- Your eternal soul is at stake - 3 Updates
- Best way to use enum with classes - 16 Updates
- libpng / png_info questions - 2 Updates
- Jerry Fucking Stuckle - 2 Updates
- IMHO, some works of art... - 1 Update
- Religious people don't understand the world, Study finds - 1 Update
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 26 08:58AM +0200 On 26/10/16 00:38, Daniel wrote: > I finally concluded that we're all nuts. And that it's okay, as long as we > don't feel excessively compelled to convert everyone else to our own flavour of > nuttiness (or kill them.) The key thing to remember about "being nuts" is that it is not a binary feature. Most people are a bit "crazy" at times in their lives - without it, you'd live a fairly boring life. Falling madly in love has very strong psychological similarities to bipolar disorder (manic depression) - fortunately for the survival of the species, it usually passes over into a long-term love that is psychologically a type of addiction. And almost everyone has stories of the "crazy" things they used to do or think in their youth. Strong religious feelings are associated with a number of psychological conditions, including bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. As you say, this is all okay - as long as it is within limits and kept under control. A little "madness" can be a good thing - you get the ups as well as the downs. But too much, and when the "madness" takes over and you lose your normal life, it is a problem for you and all those around you. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 26 05:08AM -0700 On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > There's an interesting book called The City of Man by Pierre Manent. He argues that religion took it's purest form at the very beginning, when it was indistinguishable from the authority of the ruling class, and that every evolutionary step in religion involved a departure from that, the Hebrew prophets for example would challenge the rulers, until with the arrival of Christianity it became possible to imagine a world without religion. In the case of Soviet Russia, I think the authorities were less concerned with the mental health of their citizens than with the challenge of religion to the authority of the Party. > > C++ is at a least something that can be used as a treatment ;) > Just so. Daniel, it's good that you recognize all of these mistakes made by those who operated under the name or banner of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn't call people to be like that. He calls them to serve Him rightly, in compassion, true love, true service, not harming others, but seeking to guide them to His Kingdom, to the fruits of a life in pursuit of growing faith after His spirit: http://biblehub.com/kjv/galatians/5-22.htm 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. You will not find any of the guidance of the teachings of the Bible in the actions of sinful men who simply used the name "Christianity" or "Jesus Christ" for their sinful cause. Learn of Jesus Christ so as to follow Him properly. And gently teach others when they err from the faith. And if they are wholly wrong in their actions, rebuke them with force, and if they won't hear it, then shake the dust off your feat and pray for them (Revelation 22:11). Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 26 05:18AM -0700 On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:08:15 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > others when they err from the faith. And if they are wholly wrong in > their actions, rebuke them with force, and if they won't hear it, then > shake the dust off your feat and pray for them (Revelation 22:11). Or "feet" ... your choice. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:07PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 3:12 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> by viruses, trojan horses, etc. It is also faster than typing up CPU >> time with pseudo-RAID. > In the 90s era Jerry World that was indeed the case. And it still is in the REAL world. Just not in the imaginary world of Ian. > Or use this: > http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/government-cloud/index.html > ? Not the first two when reliable backup is important. And the third is a cloud solution. But you wouldn't understand what a cloud solution is. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:09PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 3:12 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > Or use this: > http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/government-cloud/index.html > ? Oh, and no where does it state any of these are RAID. It's very interesting, Ian. First you admit you know little or nothing about RAID. Then suddenly you are an expert on it! The only thing you are an expert on is snow jobs. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:10PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 4:08 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/government-cloud/index.html > I forgot this little science project: > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/664/4/042035/pdf "Users get space on RAID-1 volumes". Yup. But nowhere does it state those are ZFS volumes. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:11PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 3:19 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> emulation. > So I have a Redundant Array of Independent Disks configured as a stripe > of raidz2 vdevs, where is the emulation? In your ZFS. In case you can't figure it out - FS means FILE SYSTEM. >> proselytize than you are to admit you are wrong. > As expected, bluster and infantile insults. > Clueless fool it is then. The truth is never an insult. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:12PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 3:03 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > FWIW, you could find out my degree online, if you'd bother to search for > it. The thesis is publicly available. > Christian ROFLMAO! And you couldn't even dispute my comments. So much for your "degree". I'm not sure you even got it from a cracker jacks box. Maybe it came in your Happy Meal. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:19PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 2:50 PM, Chris Vine wrote: > system and its capacitance: a 1 farad capacitor, when charged with 1 > coulomb of charge (approximately 6.24150975 x 10^18 electrons), has a > potential difference of 1 volt across it. Such elementary ignorance. Static charges still have a current associated with them. It is just a very low current. The capacitor has a charge - but there is no voltage associated with it until the circuit is complete and a current flows. > talking nonsense, so why carry on? Your claim that a source of EMF such > as a battery only has a voltage on its terminals when something is > connected to them which draws a current is ridiculous[1]. Because you have proven you don't have any knowledge of physics. I suspect you get your information by reading Wikipedia. > to measure EMF. You can connect a battery to the plates of a cathode > ray tube and measure the beam deflection (ie the voltage) without > drawing current from the battery. No, measuring the beam deflection draws a current from the battery. It takes energy to deflect the beam, and that energy doesn't appear from nowhere. Energy is not voltage - it is voltage times current. And if either is zero, you get no deflection. Sorry, you don't even understand how a cathode ray tube operates. Must have been a bad happy meal. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 26 04:00PM +1300 On 10/26/16 03:10 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/664/4/042035/pdf > "Users get space on RAID-1 volumes". Yup. But nowhere does it state > those are ZFS volumes. Bottom of page 5, top of page 6. -- Ian |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 26 04:07PM +1300 On 10/26/16 03:07 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> time with pseudo-RAID. >> In the 90s era Jerry World that was indeed the case. > And it still is in the REAL world. Just not in the imaginary world of Ian. Nope, software RAID barely dents the performance of a modern CPU. >> http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-sector/government-cloud/index.html >> ? > Not the first two when reliable backup is important. Backup is a different issue. RAID != backup. > And the third is a cloud solution. Which uses the first. -- Ian |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 26 04:15PM +1300 On 10/26/16 03:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> So I have a Redundant Array of Independent Disks configured as a stripe >> of raidz2 vdevs, where is the emulation? > In your ZFS. In case you can't figure it out - FS means FILE SYSTEM. RAID can be hardware, software or a mix of the two. ZFS performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. Linux btrfs performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. Both combine the roles of volume manager and file system. Linux LVM performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. BSD GEOM performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. Sun DiskSuite performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. ...and so on back to mists of time... -- Ian |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 26 08:41AM +0200 On 26/10/16 05:00, Ian Collins wrote: >> "Users get space on RAID-1 volumes". Yup. But nowhere does it state >> those are ZFS volumes. > Bottom of page 5, top of page 6. Here's another quotation from page 2 of that document: > the main source of potential data unavailability and data losses[4]. We have now moved to a > software RAID conguration, mainly using RAID-60, to have the best single stream performance > required by our tape servers in migrating les to tape. People doing serious high performance, high availability, high reliability disk systems choose /software/ raid because it is faster, more flexible and more reliable than hardware solutions. People who don't really understand this stuff themselves but accept whatever IBM or Dell tell them to, use hardware raid. In my own experience, the only time I have had a serious problem on a raid array was when a hardware raid card died. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Oct 26 10:16AM +0100 On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:19:07 -0400 > associated with them. It is just a very low current. The capacitor > has a charge - but there is no voltage associated with it until the > circuit is complete and a current flows. As I said, since anyone who has any knowledge of physics will understand that you are talking nonsense, you are fooling no one except yourself (and maybe not even that), so why carry on? Static charges have a voltage when no current flows given by the formula I have already mentioned (V = Q/C), not Ohm's law. The charge is an integration of past current over time. > It takes energy to deflect the beam, and that energy doesn't appear > from nowhere. Energy is not voltage - it is voltage times current. > And if either is zero, you get no deflection. No. The deflector plates of a cathode ray tube do not consume power where a constant voltage is applied to them from the battery (assuming the glass is an appropriate insulator, as it should be, and that the electron beam is properly focused and the voltage applied is not sufficient to allow the electron beam to actually hit one of the deflector plates). The only current taken from the battery is in initially charging the capacitance between the plates to establish the static charge (which also has nothing to do with Ohm's law) and thereafter, in the presence of a constant voltage from the battery, the deflector system is in a steady state and draws no current. Energy is taken from the electron beam supply current, not the battery. > Sorry, you don't even understand how a cathode ray tube operates. > Must have been a bad happy meal. Pathetic ad hominem remarks. Why do you want to have everyone laughing about you? Your claim that a source of EMF such as a battery only has a voltage on its terminals when something is connected to them which draws a current remains ridiculous. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 07:44AM -0400 On 10/25/2016 11:00 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> "Users get space on RAID-1 volumes". Yup. But nowhere does it state >> those are ZFS volumes. > Bottom of page 5, top of page 6. Yes, and they are on separate devices - like I said earlier. Once again you show you don't read so well. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 07:47AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 2:41 AM, David Brown wrote: > whatever IBM or Dell tell them to, use hardware raid. > In my own experience, the only time I have had a serious problem on a > raid array was when a hardware raid card died. No, people who need high reliability backup use hardware RAID. That includes U.S. government and military, major corporations and others. And yes, they accept whatever IBM or Dell tell them to because those people know a lot more about it than you do. Or are you claiming you know more about it than the big companies with thousands of experts do? I've seen hardware RAID cards die, also. No data was lost; replace the card and back in operations. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 07:49AM -0400 On 10/25/2016 11:07 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> And it still is in the REAL world. Just not in the imaginary world of >> Ian. > Nope, software RAID barely dents the performance of a modern CPU. Sure, on systems like yours it does. But that's because all you use your system for is playing Freecell. Busy systems see a rather large performance hit. >>> ? >> Not the first two when reliable backup is important. > Backup is a different issue. RAID != backup. I have been talking about using RAID for backup. You've been trying to change the subject. >> And the third is a cloud solution. > Which uses the first. Which is not RAID in the same sense. But you don't know the difference. And cloud backup does not provide the high performance you claim is RAID's major benefit. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 07:58AM -0400 On 10/25/2016 11:15 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> In your ZFS. In case you can't figure it out - FS means FILE SYSTEM. > RAID can be hardware, software or a mix of the two. > ZFS performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. ZFS is a file system. Hence the "FS" in its name. But you don't know the difference. > Linux btrfs performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. btrfs is a file system. Hence the "fs" in its name. But you don't know the difference. > Both combine the roles of volume manager and file system. > Linux LVM performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. LVM is a volume manager, hence the "vm" in its name. It does not do RAID. > BSD GEOM performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. GEOM is a framework. It only claims to support RAID. It does not claim to BE a RAID device. > Sun DiskSuite performs software RAID, it doesn't emulate it. > ...and so on back to mists of time... DiskSuite is another volume manager. Per its documentation, you can use it to set up RAID metadevices. But that is not the same as RAID. It is an emulation. It does not claim to be RAID. But you continue to prove you don't understand the difference between true RAID and RAID emulation. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 08:06AM -0400 On 10/26/2016 5:16 AM, Chris Vine wrote: > have a voltage when no current flows given by the formula I have > already mentioned (V = Q/C), not Ohm's law. The charge is an > integration of past current over time. That is the static charge. However, that static charge is only in relation to another point. And that static charge consists of electrons. To do ANYTHING with that static charge, including measuring it, you have to expend energy - which means a current flow. Yes, even in a static charge. > thereafter, in the presence of a constant voltage from the battery, the > deflector system is in a steady state and draws no current. > Energy is taken from the electron beam supply current, not the battery. If... dog... rabbit. And wrong. There is a current flow on the deflection plates. It is small, but measurable with sensitive equipment. Yes, energy is taken from the electron beam, also. But the energy comes from the interaction of the two electric fields, and draws energy from both. > about you? Your claim that a source of EMF such as a battery only has > a voltage on its terminals when something is connected to them which > draws a current remains ridiculous. The truth hurts, don't you? You claim the battery is a source of EMF all of the time. So place a voltmeter probe on the positive terminal. Place the other voltmeter probe on the moon. What does the meter read? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Oct 26 06:30AM On Tue, 2016-10-25, Richard wrote: >>and our client code becomes a bit crippled. > Did you consider that they didn't "forget" the feature, but they never > intended for you to copy these structures? If it's useful and feasible to copy them (like it must have been for Juha) why not allow it? /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 26 07:11AM >>and our client code becomes a bit crippled. > Did you consider that they didn't "forget" the feature, but they never > intended for you to copy these structures? From what I gather (although it's hard to wade through their documentation because it's one flat plaintext .txt file with no formatting of any kind, not even in the form of ascii bulletpoints (eg. using asterisks) or anything of the sort) there doesn't seem to be any way of semi-automatically transfer all the metadata from an input png file to an output one (so that it's all preserved as-is, when all you want is to, for example, just modify the pixel data in some manner, but have everything else preserved). As a consequence, there isn't any way to automatically copy all that metadata to multiple output files. There may be many other reasons why you want to just copy the metadata in your program. But there doesn't seem to be any way of doing this that I can see. The metadata doesn't only include any user-defined content, but also gamma information, pixel offsets, and any other such information that may exist in the metadata of the png file. One could think that copying stuff around would be one of the most fundamental features of such a library, but apparently not. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 25 10:05PM -0400 On 10/25/2016 4:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > effluence in people's replies.. please kill-file the idiot instead of > feeding the troll. > /Flibble Watch it, Leigh. Your (lack of) mental maturity is showing through again. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Oct 25 08:16PM -0700 On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: Please don't swear here. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 25 06:00PM -0700 On 10/23/2016 4:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > And an excellent presentation by the very smart Anthony Williams: > https://youtu.be/FaHJOkOrfNo > I can code RCU in C++! Nice... Well, I should say, we can code a user-space RCU impl. I cannot create a RCU that uses the kernel in pure C++ without using OS specific tools. One nice thing, is that Windows has a user-space API call that makes a decent, and fairly efficient RCU possible in user-space; https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683148(v=vs.85).aspx Its so nice to have! :^) |
| Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Oct 25 08:15PM -0400 independent.co.uk Religious people understand the world less, study finds Ben Kentish Religious people are more likely to have a poorer understanding of the world and are more likely to believe objects like rocks and paper have human qualities, scientists say. Researchers at the University of Helsinki compared believers in God or the paranormal to people with autism after finding they tend to struggle to understand the realities of the world around us. Religious beliefs were linked with a weaker ability to understand physical and biological phenomenon such as volcanoes, flowers, rocks and wind without giving them human qualities. Believers were more likely to think that inanimate objects such as metal, oil, clothes and paper can think and feel, and agree with statements such as "Stones sense the cold". Marjaana Lindeman and Annika Svedholm-Häkkinen, who completed the study, said: "The more the participants believed in religious or other paranormal phenomena, the lower their intuitive physics skills, mechanical and mental rotation abilities, school grades in mathematics and physics, and knowledge about physical and biological phenomena were… and the more they regarded inanimate targets as mental phenomena". The study defined "mental" as having human characteristics such as thoughts and sprit. What marriage would be like if we followed the bible Researchers said their findings suggest people's lack of understanding about the physical world means they apply their own, human characteristics to the whole universe, "resulting in belief in demons, gods, and other supernatural phenomena". This confusion between mental and physical qualities "has [also] been recognised mainly among ancient people and small children", they added. World's most popular religions The scientists compared religious believers to people with autism, saying both struggle to distinguish between the mental and the physical, although autistic people are at the opposite end of the spectrum because they often see the world as entirely physical and struggle to understand the mental state of others. Ms Lindeman and Ms Svedholm-Häkkinen asked 258 Finnish people to report how much they agreed that "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God" and whether they believed in paranormal phenomena such as telepathy and visions of the future. They then matched their answers with a range of other factors, including exam results, survey answers and performances on different tests. They also found that people who believe in God and the paranormal are more likely to be women and tend to base their actions on instinct rather than analytical thinking. Previous studies have suggested religious people tend to have a lower IQ and are more likely to believe literally in what scientists called "bullshit statements" including phrases like "Earth wants water" and "Force knows its direction". However, they are also found to be happier and have greater life satisfaction than non-believers and are seen as more generous and trustworthy. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-understand-world-less-study-shows-a7378896.html> |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment