Only 13 percent of the people polled said they trust Facebook "completely" or "a lot" to keep their personal information private. More than half (59 percent) said they have little or no faith in the company to protect their privacy. And allmost a quarter said they don't even use Facebook because of privacy concerns.
The survey was conducted by phone from May 3 to May 7 and solicited the opinions of 1,004 people.
Distance learning sounds good on paper, but with 1000 students watching passively, who answers their questions?
Given that I am clearly talking of 2-way interactive videoconferencing, the instructor answers their questions.
If you want to improve education in the US so that the country can be competitive with other countries, you need to adopt strategies these other countries use, like having teachers who are actually educated in the fields they are teaching instead of having a generic teaching certificate; like having actual homework, longer school days/years and yes, pushing the brightest students into programs where they can excel instead of teaching to the lowest common denominator.
I agree that the fundamentals need to come first. The reason why you see technology pushed, is because there is not enough money made available to do the things you mention above, and technology is actually cheaper than the above. So they are looking towards technology to help cut costs by being more financially efficient than paying a person who can make money equally as well actually using their skills as they can teaching. Sometimes they get their hopes too high, sure.
None of those things require high tech solutions.
Neither does amputating a frostbitten finger, but you can be damn sure if I ever need that done I'll opt for the well equipped OR over the guy with a pack of ice and a cleaver.
It doesn't seem that you have any decisions to make for yourself, There is always someone else telling you what to think.
There will always be people telling other people what to think. It's called communication. In some cases this is because people who actually know better than "common sense" feel obligated to go out and try to talk more sense into "common sense." In other cases this is because people who ought to know better get their jollies by taking advantage of deficiencies in "common sense."
(Rommunism: a system of government in which all wealth is redistributed evenly among Mitt Romney. Screw the 1%.)
Generally they do this very thing, using a Polycom or BT set-top unit. That's what the above math represents -- the bandwidth cost of ONE classroom-quality bidirectional conferencing feed to a conference bridge.
Now if you are cheaping out and not using an outside conferencing service, which is common, any video-conference with more than two endpoints is going to require one of the particpants to run the multipoint bridge on their local codec. That means for that site they need to be able to support one session for each endpoint other than themselves. So a single 4-participant distance learning session can pretty much fill a T1 connection completely at the hosting codec's site, even when you are using crummy 384Kbps connections.
Do they have any idea what the price is for that kind of Internet connection?
When you get up to buying a gig, not as much/Mbps as the smaller allotments. But you are right, that would be a stretch for most institutions, mainly because their routers/firewalls/content-filtering/etc is not sized for the number of connections/pps that such a pipe would support. They'd be looking at a full re-buy and reprovisioning of their entire gateway path.
Actually schools' needs for high quality video conferencing is pretty pressing. Nothing less than 384Kbps is even passable. 768 is workable for some lectures, but a higher bandwdith and lower latency telepresence is needed for anything that involves more than a lecturer at a chalkboard. The crummy youtube-level quality web users put up with just doesn't cut it in an interactive learning environment.
Figure a class size of 24, 1000 students would be 20 simultaneous classes, and assume 10 of them have distance learning inbound or outbound, you're then up to at least 14Mbps of low-latency demand, which means more raw bandwidth than 14Mbps. 100Mbps per 1000 student is not much of an overestimate.
The author of TFA is also missing something even more fundamental and that is the users don't give a damned about free as in freedom
That is true of the people who are current FB users. Of the people who are not, here is a sizeable chunk who do care. If a service that upped the bar sufficiently in that department were to come along, and was easy enough to join, then those people might join that new service. If there are enough of them, then those people would start to pull FB customers into having an account on the new service (in addition to their FB account) in order to interact with them. If the service were on par with FB for other features, eventually the new service would draw enough people that it would be essential for everyone who is a social networking addict to not miss what goes on on that service. Eventually the new service would draw in more users than FB, and at that point, there would be less of a reason to even have an FB account.
That is how a competitor gains market share. Unfortunately, Google is the least likely competitor to compete on the customer data privacy/security front.
My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
My guess is that it is more commodity than that. What PI wouldn't find the answer to the question "did this car go down this road between these dates" unworthy of a small disbursement from their client's expense account fairly frequently?
Availability of another simple language that is easy on the eyes that has nearly self-explanatory procedural concurrency (via coroutines in Lua's case) might do the trick, but I don't see any real reason to hate on Lua.
Nope, not generational. A majority of people are very easily swayed by persistent propaganda. They may figure out what their own interests are in their 30s, but under constant pressure they will eventually wear down and become scared and confused and angry at their lot in life. They will allow themselves to get roped into an "us versus them" mentality where the person with the largest bank-roll gets to decide who the "them" is (and there need not even be a real "them.") And research into human psychology advances and makes well financed advertising campaigns even more effective as time goes on.
By the time the recently resurrected racist element loses its steam, there will be a new bogeyman. The fools of the future will probably not look anything like the current republican base (for one, they won't be white), but what they believe won't matter so much as their maleability as political puppets.
(Oh yeah, and to rub salt in the wound, everyone who had the mental capacity to worry about man's effect on the planet and abstain from reproduction will have completely failed to produce any offspring with similar abilities, we'll have only a small gaggle of adoptees to carry that load.)
GP's position is quite reasonable unless you can prove otherwise
Neither the assertion that consciousness is discontiguous nor discontiguous is reasonable, given the answer to that question is unknown. Neither are assertions as to the knowability of the answer to that question, since the knowablity is currently unknown as well.
Anyone, theist or atheist, who makes such assertions is being intellectually dishonest.
(None of this has anything to do with "God" except for panentheistic/clockmaker definitions of the term.)
Yes, don't ever dare run two unrelated services on the same OS instance, especially a fully capable UNIX. Because you really do need to give the tiny widget that lets you validate parking its very own web server. In fact, you should make sure you buy ONLY software that is unfriendly to sharing a box, and offers no use-sepcific redundancy strategy. After all, if you didn't do stuff like this, then you'd lose the cost justification for all that deduplication backup software. And that might mean you'd have no cost justification for the hardware on which the deduplication server was running and... well you can see where this is going. It's a horrible downward spiral and when it hits bottom, there goes your job security.
There'll be no next life, he'll cease to function and have his remains disposed of, that's all. Just like you and me (and that cockroach).
What a relief. It is sure refreshing to know that there are superior intellects in the world who have already completely characterized consciousness, not to mention time and space, to the point of being able to make such statements with such a degree of confidence. I was afraid I might actually have to bother to read some of those boring philosophy books, but since you've got this problem all sewn up, I guess I won't have to bother.
Of course the reason cartridges were phased-out is because assembling hardware is more-costly to build than a flat disc of reflective foil
Except at that time USB flash drives had not been commoditized to the point where they already cost significantly less than video game titles.
If a game was offered in either optical or flash format (and the flash capable of loading the game onto local cache in a decently short duration) I'd definitely pick the former. They take less space and there's a lot less futzing around with handy-wipes and jewel cases.
Considering how many patches these games end up needing, and add-on content, the happy medium (pun intended) between download only and optical ROM might be a flash stick 2x the size of the base game or so (with some r/o and write-once protections built in.) That would allow the game to store patches on the same medium as it is distributed, rather than filling up your console drive.
This. They'd have better luck if they stopped posting resumes obviously written by clueless PHBs, as we can smell people we do not want to work for a mile away.
With an electronic mind, you could alter your perception of time so the boring parts of floating between stars for years would only last a few minutes subjectively
It's all fun and games until someone loses an aeon.
Switches only send unicast packets to hosts with the appropriate IP address.
Switches flood packets whenever their destination address's CAM entry expires, until they see another one to refresh the entry (unless switches have advanced port security/dot1x features turned on that prevent unicast flooding) so you will indeed see a bit of unicast traffic meant for other hosts, mostly hosts that are sporadically used, but also during STP topology changes.
This is not enough traffic to get much data at L7, but it is enough for L2/L3/L4 intelligence gathering. So it is theoretically possible to do a passive pre-scan to build a target list. However, that's really the job of pcap-based apps, not nmap.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the same 1% that use Linux?
Nice pigeonhole attempt. No.
Only 13 percent of the people polled said they trust Facebook "completely" or "a lot" to keep their personal information private. More than half (59 percent) said they have little or no faith in the company to protect their privacy. And allmost a quarter said they don't even use Facebook because of privacy concerns.
The survey was conducted by phone from May 3 to May 7 and solicited the opinions of 1,004 people.
Distance learning sounds good on paper, but with 1000 students watching passively, who answers their questions?
Given that I am clearly talking of 2-way interactive videoconferencing, the instructor answers their questions.
If you want to improve education in the US so that the country can be competitive with other countries, you need to adopt strategies these other countries use, like having teachers who are actually educated in the fields they are teaching instead of having a generic teaching certificate; like having actual homework, longer school days/years and yes, pushing the brightest students into programs where they can excel instead of teaching to the lowest common denominator.
I agree that the fundamentals need to come first. The reason why you see technology pushed, is because there is not enough money made available to do the things you mention above, and technology is actually cheaper than the above. So they are looking towards technology to help cut costs by being more financially efficient than paying a person who can make money equally as well actually using their skills as they can teaching. Sometimes they get their hopes too high, sure.
None of those things require high tech solutions.
Neither does amputating a frostbitten finger, but you can be damn sure if I ever need that done I'll opt for the well equipped OR over the guy with a pack of ice and a cleaver.
It doesn't seem that you have any decisions to make for yourself, There is always someone else telling you what to think.
There will always be people telling other people what to think. It's called communication. In some cases this is because people who actually know better than "common sense" feel obligated to go out and try to talk more sense into "common sense." In other cases this is because people who ought to know better get their jollies by taking advantage of deficiencies in "common sense."
(Rommunism: a system of government in which all wealth is redistributed evenly among Mitt Romney. Screw the 1%.)
Generally they do this very thing, using a Polycom or BT set-top unit. That's what the above math represents -- the bandwidth cost of ONE classroom-quality bidirectional conferencing feed to a conference bridge.
Now if you are cheaping out and not using an outside conferencing service, which is common, any video-conference with more than two endpoints is going to require one of the particpants to run the multipoint bridge on their local codec. That means for that site they need to be able to support one session for each endpoint other than themselves. So a single 4-participant distance learning session can pretty much fill a T1 connection completely at the hosting codec's site, even when you are using crummy 384Kbps connections.
This is pretty close to the situation in our network, and I suspect these are pretty typical numbers for a higher education residential campus.
Do they have any idea what the price is for that kind of Internet connection?
When you get up to buying a gig, not as much /Mbps as the smaller allotments. But you are right, that would be a stretch for most institutions, mainly because their routers/firewalls/content-filtering/etc is not sized for the number of connections/pps that such a pipe would support. They'd be looking at a full re-buy and reprovisioning of their entire gateway path.
Well, on a more serious note, most schools already squid heavily, because it's built into their content filtering suite as an add-on feature.
But then, how often do you actually download truly "static" webpage that wasn't dynamically generated these days?
1000 students would be 20 simultaneous classes, and assume 10
change propagation fail... that's 40 classes assume 20.
Actually schools' needs for high quality video conferencing is pretty pressing. Nothing less than 384Kbps is even passable. 768 is workable for some lectures, but a higher bandwdith and lower latency telepresence is needed for anything that involves more than a lecturer at a chalkboard. The crummy youtube-level quality web users put up with just doesn't cut it in an interactive learning environment.
Figure a class size of 24, 1000 students would be 20 simultaneous classes, and assume 10 of them have distance learning inbound or outbound, you're then up to at least 14Mbps of low-latency demand, which means more raw bandwidth than 14Mbps. 100Mbps per 1000 student is not much of an overestimate.
That would be contrary to the whole "send it to the cloud" trending mentality, which is aimed at saving local-server tech support costs.
The author of TFA is also missing something even more fundamental and that is the users don't give a damned about free as in freedom
That is true of the people who are current FB users. Of the people who are not, here is a sizeable chunk who do care. If a service that upped the bar sufficiently in that department were to come along, and was easy enough to join, then those people might join that new service. If there are enough of them, then those people would start to pull FB customers into having an account on the new service (in addition to their FB account) in order to interact with them. If the service were on par with FB for other features, eventually the new service would draw enough people that it would be essential for everyone who is a social networking addict to not miss what goes on on that service. Eventually the new service would draw in more users than FB, and at that point, there would be less of a reason to even have an FB account.
That is how a competitor gains market share. Unfortunately, Google is the least likely competitor to compete on the customer data privacy/security front.
My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
My guess is that it is more commodity than that. What PI wouldn't find the answer to the question "did this car go down this road between these dates" unworthy of a small disbursement from their client's expense account fairly frequently?
Availability of another simple language that is easy on the eyes that has nearly self-explanatory procedural concurrency (via coroutines in Lua's case) might do the trick, but I don't see any real reason to hate on Lua.
Nope, not generational. A majority of people are very easily swayed by persistent propaganda. They may figure out what their own interests are in their 30s, but under constant pressure they will eventually wear down and become scared and confused and angry at their lot in life. They will allow themselves to get roped into an "us versus them" mentality where the person with the largest bank-roll gets to decide who the "them" is (and there need not even be a real "them.") And research into human psychology advances and makes well financed advertising campaigns even more effective as time goes on.
By the time the recently resurrected racist element loses its steam, there will be a new bogeyman. The fools of the future will probably not look anything like the current republican base (for one, they won't be white), but what they believe won't matter so much as their maleability as political puppets.
(Oh yeah, and to rub salt in the wound, everyone who had the mental capacity to worry about man's effect on the planet and abstain from reproduction will have completely failed to produce any offspring with similar abilities, we'll have only a small gaggle of adoptees to carry that load.)
GP's position is quite reasonable unless you can prove otherwise
Neither the assertion that consciousness is discontiguous nor discontiguous is reasonable, given the answer to that question is unknown. Neither are assertions as to the knowability of the answer to that question, since the knowablity is currently unknown as well.
Anyone, theist or atheist, who makes such assertions is being intellectually dishonest.
(None of this has anything to do with "God" except for panentheistic/clockmaker definitions of the term.)
Yes, don't ever dare run two unrelated services on the same OS instance, especially a fully capable UNIX. Because you really do need to give the tiny widget that lets you validate parking its very own web server. In fact, you should make sure you buy ONLY software that is unfriendly to sharing a box, and offers no use-sepcific redundancy strategy. After all, if you didn't do stuff like this, then you'd lose the cost justification for all that deduplication backup software. And that might mean you'd have no cost justification for the hardware on which the deduplication server was running and... well you can see where this is going. It's a horrible downward spiral and when it hits bottom, there goes your job security.
There'll be no next life, he'll cease to function and have his remains disposed of, that's all. Just like you and me (and that cockroach).
What a relief. It is sure refreshing to know that there are superior intellects in the world who have already completely characterized consciousness, not to mention time and space, to the point of being able to make such statements with such a degree of confidence. I was afraid I might actually have to bother to read some of those boring philosophy books, but since you've got this problem all sewn up, I guess I won't have to bother.
I'd definitely pick the former
erm. latter.
Of course the reason cartridges were phased-out is because assembling hardware is more-costly to build than a flat disc of reflective foil
Except at that time USB flash drives had not been commoditized to the point where they already cost significantly less than video game titles.
If a game was offered in either optical or flash format (and the flash capable of loading the game onto local cache in a decently short duration) I'd definitely pick the former. They take less space and there's a lot less futzing around with handy-wipes and jewel cases.
Considering how many patches these games end up needing, and add-on content, the happy medium (pun intended) between download only and optical ROM might be a flash stick 2x the size of the base game or so (with some r/o and write-once protections built in.) That would allow the game to store patches on the same medium as it is distributed, rather than filling up your console drive.
This. They'd have better luck if they stopped posting resumes obviously written by clueless PHBs, as we can smell people we do not want to work for a mile away.
With an electronic mind, you could alter your perception of time so the boring parts of floating between stars for years would only last a few minutes subjectively
It's all fun and games until someone loses an aeon.
Switches only send unicast packets to hosts with the appropriate IP address.
Switches flood packets whenever their destination address's CAM entry expires, until they see another one to refresh the entry (unless switches have advanced port security/dot1x features turned on that prevent unicast flooding) so you will indeed see a bit of unicast traffic meant for other hosts, mostly hosts that are sporadically used, but also during STP topology changes.
This is not enough traffic to get much data at L7, but it is enough for L2/L3/L4 intelligence gathering. So it is theoretically possible to do a passive pre-scan to build a target list. However, that's really the job of pcap-based apps, not nmap.
Yes that makes it easy to rememb... oh screw that!
Thee will be a lot of 2600 prefixes, though, considering usual allocations for people with "sites" and preexisting IPV4 allocations are /48 or /44.
But don't stop holding your breath quite yet
...the lawyers wanted us to pass on that they advise against issuing this command to your online minions.