bad as this one, from "House"
That's almost as bad as this one, from "House"
Plus, most of these sprays contain benzalkonium chloride as a preservative, and that stuff can cause its own problems.
I've been running Fedora on mine for a few months. I had some early problems with wireless, but on my most recent trip (a few kernel updates later) it was fine. The touchpad seems to be working better too. My only real gripe at this point is that the battery doesn't quite last all day like my 13" MBA can, but then the Zenbook's considerably cheaper than most in the under-three-pound category so I guess sacrifices had to be made somewhere.
Yes, there is such a law. 40 CFR 86.1809-10 - Prohibition of defeat devices. So much for the "if it's legal it's wonderful" pseudo-argument.
In the USA, generally, hourly employees whose travel is required for the job must be paid for their travel time, with the exception of home to work (and work to home).
It's because they throw out a lot of POSIX features/requirements - e.g. nested directories, rename, links, durability/consistency guarantees. In other areas, such as permissions, they have their own POSIX-incompatible alternatives. These shortcuts do make implementation easier, allowing a stronger focus on pure scalability. The theory is that the combined complexity of POSIX semantics and dealing with high scale (including issues such as performance and fault handling) is just too much, and it becomes an either/or situation. As a member of the GlusterFS team, I strongly disagree. My colleagues, including those on the Ceph team, probably do as well. The semantics of object stores like S3 have been designed to make their own developers' lives easier, and to hell with the users.
Not all POSIX features are necessary. Some are outdated, poorly specified, or truly too cumbersome to live. On the other hand, the object-store feature set is *too* small. I've seen too many users start with an object store, then slowly reimplement much of what's missing themselves. The result is a horde of slow, buggy, incompatible implementations of functionality that should be natively provided by the underlying storage. That's a pretty lousy situation even before we start to talk about being able to share files/objects with any kind of sane semantics. You want to write a file on one machine, send a message to another machine, and be sure they'll read what you just wrote? Yeah, you can do that, but the techniques you'll have to use are the same ones that are already inside your distributed object store. Even if both their implementation and yours are done well, the duplication will be disastrous for both performance and fault handling. It would be *far* better to enhance object stores than to keep making those mistakes . . . or you could just deploy a distributed file system and use the appropriate subset of the functionality that's already built in.
A semantically-rich object store like Ceph's RADOS can be a wonderful thing, but the dumbed-down kind is a disgrace.
That is very untrue. I'm on the GlusterFS team, and we've had users providing "POSIX style FS access in a cloud-like environment" for years. Amazon recently started doing the same with EFS, and there are others. It's sure not easy, I wouldn't say any of the alternatives have all of the isolation or ease of use that they should, but it's certainly possible.
Tis better to be mauled by a single bull than trampled by a herd of sheep.
I've been around bulls and I've been around sheep. The odds of survival aren't what you think.
No one is required to cast a vote for everything on the ballot. Not voting for a certain office/question/proposition/etc is called an "undervote". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
Scratch that. Looks like most states have restrictions.
OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
Note that there are seven states which do not allow write-ins for president at all.
> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.
Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)
For voters who wish to cast their vote for candidates other than the ones printed on the ballot in San Francisco-- they need to know that they are still limited to a few official write-in candidate names if their vote is to be counted.
> you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
I have no doubt you actually believe that horseshit. That statement makes some of the more hilarious proclaimations Christians are so fond of saying seem rational and reasonable in comparison.
Only a misanthrope who's also somewhere within the BPD/NPD complex would have gotten so upset over that distinction.
Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!