True, but suddenly, after this new questionable paper appears, the current US administration is now considering a ban on gas stoves in all new construction.
The WSJ editorial was in response to the flood of mainstream coverage about the administration's announcement yesterday. I knew it was an editorial when I linked it and it should be obvious to anyone who reads it. Is there any question about the facts of the administration's policy statement?
> Is there any question about the facts of the administration's policy statement?
Yes, there is; there wasn't a policy statement. One commissioner (out of five) made an off-the-cuff, vauge mention about regulation (which could easily encompass something like a ventilation or emissions standard for them) in an interview. The usual suspects are now trying to turn it into the next culture war battle.
X was developed on VAX, 68k, and later SPARC and then x86. VAX and x86 are little-endian, while 68k and SPARC are big-endian. Portability across these platforms was important and this was the inspiration for the RPC (now gRPC) platform-independent external data representation (XDR) standards.
Things were still not perfect with portability even back then. I remember taking a class in OSF Motif where everybody in the class was using SPARC while I was using x86 Linux. The code was somewhat portable between platforms, but many of the arguments to the (Metroworks) Motif library functions needed their endianness swapped in order to work properly on Linux, so the code examples from the course would not run on Linux without modification.
I realize that there may be some performance improvements realized by removing cross-platform compatibility, but I do not believe that the performance gains are worth the loss in platform compatibility. If X.org does this, it will eliminate one of the core reasons for sticking with X vs. Wayland.
I had to click and read the article to see whether CGI in this context was "Computer Generated Imagery" or "Common Gateway Interface". I've always been a fan of simple CGI interfaces. More middle-ware always means more bugs.
> We commissioned this new short story from Robin as a little love-letter and thank-you to the city and people...
Sure, it's right at the bottom, and "short story" is not entirely unambiguous, but I think most people would commonly use that phrase to refer to a work of fiction. I think I would have enjoyed it just as much if I'd known it was fiction from the start, but making that too obvious at the beginning may have removed a little of the charm.
Nothing is 100% secure, but I have opted for a high-quality gun/fire safe that's bolted to the foundation of my home (in a gated community), and protected by multiple monitored alarm systems and cameras. The safe has a lot more room than any bank's box would, it's cheaper in the long-run, and IMHO (especially after reading the fine article) more secure. Also, it's got a S&G spin-dial lock that I trust a lot more than any electronic garbage.
Where in the house is the safe located? I saw a video some years ago that made a fairly compelling case for locating the safe in a pantry or laundry room or anywhere other than the master bedroom, master closet, master bath or home office.
While it would be nice to have something that could withstand a casual burglar, the more likely threat to my stuff is a house fire.
Where is the best for a safe to survive in a burning building, but also not be visible to anyone and remain thermally neutral?
Fire safes are passive thermal sinks that reflect and damp heat transfer for as long as possible before ultimately turning into a giant heavy toaster oven. I wonder if active fire safes are a thing? Imagine the security of a safe but with an armored thermal pipe sticking out the top that goes to a heat sink somewhere outdoors. Kind of like AC but for precious documents / grandpa’s watch. I guess you’d want it to fuse and fall off if the pipe started piping heat into the safe.
I have a safe in the wall behind a permanent bookshelf in a random room of my house. One has to remove several shelves and a false back to get at it. A safe is best hidden - otherwise seeing it is an incentive to rob you. My children don't know it exists.
Honeypot safe only works if the real one is well concealed. So then it's only worth having if it's somehow known/assumed that you have a safe at all. (Otherwise just leave it well-concealed and you can say 'I don't have a safe, there's some cash in my wallet and a little jewellery in the bedroom' just as effectively as 'Here is the safe it is definitely the real one'.)
I keep only semi-valuable documents in the honeypot safe. Things like flex spending account receipts, password to my personal github account, and free car-wash vouchers.
Affordable amount of cash in one seems most logical solution. And maybe some dress jewelry. Easy enough for burglar to grab and run away, without too much damage on anything else.
Hi, I'm playing with a 8051 right now.
I found your comment on another thread, and it made me curious about your implementation.
You mentioned that the code was available per request.
I am writing you here, because I couldn't find any contact info for you and the thread was too old to allow any new comments.
If you read this and are still willing to share the code, shoot me a mail at:
simon at simonscode . org
I use this all the time. It's a big time saver on multi-core machines (which is pretty much every desktop made in the past 20 years). It's available in all the repos, but not included by default (at least in Ubuntu/Mint). It is most useful for compressing disk images on-the-fly while backing them up to network storage. It's usually a good idea to zero unused space first:
Compressing on the fly can be slower than your network bandwidth depending on your network speed, your processor(s) speed, and the compression level, so you typically tune the compression level (because the other two variables are not so easy to change). Example backup:
(Note that on slower systems the ssh encryption can also slow things down.)
Some sharp people may notice that it's not necessarily a good idea to back up a live system this way because the filesystem is changing while the system runs. It's usually just fine on an unloaded system that uses a journaling filesystem.
Thanks. If run as an unprivileged user, the dd command will not consume ALL of the disk space (so privileged processes will not be disrupted). It will consume up to the free space limit (default 5%) as described here: http://blog.serverbuddies.com/using-tune2fs-to-free-up-disk-...
The zerofree command looks useful, but I don't know how portable it is. The dd method works across many platforms (such as AIX).
I cannot find any reference to this online, but your post reminded me of a similar message to the Russians from the same era. The roof of the Northrop plant in Hawthorne, CA (now SpaceX) had "Yeb Vas" written in some fashion so as to be visible only from the ISR satellites of the day.
This is a meaningless phrase and it does not translate to anything meaningful in Russian. They should have done proper research before wasting time on this nonsense.
