Re: Virtualize our OS, Captain!
That's basically what Bromium do.
It's a clever thing with micro-VMs that are destroyed at the end of a session.
552 posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
That makes three of us, I also have installed the plug in, the alternative is sadness and regret.
When it comes to Jira, it's especially handy if you make a group for sub tickets of a master ticket. Oh and when a task has multiple issues associated with it, having them in a tab group really helps you see what you need to look out for and what's new bugs.
I do keep trying to like unity, I do.
But I can't, the search is slower than my typing even on my beefy laptop, so I hit meta, type gedit and get... preferences (Caveat, I've not even tried this since 15.10 came out, it might be better now)? The alt-tab behaviour is probably my least favourite thing, I am sure you can probably turn off grouping programs in alt-tab with it, but every time I see it on a fresh install, it just annoys me. I like multiple terminals, I don't like pausing or moving my hands when I am tabbing between them. I also strongly dislike docks of any kind, I don't want programs which are not running masquerading as running on my task bar.
Basically I can see how people might like it, but personally I use mate, because change for change's sake isn't worth anything to me. Call me stuck in my ways (you might well be right), but I need something really worthwhile to make me use my time learning another workflow to do the same thing. I don't see what Unity provides that mate doesn't. It's different, but what is the actual tangible benefit I'd get from moving from what is essentially the same gnome 2 I've been using since the mid noughties?
I'm willing to learn things if there's a benefit (I recently gave in and started using vim as my main editor, which was a lot of relearning how to do things but it _is_ very fast and very powerful and useful being right there in the terminal and I can execute commands and... well yes, the pay off was worth it), so if anyone can tell me what Unity can do that mate can't that will be useful to a technical user, then I'll bite my lip and try again with 16.04.
That said, I know plenty of people that like it, but they have a different workflow to me, so perhaps it's just not the DE for me. As long as I can get a DE that I like though, I'm happy.
As a software test engineer, can I just say that you all are correct and you need to be heard.
Good testers are like rocking horse shit, I've been through a lot of interviews to find people who can actually test. There're companies who think that they don't need to do integration or regression testing and that if anything goes wrong, they'll just patch it in the next sprint. These companies seem to think that unit testing and TDD can find every bug. They are wrong. They're great tools, but they're an adjunct to proper testing, not a replacement for it. A tester is not just the user's proxy in the development flow, they're the adversary's proxy too. If we don't try and attack the product and use it, you're letting the public have a go.
I also agree about black box testing, I try as much as possible to not look at our source repos, because when I know how it's expected to behave, that biases me to test it in that way. I like to test the processes of a user or attacker, not the expected code paths. That said there is definitely a place for whitebox testing where you do proper static analysis and identify as many code paths as are practical to test.
Testing does not, and cannot, guarantee quality or security, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
I sort of went off on one there, sorry.
I looked this up once, when I saw PC LOAD LEGAL or something similarly.
That random word after LOAD, is a page size you've never heard of and will never use willingly. However something random in the emergent malificence of your network has added to your document, so your printer thinks it needs it.
I worry that one day amanfrommars will get some kind of huge mecha body and conquer us all.
I mean given two things, 1) it's probably immortal and 2) eventually the tech for huge mecha bodies will exist, kinda makes it a certainty.
amanfrommars is probably the emergent sentience of the internet.
My main issue with git in general is remembering to push my commits and that's on my personal repos on my NAS.
So I suspect many people barely noticed and perhaps (like me) just expected their cron jobs to push their branches when they were available.
Merges would have been much more problematic.
I was hoping to get a team together for this, but it looks like it'll have to wait for the next season. The rules are extremely restrictive though, from reading them that means 1)No high powered lasers or masers
2)No jamming combined with either optical control or just autonomous robots
3)No coil guns
4)No hijacking by cloning commands and then rebroadcasting more strongly on the same frequency.
5)No oil slicks you later ignite
Basically they're not allowing anything new, just spinners, flippers and Razer.
All my ideas are for naught.
Doesn't hold up, because if we're sharing information and necessarily mass (black hole mass increases as things fall into it, ergo its gravity and event horizon increase, ergo we have to have the same gravity on both sides for the mass to work), we've got to posit the same laws of physics on each side to a certain extent.
If time is running backwards on the other side, matter would have to exist _on both sides of the black hole at the same time_. This means that the black hole would have to gain mass when objects disappeared from both sides of the link at once. In other words, you've created a state where information and matter are destroyed and mass and gravity are created at the boundary of a black hole. If the black hole evaporates, then there must be matter and energy created at that time.
Which seems like it has a lot more problems than just keeping everything in one consistent universe. Then again I left uni over a decade ago and I've not done any proper physics since then. So I could well be wrong.
The! Yahoo! Exclamation! Mark! Went! Last! Year!
There was even a comment about it from Drew I think (which I can't be bothered to google).
It's feeling a lot like I'd prefer to bung the Reg a fiver a month for something like a subscriber area to give me access to the weekend edition and the other good stuff we've lost.
I suppose after PARIS and LOHAN we'll be following "NEUTER" and "INOFFENSIVE" now.
Rhubarb, rhubarb, hate change, cancelling sub, etc.
Not intergalactic. Travel outside the Galaxy in Star Wars is not regular or even easy. There're few species from outside the Galaxy, the Yuu-zhan vong being the most notable. But hyperspace gets weird at the edges of the Galaxy (possibly a MOND universe?)
In fact I can't think of a single storm trooper who's been outside the Galaxy, there was a Jedi mission to the outer reaches, past Chiss space, but nothing in the Empire*.
Speaking of the Chiss, if we're getting a Yoda film as well as the main sequence films, we better be getting the Thrawn trilogy. Thrawn is one of the best characters in the extended universe.
*Human Empire, not Sith.
In the extended universe they have access to the Galactic Holonet, which is essentially a 3D version of the internet. The plans were shifted in a physical medium because the Holonet isn't secure. There are "Slicers" who are skilled computer operators who can extract information and decrypt it from the Holonet.
Basically, they didn't want to let the Imperial version of GCHQ get their hands on the evidence of it in their hands. A sensible precaution if recent history is anything to go by.
First make the magnetic bottle, then create a plasma to fill it. Next use a laser to continually energise the plasma.
Use a simple electron gun to ionise gas and accelerate it into the bottle continuously to cope with losing plasma to collisions.
Steps to achieve this:
Room temperature super conductors for a magnet that doesn't require real cooling.
A good capacitor and a fuel cell. (You don't lose much energy from the bottle when you use superconductors and some LED lasers would probably only sip power)
That sort of makes sense. Assuming that you ignore the everyday usage of plurality for organisations in English which is everywhere.
I mean it's probably not in grammar guides yet, but it is definitely a common and normal usage. I am willing to accept that the editor is sticking to a guide which states that organisations are singular.
Trying to work out what's wrong with the statement to warrant [sic]?
I know ensure is not how an American would spell it, but it's correct for this side of the pond, and I can't see how else you'd have them spell their in this context?
I know there's a corrections email, but this is just weird. Am I senile and reading it wrong?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019