This 1953 - 1954 GMC Truck Maintenance Manual 100-470 Models licensed reprint provides the most comprehensive repair information in paper format available on the market. This new print manual is reproduced using the highest quality scanner and digital printer available - shrink wrapped and ready to be shipped to your location. This OEM repair / service manual reproduction provides detailed repair and service procedures for all vehicle subsystems.

Porter Cable FC350 TYPE 2 Clipped Head Framing Nailer Parts

This document describes the steps needed to integrate DokuWiki with Mantis. The method described here was originally tested with mantis version 1.1.0rc2 and dokuwiki rc2009-12-02, and should work with subsequent versions (modulo bugs). It may work with older versions of mantis provided you make the File Changes described below.

AWARD-WINNING AND BEST-SELLING AUTHORS CONTRIBUTE NEW STORIES: All-new fiction from Dragon Award winner and New York Times best-selling author David Weber, Dragon Award nominee D.J. Butler, best seller Jody Lynn Nye, indie best sellers Chris Kennedy and Mark Wandrey, and more. Also featuring an introduction by multi-award-winning and New York Times best-selling author Larry Correia.

It is 2185 CE. Humans now live throughout the Solar System, but their most ambitious adventure is about to begin. The starship Victoria will carry over 10,000 colonists to a new world outside the solar system. The larger-than-life exploits of those colonists will become legendary. The colonists will build a new civilization, and the actions of a few individuals will become famous—and infamous—forever marking their new colony with the Founder Effect.

While Hamas unquestionably broke the ceasefire it had with Israel by committing a terrorist attack in Jerusalem, there was another reason for the recent renewal of hostilities. Namely, Hamas was refusing to release the rest of the female hostages as per the agreement for the extensions given. 

Now, the U.S. State Department is revealing the reason why, and it's horrific.

Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok
·
BREAKING: State Dept Spokesman Matthew Miller says the reason Hamas didn’t want to release women and the reason this pause fell apart is because Hamas doesn’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them.

This comes one day after @RepJayapal said we need a “balanced approach” when discussing the sexual violence and r@pe against Jewish women and girls on Oct 7 and while in captivity.

#MeTooUnlessUrAJew
Video source: @greg_price11
2:04 PM · Dec 4, 2023

Barak Ravid @BarakRavid
·
BREAKING: State Department spokesman Mathew Miller says it seems that the reason Hamas refused to release all the women who it held hostage was because the terror group didn't want them to tell what they went through while in captivity in Gaza
1:10 PM · Dec 4, 2023

Dr. Renana Eitan has been treating 15 freed Hamas hostages at the Tel Aviv Medical Center, and she described the barbarian conditions they were held under and the psychological and physical torture they were subjected to.

She spoke to Fox News "Sunday Night in America" and revealed what she's been seeing:

I can tell you that on behalf of all the medical and psychological teams treating those who return, the mental states we encountered have no precedent in medical literature. We feel that we have to rewrite the textbooks of post-trauma.

The audit found that Disney had complete dominance over the RCID. The Board of Supervisors was an extension of Disney’s corporate will. Board votes were allocated based on land ownership, which allowed Disney, as the primary landowner, to control Board elections, which ensured that the Board’s decisions always aligned with the company’s.

Even further, Disney used employee benefits as tools of influence. Members of the Board, along with RCID employees, received substantial benefits that were usually reserved for Disney’s own employees. These included annual passes, discounts on Disney products and services, and access to exclusive events. //

The audit found that Disney’s stewardship of the RCID was marked by a significant lack of development in public services and amenities. Even though its workforce continued to grow and more visitors were visiting the park, the company never invested in essential infrastructure such as workforce housing, schools, or public transportation.

"Under Disney’s control, the RCID built no workforce housing or schools and did not develop any public services directed at anyone but Disney tourists. The RCID never made Disney pay impact fees as all other developers in Orange and Osceola Counties must pay."

Disney was allowed to get away with refusing to give financial contributions that are typically expected from developers. For example, the company did not pay transportation impact fees, which are essential for funding infrastructure development and maintenance.

whatthehand • 1 day ago • Edited 1 day ago

Seriously. It seems like contemporary space (more specifically spacex) fans talk about reusing rockets as if this is like reusing towels or something.

For the reasons you mention and more, reuse has got very limited use at best. And until we see a series of audited financials that dig deep down into specific areas of their business, we can't even confirm the supposedly game-changing economics of it all. Spacelaunch is about as niche of a task as there could be. It's not analogous to reusing towels or toothbrushes or cars or even airplanes. ...
...
From the layperson all the way to NASA, which itself so clearly seemed to doubt their choice even within their own initial selection statement for HLS. Even u/MrPennywhistle in his ever optimistic and infectious enthusiasm helped inadvertently spread a really bizarre belief that has since taken on a new life in popular space discourse: mainly, the strange understanding that there's somehow more to be learned by rapidly, carelessly, prematurely and DELIBERATELY destroying hugely expensive and underdeveloped test-articles. I think it was following AMOS-6 and what he meant to communicate was that having a failure prior to your main mission is a saving grace to be taken advantage of: that there's much to be learned when things go kaboom by accident. Instead it's become a thing where people literally cheer their lungs out when they see a fractional prototype of a giant and expensive craft (that Artemis is desperately banking on) fail catastrophically and tear itself into a million pieces right before their eyes because "tHeReS sO mUcH DaTa! ... //

LukeNukeEm243 • [10 hr. ago][1] • Edited 10 hr. ago
The hit to payload because of reuse isn't much of an issue because you can design the rocket to be as big as you need in order to get the payload into its desired orbit. Sure, it results in a larger, more complex rocket for the same mass of payload, however you won't have to throw the entire thing away after one mission, which will result in lower costs.

SpaceX has hit their aspirational goal of 10 reuses per booster with Falcon 9 and they are continuing beyond it. Their most used boosters have been used 17 or 18 times. They have reused 39 boosters to date, for a total combined 251 landings. Right now they have a successful landing streak of more than 116 since 2021.

This year they have launched only 4 new boosters, the other 81 launches used previously-flown boosters. Similar story for last year when they only launched 4 new boosters, while launching 56 times with reused boosters. For comparison, ULA has so far launched only 3 times this year, and 8 times last year.

SpaceX is operating on an entirely different level than the rest of the launch providers. [They are launching more mass per quarter than the rest of the world combined][2]. Is it a coincidence that they just so happen to be the only launch provider doing reuse at the moment?

As for destructive testing, it is their preferred method because it allows for changes to be made more easily and they can find unknown flaws quicker. They could spend years developing and reviewing the design of Starship so that it would likely work perfectly on the 1st time like SLS. Or they could test the design they have, see what goes wrong with it, and then make improvements to the problem areas for next time. Also these prototypes are way cheaper than an operational rocket like SLS which costs like $2.1 billion alone to launch. I mean, SpaceX is only going to get about $3 billion total from NASA for the first lunar lander and its development. That money is spread out across all the various development milestones. The fixed-price contract incentivizes SpaceX to work efficiently with both their time and money.

And the reason the SpaceX employees and fans cheer during test launches is because the prototypes are: 1- very cool to see (it's like Kerbal Space Program in real life) and 2- they show visible signs of progress. IFT1 tested the launch infrastructure, the quick disconnects were successful and the rocket made it past the tower, SuperHeavy had never flown before that. IFT2 demonstrated even more progress with the deluge system protecting the pad, all engines running nominally through to the hotstage separation, and Starship almost making it to its intended trajectory.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SmarterEveryDay/comments/189vh8h/comment/kbzgf6h/

[2] https://twitter.com/BryceSpaceTech/status/1720153323393663411

For example, the argument about "too many launches" actually breaks down when you consider the payload that gets brought to the lunar surface. If it was just meant to be a cheap gag, feel free to ignore the following: The LEM weighs a little over 5 tons dry, and leaves half of its mass (2.5 tons) on the surface upon return. Maybe factor in another ton for dispensable cargo and Apollo delivers 3.5 tons of material to the lunar surface (not all of this is "useful" material, but we can ignore that for the time being). Starship HLS is designed to leave 100 tons of useful payload on the lunar surface. It would take 28 Saturn V launches to deliver that much material to the moon! And that's with fully expendable launch vehicles! Suddenly a dozen (or even 2 dozen) fully reusable Starship launches doesn't sound so bad in comparison.

I also thought the criticism about the complexity of the Lunar Gateway is somewhat missing the point. To me it seems clear that a lot of the complexity in the mission is the goal; that is, developing bleeding edge technologies that we need for future manned space travel to the moon and beyond. At some point we're going to have to maintain a station somewhere in deep space acting as a permanent hub that supports ferry/cargo craft and landing vehicles. The best place to prove out that concept is around the moon.

Reproducible
Nix builds packages in isolation from each other. This ensures that they are reproducible and don't have undeclared dependencies, so if a package works on one machine, it will also work on another.

Declarative
Nix makes it trivial to share development and build environments for your projects, regardless of what programming languages and tools you’re using.

Reliable
Nix ensures that installing or upgrading one package cannot break other packages. It allows you to roll back to previous versions, and ensures that no package is in an inconsistent state during an upgrade.

Mar 23, 2018
#1
For building a program I need pkg-configure, but this port is deleted:

https://www.freshports.org/devel/pkg-config

Isn't there any alternative?

I do not understand, why people make it so difficult with their programs: Editing a Makefile should be enough!

tobik@
Developer
Mar 23, 2018
#2

It was replaced by devel/pkgconf.

The best programming font I have come across so far is Terminus. I use it for everything except printed documents.

Unfortunately, there are at least the following shortcomings of Terminus:

• Characters 0 and 8 are hard to distinguish. It does not annoy me much in practice, but a better font might solve this :)

• As Terminus is a bitmap font, some programs do not want to display it. There is a Terminus TTF version, but it lacks the clarity of the proper bitmap Terminus unless you happen to hit exactly the right font size and have all the modern things (hinting, antialiasing, etc.) turned off!

Hence, from time to time, there is need for some TTF/vector font instead. Given that there are tons of other programming fonts it should not be hard to find a proper substitute except it seems incredibly hard to get the details right. Maybe I am just too much used to Terminus.

The screenshots on this page were created using theme Night, font size 16 and the C code from https://github.com/m7a/bo-z80-ti84plus-trtotp/blob/master/trtotp.c on the following page: https://www.programmingfonts.org. The exception is Monoid which has been tested at font size 15 because 16 was very wide.

Conclusion

There is a certain disparity between problems and features here: I personally can do without most of the features but do not like to live with the problems. Additionally, backup is a must have but also not something one gets in touch with often as the processes themselves are automated at least to the point that I as a user only call a script (e.g. connect USB drive, call script, disconnect). From that point of view, most of the tools’ advantages are largely uninteresting such as long as there are no problems!

This is an unfortunate situation with backup tools in general which may be one of the reasons why there are so few good tools to chose from :)

Without further delay, the following table summarizes the findings by recalling the greatest issues observed for the respective tools:

Tool Problems
Borg
– very slow especially for initial backups
   
JMBB
– very slow restore
  – no deduplication
  – no files above 8 GiB
   
Kopia
– no Unix pipes/special files support
  – large caches in Data-Test
  – rather large backup sizes
   
Bupstash
– large file numbers in single directory

My conclusion from this is that Bupstash is a most viable candidate. There are still some rough edges but given that it is the newest among the tools checked that can be expected.

Kopia is the hardest tool to setup from all the tools considered here. This starts with initializing a backup storage: All tools except JMBB need this step before performing the first backup whereas JMBB asks the user interactively for the password upon first backup but otherwise does not need to do any setup. Kopia, however, requires three setup steps:

1. Creation of a “repository”
2. Connecting to the repository
3. Configuration of a backup policy

The second step may stem from the fact that Kopia supports multiple different target storages that may require a dedicated and specific login procedure of sorts. The backup policy thing is quite unintuitive though: Kopia has “global” and target-specific policies where things not configured in the target-specific one can be inherited from the “global” ones. Also, the default policy includes that files listed in .kopiaignore files are ignored opening up a simple attack surface where a malware would just add all of the user’s files to hidden .kopiaignore files tricking the user into believing that data is backed up while it is in fact ignored. To some extent, this is my point of view that backup excludes should be minimal as not to confuse the user about which files are backed up and which not. Of course, .kopiaignore is also a useful feature to allow ignoring certain files that do not need to be backed up with exceptionally fine granularity.

Traditional backup tools can mostly be subdivided by the following characteristics:

• file-based vs. image-based
  Image-based solutions make sure everything is backed up, but are potentially difficult to restore on other (less powerful) hardware. Additionally, creating images by using traditional tools like dd requires the disk that is being backed up to be unmounted (to avoid consistency issues). This makes image-based backups better suited for filesystems that allow doing advanced operations like snapshots or zfs send-style images that contain a consistent snapshot of the data of interest. For file-based tools there is also a distinction between tools that exactly replicate the source file structure in the backup target (e.g. rsync or rdiff-backup) and tools that use an archive format to store backup contents (tar).

• networked vs. single-host
  Networked solutions allow backing up multiple hosts and to some extent allow for centralized administration. Traditionally, a dedicated client is required to be installed on all machines to be backed up. Networked solutions can act pull-based (server gets backups from the clients) or push-based (client sends backup to server). Single-Host solutions consist of a single tool that is being invoked to backup data from the current host to a target storage. As this target storage can be a network target, the distinction between networked and single-host solutions is not exactly clear.

• incremental vs. full
  Traditionally, tools either do an actual 1:1 copy (full backup) or copy “just the differences“ which can mean anything from “copy all changed files” to “copy changes from within files”. Incremental schemes allow multiple backup states to be kept without needing much disk space. However, traditional tools require that another full backup be made in order to free space used by previous changes.

Modern tools mostly advance things on the incremental vs. full front by acting incremental forever without the negative impacts that such a scheme has when realized with traditional tools. Additionally, modern tools mostly rely on their own/custom archival format. While this may seem like a step back from tools that replicate the file structure, there are numerous potential advantages to be taken from this:

• Enclosing files in archives allows them and their metadata to be encrypted and portable across file systems.

• Given that many backups will eventually be stored to online storages like Dropbox, Mega, Microsoft One Drive or Google Drive, the portability across file systems is especially useful. Even when not storing backups online, portability ensures that backup data can be copied by easy operations like cp without damaging the contained metadata. Given that online stores are often not exactly trustworthy, encryption is also required.

Abstract

This article attempts to compare three modern backup tools with respect to their features and performance. The tools of interest are Borg, Bupstash and Kopia.

BorgTUI -- A simple TUI and CLI to automate your Borg backups :^)

Can someone please help decide what is the "best" backup software?

• Restic (https://restic.net/)
• Borg backup (https://www.borgbackup.org/)
• Duplicati (https://www.duplicati.com/)
• Kopia (https://kopia.io/)
• Duplicay (https://duplicacy.com/)
• Duplicity (https://duplicity.us/)

mekster 79 days ago

Do yourself a favor and use zfs as your primary backup, even though it means you'll have to replace your filesystem, it's just that good.

Faster than any other backup software (because it knows what's changed from the last snapshot being the filesystem itself but external backup tools always have to scan the entire directories to know what's changed), battle tested reliability with added benefit like transparent compression.

A bit of explanation on how fast it can be than external tools. (I don't work for the said service in the article or promote it.)

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/rsync-net-zfs-replication-to-the-cloud-is-finally-here-and-its-fast/

Then you'll realize Borg is the one with least data corruption complaint on the internet which is good as your secondary backup.

Easily checked with, "[app name] data corruption" on Google.

And see who else lists vulnerability and corruption bugs upfront like Borg does and know the developers are forthcoming about these important issues.

https://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changes.html

The term "best" apparently means reliable for backup and also they don't start choking on large data sets taking huge amount of memories and roundtrip times.

They don't work against your favorite S3 compatible targets but there are services that can be targeted for those tools or just roll your own dedicated backup $5 Linux instance to avoid crying in the future.

With those 2, I don't care what other tools exist anymore.

donmcronald 79 days ago

I use ZFS + Sanoid + Syncoid locally and Borg + Borgmatic + BorgBase for offsite.

WhrRTheBaboons 76 days ago

Seconding zfs

Linux-Fan 80 days ago

Bupstash (https://bupstash.io/) beats Borg and Kopia in my tests (see https://masysma.net/37/backup_tests_borg_bupstash_kopia.xhtml). It is a modern take very close to what Borg offers regarding the feature set but has a significantly better performance (in terms of resource use for running tasks, the backups were slightly larger than Borg's in my tests).

dpbriggs 79 days ago

Personally I use borg with BorgTUI (https://github.com/dpbriggs/borgtui) to schedule backups and manage sources/repositories. I'm quite pleased with the simplicity of it compared to some of the other solutions.

Kopia’s development has accelerated in 2020 and is quickly approaching 1.0. While a number of new features have shown up within the tool, this post will concentrate on the performance improvements made over the last few months. To do that, we will compare v0.4.0 (January, 2020), v0.5.2 (March, 2020), and v0.6.0-rc1 (July, 2020). We will additionally also compare it to restic, another popular open-source backup tool. All binaries were downloaded from GitHub. With the exception of  the s2-standard compression scheme being enabled with kopia, the default options were used for all tools. //

As can be seen in the above results, kopia’s performance has improved significantly over the last few releases. The time taken to backup 200GiB of data has been reduced from ~840 seconds to ~200! For just a single process, this translates to an effective processing bandwidth of 1 GiB/second and an upload bandwidth utilization of 3.5 Gbps.

FreeBSD is bundled with a rich collection of system tools as part of the base system. In addition, FreeBSD provides two complementary technologies for installing third-party software: the FreeBSD Ports Collection, for installing from source, and packages, for installing from pre-built binaries. Either method may be used to install software from local media or from the network.

Fail2Ban uses the file /etc/fail2ban/jail.local and look for the [ssh] section, you can change the port there.

[ssh]
enabled  = true
port     = ssh

You can change the port value to any positive integer.