That was my point - there are not always jobs to be had out there. When the cab companies were requiring bachelor's degrees, where do you think the high school graduates went for jobs?
When the unemployment rate is quoted at being, for example, 9%, that means that 9% of the workforce is out of a job, and actively looking for a new one. Once they get discouraged and stop looking, they are no longer counted as unemployed. Also, if they take a part-time job to pay the rent they are not counted as unemployed. Full employment is considered to be around 4.5-5% - which reflects the time it takes to find another job when there are jobs to be had. When it gets higher, it indicates that there are people who are not finding jobs, even though they are looking. As that number gets higher, the number of chronically unemployed or underemployed (the two categories I mentioned earlier) generally also go up - although those numbers are less widely reported.
Also keep in mind when you talk about moving to find jobs - if those jobs have been moved out of the country, moving may not be an option. Many countries have far less liberal immigration laws than the US (at least as regards to US citizens), so you may not be able to follow those manufacturing jobs to Malaysia, for example.
All I'm saying is that the government needs to provide those safety nets (social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). People can have their savings wiped out through no fault of their own, and be unable to rebuild those savings before retirement. I certainly think that people should save for their own retirement, and not rely on social security (I tell my financial planner to assume no social security) - but I still think it absolutely needs to be there.
I don't completely disagree with you here, but I'm guessing you're younger than I am. Your philosophy of 'everyone who can work, should' is great when we have full employment - but in recessions and depressions, there simply are not jobs for all the people who want to work, or who should work. Those people are burning through the money they saved for a rainy day. And often, their joblessness has nothing whatsoever to do with their worth - they just happened to be working for the wrong company (one that either ceased to exist, or at least had to lay off large numbers of workers) at the wrong time (when unemployment rates are high, so competition for the very few openings there are is much greater than normal, and perhaps in the wrong place (we usually just hear about the national unemployment rate - often it's much higher in specific places - especially if the major employer in a region goes under).
Personally, I've been fortunate in my life - but I can still remember the early 80s when, even though the town I lived in had relatively low unemployment (compared to the national average), when a chain restaurant would open in town, they would get 300-400 applicants to show up on one day for a job fair. All of those people were competing for about 30-40 jobs (and we're talking pretty low wage jobs, too). It was a college town, and the jokes about taxi drivers with PhDs had essentially come true - the cab companies required at least a bachelor's degree for applicants.
Those are the reasons why we have a safety net like social security - you can absolutely be a solid worker who tries to save for your retirement, and be completely wiped out, close enough to retirement age that you can not possibly recover on your own. And if you're working at Wal-Mart, or some other similar wage job, good luck saving anything (especially with bank fees, since you won't have enough of a balance to avoid them) - most people at that wage level can't afford health insurance, so getting sick (or needing dental work, etc.) can easily wipe out anything they can manage to save.
Not a contradiction at all - the article you linked to only mentions testing with rainbow trout - and the study's author points out that he would hesitate to generalize his results even to other types of fish - let alone to marine mammals like dolphins and whales.
It was a little tough to glean from TFA (let alone TFS), but what she actually seems to be saying is that Google is positioning itself to acquire the same type of monopoly on cloud computing that MS has in the OS space. Seems like a valid concern, and as long as all she's arguing for is increased scrutiny as enterprises move more and more to cloud computing, I can't really see an issue with it. It also explains the comment about MS being "so last century" - as companies move to cloud computing (assuming they really do), the OS should become less important.
Although without color it makes most graphic examples in scientific texts impossible to read.
It's been a while since I graduated (in Math), but few, if any, of my college textbooks were in color. Those that were had one color besides black (usually a sort of transparent red). Grade school and high school were a different story, but it is certainly possible to publish college textbooks without a color screen.
Wow - I think you've got your history very mixed up there. Those little red schoolhouses were few and far between. You didn't choose which one to send your kids to based on their performance - you hoped there was one close enough to send your kids to. And there would be ONE that was close enough.
Mostly, those one room schoolhouses were successful because they weren't trying to do nearly as much as schools are asked to do today. There were no extra-curricular activities, no football teams, cheerleading squads, chess clubs. There were generally no art classes, and usually no music classes - if it was a city school, and the parents were fairly well off, there might be a piano. They did not teach calculus, or chemistry.
And, depending on exactly what period we're talking about, there might absolutely be a school district consolidating some operations for multiple schools in an area.
But the real reason those schools were successful is that they didn't have to educate everyone. They could expel troublemakers, and those who weren't interested in being educated could generally leave school when they had had enough (even after compulsory attendance was introduced, it was often possible to get exemptions, at least if you lived on a farm).
Nothing against charter schools, but they are a different concept, with a different agenda, goals, and means of acheiving those goals, than the old one room schoolhouse.
I think s/he meant to say that it was added to the money and the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's.
Re:Google was just trying to save money
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The problem is that there's someone out there for each one of those obscure features, and if you don't support it your product won't even make it in the door.
Too right on this point. I used to work for Cisco, and was always amazed at the number of bugs filed by customers around really obscure and esoteric features. Every one of those obscure features is in IOS because somebody (usually somebody big with deep pockets) is still using it...
Even simple things like OSPF timers - they all have to be adjustable, because some big shop has decided that they can squeeze an extra.1% of bandwidth out of their pipes by fiddling with those timers - and if your new box requires them to reconfigure their whole network to standards (or worse yet, to the values that worked best in Google's network) they're not going to be very interested...
Actually, Congress doesn't get around this at all. The states regulate motor vehicle operation, not the federal government. So, you'd have to look at each state's constitution to see if it was unconstitutional.
Actually, you can - I've done exactly this on my home PC, which was installed from a corporate license (had an MSDN subscription at the time). You need to go through the process manually once - you select everything other than WGA, and when it asks if you really want to ignore that update, you check the box that says something like 'Never ask me about this update again', and click OK. Now, I still get all the critical updates installed automatically, but never have WGA installed on my PC. It's been like that for several years now.
I haven't done anything to work this out, but I do think the effect is negligible. Most of these turbines are 200-250' tall - so on the order of a 20-30 story building. We build those all the time, without worrying about affecting weather patterns (though they may have a very local effect). But the turbines are much less disruptive to the wind than the building even - they just slow it down a bit, rather than blocking it all together. So, other than causing storms to more often go around the wind farm itself, I can't see this really affecting global or even continental weather patterns.
At least on Cisco routers (disclaimer: I used to work for Cisco), there is a command you can use. ip verify unicast reverse-path will cause the router to check the routing table for a path to the source address, and drop the packet if it came in on an interface which is not a candidate route for that address. You don't want to use this in the core of your network, where you may have asymmetric routing, but you can certainly use it on the edges. If an ISP does this uniformly on interface that connect to customers, they can prevent any of their customers from spoofing. Depending on the size of the ISP, they may also be able to implement it on their peer links, and prevent spoofed packets from entering their network from other parts of the internet.
Actually, the library (and specifically, the Interlibrary Loan Service, ILS) are great places to get out of print books - the place you can't get them is the bookstore ('cause you know, that's what out of print means).
It's a risk you take any time you let someone else handle something for you.
Specifically, it's a risk you take anytime you use a free service for something critical. You can't have an enforceable service level agreement for a free service - in order to be binding, a contract has to involve consideration from both sides.
Actually, as someone else pointed out, there are lots of good reasons. One in particular is B2B communications. Now, if both companies are using 10/8, you have to do NAT (and probably on both sides). This has a tendancy to break lots of protocols that you might want to use with a trusted partner. Having assigned address space on at least one side makes this easier (that way you only NAT the clients), but it works better if both sides are globally unique. Those addresses may not be publicly accessible (and so wouldn't show up in a scan like in the TFA), but they are really being used for their intended purpose.
I think the people who wrote the article are confusing the Internet with the World-wide web - although related, they are NOT the same thing.
Or more appropriately:
If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Re:a bunch of questions
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
Not sure what the big deal about this is - it's been a while since I was setting up firewalls (mostly Cisco PIXs), but they had options to limit the number of TCP connect requests in a given time period. And generally intermediate devices such as routers have pretty low numbers of available TCP sockets (for example, Cisco routers generally allow between 5 and 15 telnet/ssh sessions), and filling them up doesn't (usually) prevent the device from routing packets.
So it seems like the message of this is that if you put unprotected hosts on the internet, they are vulnerable to DOS attacks. Well, duh!
Well, since IPv6 was laid out in RFC 2460, and that RFC is not listed as having been obsoleted, I think you are incorrect. There are more recent RFCs which specify certain applications and/or protocols running over IPv6 - however, this situation is no different from IPv4 - where there are still RFCs being published today to specify particular applications and protocols. Oh, and RFC 2460 was published in December of 1998 - so I think we've had plenty of time for testing...
That's why you use optical scan - gets the counts done quickly on election night, but if there is any question, you can hand-recount the paper ballots. It's a system that worked well in many precincts across the country (including central Texas, where I live) until the e-voting madate came down from congress. Lines got a lot longer after they introduced the machines, too - fewer machines than there had been stations to mark paper ballots, and it took people longer to actually vote.
Down here (central Texas, Austin area), they have something called 'video tolling'. Essentially, anyone can go through the TxTag lanes, whether they have a transponder or not. If you have a transponder, you get a discount (I think it's 20%) off the cash rate; if you don't, you pay a premium (again, something like 20-33%) on the toll, plus a handling fee (something like $1 per bill). So yes, they can, in a completely automated fashion, take a picture of your license plate and record in a database exactly when you went through that toll plaza. If you drive on the toll road, you should not expect that anything will restore your anonymity.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my point - there are not always jobs to be had out there. When the cab companies were requiring bachelor's degrees, where do you think the high school graduates went for jobs? When the unemployment rate is quoted at being, for example, 9%, that means that 9% of the workforce is out of a job, and actively looking for a new one. Once they get discouraged and stop looking, they are no longer counted as unemployed. Also, if they take a part-time job to pay the rent they are not counted as unemployed. Full employment is considered to be around 4.5-5% - which reflects the time it takes to find another job when there are jobs to be had. When it gets higher, it indicates that there are people who are not finding jobs, even though they are looking. As that number gets higher, the number of chronically unemployed or underemployed (the two categories I mentioned earlier) generally also go up - although those numbers are less widely reported. Also keep in mind when you talk about moving to find jobs - if those jobs have been moved out of the country, moving may not be an option. Many countries have far less liberal immigration laws than the US (at least as regards to US citizens), so you may not be able to follow those manufacturing jobs to Malaysia, for example. All I'm saying is that the government needs to provide those safety nets (social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). People can have their savings wiped out through no fault of their own, and be unable to rebuild those savings before retirement. I certainly think that people should save for their own retirement, and not rely on social security (I tell my financial planner to assume no social security) - but I still think it absolutely needs to be there.
I don't completely disagree with you here, but I'm guessing you're younger than I am. Your philosophy of 'everyone who can work, should' is great when we have full employment - but in recessions and depressions, there simply are not jobs for all the people who want to work, or who should work. Those people are burning through the money they saved for a rainy day. And often, their joblessness has nothing whatsoever to do with their worth - they just happened to be working for the wrong company (one that either ceased to exist, or at least had to lay off large numbers of workers) at the wrong time (when unemployment rates are high, so competition for the very few openings there are is much greater than normal, and perhaps in the wrong place (we usually just hear about the national unemployment rate - often it's much higher in specific places - especially if the major employer in a region goes under). Personally, I've been fortunate in my life - but I can still remember the early 80s when, even though the town I lived in had relatively low unemployment (compared to the national average), when a chain restaurant would open in town, they would get 300-400 applicants to show up on one day for a job fair. All of those people were competing for about 30-40 jobs (and we're talking pretty low wage jobs, too). It was a college town, and the jokes about taxi drivers with PhDs had essentially come true - the cab companies required at least a bachelor's degree for applicants. Those are the reasons why we have a safety net like social security - you can absolutely be a solid worker who tries to save for your retirement, and be completely wiped out, close enough to retirement age that you can not possibly recover on your own. And if you're working at Wal-Mart, or some other similar wage job, good luck saving anything (especially with bank fees, since you won't have enough of a balance to avoid them) - most people at that wage level can't afford health insurance, so getting sick (or needing dental work, etc.) can easily wipe out anything they can manage to save.
Not a contradiction at all - the article you linked to only mentions testing with rainbow trout - and the study's author points out that he would hesitate to generalize his results even to other types of fish - let alone to marine mammals like dolphins and whales.
It was a little tough to glean from TFA (let alone TFS), but what she actually seems to be saying is that Google is positioning itself to acquire the same type of monopoly on cloud computing that MS has in the OS space. Seems like a valid concern, and as long as all she's arguing for is increased scrutiny as enterprises move more and more to cloud computing, I can't really see an issue with it. It also explains the comment about MS being "so last century" - as companies move to cloud computing (assuming they really do), the OS should become less important.
It's been a while since I graduated (in Math), but few, if any, of my college textbooks were in color. Those that were had one color besides black (usually a sort of transparent red). Grade school and high school were a different story, but it is certainly possible to publish college textbooks without a color screen.
I know you're being funny, but interestingly, in most (maybe all) states, you can not carry a sword or long knife in any way that would make it useful for protection. As a country, we have decided that firearms are much safer than swords. Here are a couple of links for discussions of this: http://askville.amazon.com/NYC-legal-carry-pocket-knife-attached-belt-plain-sight-concealed-weapon/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=9649382 http://askville.amazon.com/legal-carry-sword-self-defense/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8859178
Wow - I think you've got your history very mixed up there. Those little red schoolhouses were few and far between. You didn't choose which one to send your kids to based on their performance - you hoped there was one close enough to send your kids to. And there would be ONE that was close enough. Mostly, those one room schoolhouses were successful because they weren't trying to do nearly as much as schools are asked to do today. There were no extra-curricular activities, no football teams, cheerleading squads, chess clubs. There were generally no art classes, and usually no music classes - if it was a city school, and the parents were fairly well off, there might be a piano. They did not teach calculus, or chemistry. And, depending on exactly what period we're talking about, there might absolutely be a school district consolidating some operations for multiple schools in an area. But the real reason those schools were successful is that they didn't have to educate everyone. They could expel troublemakers, and those who weren't interested in being educated could generally leave school when they had had enough (even after compulsory attendance was introduced, it was often possible to get exemptions, at least if you lived on a farm). Nothing against charter schools, but they are a different concept, with a different agenda, goals, and means of acheiving those goals, than the old one room schoolhouse.
I think s/he meant to say that it was added to the money and the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's.
Too right on this point. I used to work for Cisco, and was always amazed at the number of bugs filed by customers around really obscure and esoteric features. Every one of those obscure features is in IOS because somebody (usually somebody big with deep pockets) is still using it... Even simple things like OSPF timers - they all have to be adjustable, because some big shop has decided that they can squeeze an extra .1% of bandwidth out of their pipes by fiddling with those timers - and if your new box requires them to reconfigure their whole network to standards (or worse yet, to the values that worked best in Google's network) they're not going to be very interested...
Actually, Congress doesn't get around this at all. The states regulate motor vehicle operation, not the federal government. So, you'd have to look at each state's constitution to see if it was unconstitutional.
Actually, you can - I've done exactly this on my home PC, which was installed from a corporate license (had an MSDN subscription at the time). You need to go through the process manually once - you select everything other than WGA, and when it asks if you really want to ignore that update, you check the box that says something like 'Never ask me about this update again', and click OK. Now, I still get all the critical updates installed automatically, but never have WGA installed on my PC. It's been like that for several years now.
Contracts?
I haven't done anything to work this out, but I do think the effect is negligible. Most of these turbines are 200-250' tall - so on the order of a 20-30 story building. We build those all the time, without worrying about affecting weather patterns (though they may have a very local effect). But the turbines are much less disruptive to the wind than the building even - they just slow it down a bit, rather than blocking it all together. So, other than causing storms to more often go around the wind farm itself, I can't see this really affecting global or even continental weather patterns.
At least on Cisco routers (disclaimer: I used to work for Cisco), there is a command you can use. ip verify unicast reverse-path will cause the router to check the routing table for a path to the source address, and drop the packet if it came in on an interface which is not a candidate route for that address. You don't want to use this in the core of your network, where you may have asymmetric routing, but you can certainly use it on the edges. If an ISP does this uniformly on interface that connect to customers, they can prevent any of their customers from spoofing. Depending on the size of the ISP, they may also be able to implement it on their peer links, and prevent spoofed packets from entering their network from other parts of the internet.
Actually, the library (and specifically, the Interlibrary Loan Service, ILS) are great places to get out of print books - the place you can't get them is the bookstore ('cause you know, that's what out of print means).
I think they've already solved that one.
SNAP
RTG
Nuclear Reactors for Space
Google Apps for Business
Claims right on that page that it provides 99.9% uptime.
Specifically, it's a risk you take anytime you use a free service for something critical. You can't have an enforceable service level agreement for a free service - in order to be binding, a contract has to involve consideration from both sides.
Actually, as someone else pointed out, there are lots of good reasons. One in particular is B2B communications. Now, if both companies are using 10/8, you have to do NAT (and probably on both sides). This has a tendancy to break lots of protocols that you might want to use with a trusted partner. Having assigned address space on at least one side makes this easier (that way you only NAT the clients), but it works better if both sides are globally unique. Those addresses may not be publicly accessible (and so wouldn't show up in a scan like in the TFA), but they are really being used for their intended purpose. I think the people who wrote the article are confusing the Internet with the World-wide web - although related, they are NOT the same thing.
Or more appropriately: If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Pretty sure that's not where it came from, but it actually does make some sense!
Not sure what the big deal about this is - it's been a while since I was setting up firewalls (mostly Cisco PIXs), but they had options to limit the number of TCP connect requests in a given time period. And generally intermediate devices such as routers have pretty low numbers of available TCP sockets (for example, Cisco routers generally allow between 5 and 15 telnet/ssh sessions), and filling them up doesn't (usually) prevent the device from routing packets. So it seems like the message of this is that if you put unprotected hosts on the internet, they are vulnerable to DOS attacks. Well, duh!
Well, since IPv6 was laid out in RFC 2460, and that RFC is not listed as having been obsoleted, I think you are incorrect. There are more recent RFCs which specify certain applications and/or protocols running over IPv6 - however, this situation is no different from IPv4 - where there are still RFCs being published today to specify particular applications and protocols. Oh, and RFC 2460 was published in December of 1998 - so I think we've had plenty of time for testing...
That's why you use optical scan - gets the counts done quickly on election night, but if there is any question, you can hand-recount the paper ballots. It's a system that worked well in many precincts across the country (including central Texas, where I live) until the e-voting madate came down from congress. Lines got a lot longer after they introduced the machines, too - fewer machines than there had been stations to mark paper ballots, and it took people longer to actually vote.
Down here (central Texas, Austin area), they have something called 'video tolling'. Essentially, anyone can go through the TxTag lanes, whether they have a transponder or not. If you have a transponder, you get a discount (I think it's 20%) off the cash rate; if you don't, you pay a premium (again, something like 20-33%) on the toll, plus a handling fee (something like $1 per bill). So yes, they can, in a completely automated fashion, take a picture of your license plate and record in a database exactly when you went through that toll plaza. If you drive on the toll road, you should not expect that anything will restore your anonymity.