I am not judging, but telephone autocorrect often automatically inserts words as substitutions when the author is more likely to use that word. This is why people who are fond of iPhones often complain when they try Android and vise verse as the phone has not learned their typing habits yet.
I would imagine that you may have intended to write milk?
Adding a domain to Office365 is REALLY easy and the whitelist/blacklist thing is pretty non-existent.
Never use a mail provider which can't offer mass-economy for spam and malware checking. You pretty much are screwed into using one of the evil empires for your mail, but it works a lot better than other solutions.
I use Microsoft because I already pay for Office anyway. For a few more bucks a year, I have a domain and if nothing else, they are professional about how they handle their business. Yesterday, I actually received a real telephone call from a real Microsoft representative (though definitely with a strong Indian accent) letting me know that my credit card expired and an e-mail account had be frozen because of it. Apparently, I had updated my credit card but forgot to attach it to the account.
I think it costs me $100 a year, and I'm sure I could get it a lot cheaper elsewhere. But the spam filtering on Office365 is just too damn good.
Recruiter = Person who still applies to work in a job that was replaced by computers 25 years ago and they didn't actually notice
I have a simple response to recruiters when they say :
Them : I have a great customer... Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you... Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
Them : We're hiring 17 great people for a project... Me : Good luck! You're attempting to build a team without any real knowledge of how they will work together as a team. You're actually throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some will stick. If you're hiring 17 more or less random people for a project, most of those people are basically just desperate and if I were there, I'd have to do all their jobs for them. You'd be better off hiring two or three known assets and have them bring their own people in. In reality, if you're hiring 17 people at once, you should actually be outsourcing the project.
There are many things to say to recruiters... my dad was a recruiter back before the Internet. Back then, to look at jobs outside of your local area, it was the only way to go. Once the web came around, recruiters were basically people who couldn't find a real job for themselves and now are trying to do it for someone else.
The internet democratized funding of elections in the sense that it supports contributing to one party or the other.
As you mentioned Bernie and Jill had the issue of visibility.
The reason for this as I mentioned was visibility. The candidates couldn't constantly insert plugs on their TV interviews about their websites and how to donate to their campaigns. They lacked the platforms to raise money.
All the names I mentioned, Bezos, Nadella, Zuck, etc... all have mass media platforms where they could directly support open political platforms for non-party associated candidates. While all these people do lobby heavily and contribute heavily to campaigns of party candidates, they do this because the two party system makes it nearly impossible to do business on a market monopoly scale if the politicians aren't purchased.
To present the two party system as it has evolved, consider it to be little more than a reality TV series about professional wrestlers. You have "The good guys" and "The bad guys". Of course, everyone thinks their own team is the good guys, but that's irrelevant with the exception that mass media and the parties themselves market themselves as the good guys and the other team as the bad guys. It's become very important in American politics that we clearly see only white and black hats, nothing in-between. After all, a democrat could never look at a guy like Mitt Romney and say "Wow... once in a while he makes a lot of sense" or a republican can never look at Obama and say "He really did try very hard to do what he thought was best for the American people". Instead, we have to be programmed to call the other people names and speak hateful about them.
When we vote, we vote on nothing regarding substance. What happens is that we have organizations responsible for team management. This would be the RNC and DNC. They are responsible for polling the people and supporting whichever candidate will almost guarantee them the most power. They run their business like a reality TV show. They put on little shows like debates and they don't measure whether people are best represented by those candidates, they are measuring whether or not they market those people well enough to get them into office as representatives of their parties. This is how we ended up with Hillary and Trump, possibly the two most horrible possible candidates at a national level in a century.
The goal of the parties is to dominate the other team in the government. They talk smack like a WWE showdown before the fights. They treat the senate floor as though it were a sports arena. They would sell tickets to filibusters like main events if they could. Imagine in the voice of a wrestling announcer "On one side, there are a bunch of people wearing coordinated uniforms that cost more than the typical American's annual salary. On the other side stands a 82 year old man with heart conditions. His goal, to read War and Peace from cover to cover to stonewall his enemy. Can he do it. Will his heart give out. Tune it at..."
The two party system in itself is probably responsible for more school shootings than anything else. It's the national leaders. The people who should be the true heroes of the country, the people who should stand out above as beacons of good behavior and maturity behaving like a bunch of brawlers. They sell competition and they sell hate. The play with the lives of the people from initial insemination forward as though these are game pieces and they pass laws left and right, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but instead because they are establishing their power base and using peoples lives as political capital.
Consider this... which country in the world passes more laws than any other country?
How many of the laws that it passes are passed almost entirely on party lines?
How many of these laws are passed with little or no open debate. In other words, are the laws openly discussed and weighed based on their merits or are they passed mostly by a single part
Both the democrats and the republicans depend very heavily on people with low IQs. People with 1/3 of a brain and able to think for themselves would be devestating for the two party system.
If killing off the EPA and pumping the atmosphere full of crap will dumb the people down, both the republicans and the democrats will thrive.
Heaven forbid someone with a brain figured out that the elections are about visibility. Candidates sell their souls (if theyâ€(TM)re smart enough to have one to begin with) to either team red or team blue to provide them publicity and therefore making it possible to gain votes.
Someone like Bezos, Nadella, Zuckerburg or a few others could easily overpower either of the two parties and simply provide crowd sourcing platforms for alternative candidates with no party ties.
Imagine a political system where someone who actually cared about the people and the country could run for office by employing a platform that played commercials for them during YouTube videos. Imagine if Facebook and Google, leading up to elections would provide equal free airtime to candidates no matter what their political persuasion.
The parties would lose power and the people would be exposed to a set of candidates who didnâ€(TM)t sell all their political capital before ever reaching the ballot.
Imagine if all the major social media networks educated the people that they not only donâ€(TM)t have to vote for a party sponsored candidate, but if they were true Americans, they would prove it by not voting for red or blue but instead red, white and blue.
Of course, with this research, it would probably make sense to pump the air full of crap and dumb the people down so they wouldnâ€(TM)t be able to understand that. After all, American politics depends on people being so stupid that they actually attack liberals and conservatives as if there are only two types of people in the whole country. Imagine if people were smart enough to realize that their own opinions are not the only right ones.
I suppose breaking up the two party system just wouldnâ€(TM)t make good TV. Think of how much money CNN, Fox, BBC, etc... make simply playing the American people against each other.
I was really with you there for a while.. then I remembered Harley Davidson motorcycles... or even sports cars... I've taught my children that any machine that makes that much noise is poorly designed. Well designed machines don't make noise like that.
I think that was in reference to a Ferrari making the popping sounds. I taught them that any machine that makes that much noise is only operated by assholes who don't mind driving something which is basically broken by design and can't operate within decent sound limits. Within 5 years, consumer electric or fuel cell vehicles will far outperform super sports cars. So, electric drive train vehicles will be able to run fairly silent and within only 20 years of evolution will have accomplished substantially more than internal combustion engine vehicles did in nearly 100.
If Harley's are still allowed and people try to tolerate them, then a flying vehicle will be no different.
That said, the third dimension is logical and underground is far better than above... though tunneling also requires air quality management:(
Oh damn,,, just damn... I'm sorry... you're suggesting that the average person will find it easier to pilot a vehicle in three dimensions than in two?
Just OMG... do you realize that instead of left and right, the driver of the vehicle would be responsible for managing yaw, pitch and roll?
I was stuck behind a learner driver (in the middle of a city during business hours no less) the other day. She nearly drove onto the side walk several times... which is extra impressive since there was a bicycle lane that was at least a meter across between a fairly wide normal lane and the sidewalk. She will need months to simply master turning the vehicle without endangering the people around her too much.
I absolutely refuse to imagine human operators in three dimensional space.
Now, self piloting vehicles, that could be a real option. Especially if all cars are tied into a single centralized traffic management system.
To be fair, I pretty much would simply be happy if we could just eliminate human drivers and if The Boring Company works out, we can still have the third dimension without the massive amount of energy waste required for lifting an American sized human in a VTOL traffic environment.
Short selling is not an investment. For the most part, almost all forms of trading is not investing. Investing means you're taking an invested interest in the company. Loaning a company money is investing in that company. Buying shares from an offering is investing in the company.
Short selling is betting against the company. It's pretty much an anti-investment.
When you short sell, you're selling shares you don't even own and then delivering those shares after it fails. You are never really an owner of the shares. You're only ever buying enough of them to deliver them to a customer who already owns them having bought shares from you that you didn't actually own to begin with. The person you're selling to is on the other hand willing to buy shares from you (possibly at a discount) expecting the value to go up instead of down and they are gaining a few bucks by simply buying them for less than their market value.
I am so looking forward to the absolute collapse of the "free market economy". I fear it will send my children to war, but the simple fact that short selling is legally allowed is proof that we have failed.
If a person costs too much, you have to use less people If you use less people, there are less jobs If there are less jobs, there is less money to be redistributed If there is less money to be redistributed, there are fewer people buying your stuff or using your service. If you raise your prices to compensate for lower demand, to increase wages, you'll lose more customers
It's a vicious circle. The answer is... we need something like basic income... but instead of basic income, we need a government run labor bureau that pays all of their employees (the entire nation) a livable salary and everyone has to work at least 1 month of the year. The government will maintain a list of jobs which need to be done for the government and will also provide an agency for companies and people to hire other people from.
So if it's your month to work, you'll probably end up sorting trash for recycling. But it's one month of the year. As long as you don't have an overactive gag reflex, you'll be fine. You might end up travelling to old-peoples homes to fix their roof... whatever it'll be fine.
People will be given better jobs to do if they have higher skill sets. But if you have 11 months of the year to sit around and do nothing, watch a youtube video or read a book, get some training... whatever. If you are so useless you can bother with that, then sort trash.
Then people like me will have a great time. I'll work every single day and night... just as I always have. And 11 months of the year, I'll work on projects I think will actually improve the system. But since I don't really have to work those 11 months, I'll have the option to either do my own thing without starving... or I can work for someone else for more money during that time.
The point is, if 90% of the worlds population just decided to disappear tomorrow, the 10% who actually really love what they do would keep doing it... I can honestly see myself and my daughter working to develop technology to convert a nearby tunnel in the mountain into a farm which would produce 12 months a year with little or no human intervention. I can easily see my wife working at the hospital as a nurse 4 days a week (intead of 5 or 6 now) to take care of people in need. I can easily see my son sitting in his desk chair growing roots from his ass and developing back and neck problems while watching youtube and playing LoL.
We simply don't need most of the people working now. Ship them away... we'll be fine. Bring us 1/12th the population each month and let them clean our windows and sort our trash. The rest of the time, send them someplace warm and happy. Let them live the life and we'll do just fine.
If we force everyone to have goals oriented towards productivity... they'll produce... and if they produce, we'll consume. If we consume, we end up in a Pixar movie on a space ship while a robot left on earth is looking for a single living flower among towers of garbage. If most people are happy living in hotel rooms on beaches with fancy drinks... let them do it 11 months of the year... we don't want them... we don't need them... offer this to 90% of the people and let's be done with it. Let's just give them everything in the tropics... we'll ship them a steady supply of booze and little umbrellas.
Once Uber/Lyft/Google and others manage to make self-driving taxis, cars, buses, etc... a reality, And once Amazon manages to make shopping from your couch as convenient time-wise thanks to automated same day delivery... what you suggest will become almost critical.
We hear a lot about self driving and automation of things we encounter in daily life. But consider areas like construction where 3d printed printed foundations and houses that are manufactured to be clicked together with a self-driving truck mounted crane in a few hours. Also consider real and practical agricultural automation projects such as 3d printed meats and farms run in excavated tunnels that can produce crops all year round without the use of pesticides or even humans.
Consider also that automating these jobs will cause a massive slump as collateral. For example, if your company doesn't need employees, you don't need employee lawyers, HR, etc... You can seriously shrink your needs in the management of payroll and more.
The fact is, there will still be MANY MANY jobs, but many of them will be dealing with things like sorting trash.
There will no be enough jobs for the massive number of people we have... well unless we use the American system of imprisoning as many people as possible while hiring as many more as possible to run the prisons. Or alternatively, we can put them into the military and hope they get killed before they fuck up the employment stats. Or we can hire 1.2 million of them to work in the TSA and another 150 thousand to work in the DHS. Of course, if we scare the shit out of everyone enough, we can hire another million as cops... and they'll all need guns, so that's a lot more jobs.
No... the US government will have to stop hiring everyone themselves for "national security jobs" sooner or later. And I think that 2 million career criminals is about all they can really milk out of the population even with things like persecution of ex-cons no matter what their crimes were. And although the French, Dutch, British and a few others are trying really really hard to make a good industry off of terrorist threats and anti-immigrant propaganda, I don't think there's a future in this.
We have to reach the point where people can afford to live while working less. Either a 3 or 4 day work week is a good start. It could be one month on, one month off. But we need to adjust to the reality that we can't all live off of fear based economies.
Let's not forget that the energy market is going to die.... slowly, but it will die. Consider that using a slow trickle down effect, we will see the majority of our energy come from renewables over the next few decades. This isn't a prediction, this is a trend. It's already happening and will continue to happen. We will build massive solar and wind farms. Running solar is very cost effective once it's built. Running wind, we have some stuff to figure out, but it's nothing compared to running coal, oil or nuclear. But just as hydro electricity is well understood now, we'll understand other sources soon.
Companies like Tesla will sell solar roof tiles as well. This is something my entire neighborhood is currently investigating as a communal option. We'll replace all our roof tiles with Tesla or some other brand's solution within 10 years.
Some places like California if I recall correctly are requiring solar roofs in new construction (under certain circumstances) now.
Once solar goes it, there will be some maintenance, but it will be minimal. In fact, in 50 years when the market is saturated and the vast majority of energy is produced without the grid and more or less every house has solar tiles, the industry will have shrunken away. Rednecks in Alabama will be plucking tiles out of landfill and selling full sets for pennies on the dollar at pawn shops so they can buy some Busch beer and bullets.
Data centers will shrink considerably over time... this means that modern data centers which produce 30MW of power themselves to sustain their opera
I travel a lot... in spurts. Like one year on, three years off. I use Uber exclusively because it allows me to handle my expense accounts cleanly. If I use Yellow in NY and Black in London, etc... I'd have to manage a bunch of receipts and scan them and all that shit. On the road, I even try to eat at places that accept either Paypal or Apple Pay so that full receipts are sent to my accounts there. On top of that, I only use airlines and hotels that allow me to pay with Paypal.
Taxi drivers and Uber drivers certainly make a large part of their income from locals. But locals who can afford taxis are generally people who are better at managing their money. In addition, people using taxis to get around the city in NY for business are expensing it. In either of these cases, the cleanliness of the payment system of Uber or Lyft is worth higher prices.
I honestly haven't even considered city taxi services in years because I simply don't want the hassle of doing expenses or even the added work itemizing on taxes.
The bad part for the taxi companies is that unless they were to collaborate on a massive international level to offer the same service that Uber or Lyft offers, they have no defense against this. Let's be honest, in a period of 2 weeks, I used Uber in NYC, Tokyo, Oslo and London... I had absolutely no problems and was happy to do it. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to use a taxi in Japan, taxis in London are REALLY REALLY unreliable outside the two inner zones. And frankly, taxis in NYC are not too bad, but more often than not, my credit card doesn't work in their machines because of the massive amount of anti-fraud tech that is supposed to protect me as opposed to inconvenience me.
I think this will certainly hit Uber, but as you said, it will simply cause a price adjustment which has been needed anyway.
At $2,295, this is no longer an easy purchase for a developer. Especially for something which at this time should be seen as â€oeI as a developer add more value to the platform than the platform adds to my productsâ€
At that price, I would have to go through way too much pain to order the 3 units I would need to even consider using time on this. There needs to be one for developers, one for QA and one for business folks. Thatâ€(TM)s almost $7000 just to get started.
Whatâ€(TM)s more, itâ€(TM)s a large investment to make in a market which is unproven from a vendor that is very much unproven. I seriously doubt they will even have a logistics strategy sorted out by the time I manage to ship a product on the platform. What I mean is, all their resellers will try it and stock a few and then give up. All sales would then end up being direct or through Amazon.
Also, with a product priced to sell hardly a few thousand units at that price point, there will be almost no usable bug reports generated. The result will be that a truly substandard platform will be shipped.
Developing quality products on platforms like this depends heavily on mass economy. If you donâ€(TM)t have at least a hundred thousand users, there will simply not be enough user feedback to make anything worth using.
I honestly avoid Python as much as possible as I do with C even though I just pumped out a few thousand lines of a Linux kernel module in it.
I think the real issue with Python is not whether it is suited for large projects or not, but instead is that the package repository is completely blasted with piss poor quality modules.
Most of the Python modules I have attempted to use (thanks to Google and SE telling me I should), I find I spend a great deal of time fixing or rewriting modules and then feeling as if I have to take ownership of them as theyâ€(TM)re mostly abandoned.
Python as a language is extremely versatile. It can do almost anything and generally can also do it well. I do develop a lot of computers and language tools including JITs, but I wouldnâ€(TM)t even know where to begin to write a JIT compiler for Python as there are far too many circumstances to consider. The language is simply far too rich and flexible to be able to write meaningful optimizers and code generators.
The architecture to Python also sells memory consumption as a good thing. The nice part is that itâ€(TM)s a pointer-free language. This means that a defragmenter can be part of the garbage collector. The bad news is, Python probably more actively allocates memory than any other language Iâ€(TM)ve bothered with.
I believe I could, with a great deal of effort write good, clean, and performant code in Python. Itâ€(TM)s probably better however to focus on programming languages which are too difficult for most scripters.
There are private practices in all these countries. There isnâ€(TM)t even anything that says you have to be a government employed doctor after the country pays for your education. You donâ€(TM)t even have to stay in the country.
As for salary, some countries like Lithuania have very poor pay for doctors and dentists as part of their socialistic system. But the Nordic countries still have doctors and surgeons being paid very well for their time. And even better, you donâ€(TM)t have an army of idiot doctors checking each room just to add an hour to their billing because theyâ€(TM)re buried under student debt.
There is no indentured servitude or slavery. No serfs. Itâ€(TM)s a competitive market and doctors can job hop freely to increase their income just like anywhere else.
There are even things like serving as a doctor in backwoods places like Longyearbyen which pays very well and entirely tax free to make it so that you can be damn near rich within a few years of graduation and move back to civilization.
But Iâ€(TM)m guessing you have some picture in your mind which makes you think that socialism is some sort of forced work or labor. Soviet Socialism was not socialism. It was simply sold that way.
I was raised American and I am now in Norway. I am on a 5 week long vacation traveling first class by train with my wife, kids and a niece. We have been to Hamburg, Brussels, Paris and London and weâ€(TM)re continuing on tomorrow... and itâ€(TM)s thanks to socialism that I can market myself in a free market socialist economy and do this.
Oh and I happily pay 50% income tax on a BIG FAT salary and bonuses.
Though... you probably know better. You heard about it on Fox News.
Ciscoâ€(TM)s data center switches (something which has fed me and my family for 6 years) are not adapting to modern networks. Cisco is so heâ€(TM)ll bent on ACI and even EVPN that they are not making their systems cloud friendly.
See, ACI is â€oeSoftware Defined†in purely the loosest sense of the word. It is very poorly suited for use with containers and FaaS as those systems leave most of the networking to systems like Kubernetes and the ACI topology isnâ€(TM)t well suited for those topologies.
EVPN is nifty if you need a lot of layer-2 broadcast domains that terminate at physical ports. But containers and FaaS terminate inside of Docker for example.
Legacy data centers thrive on high performance low latency links. This is because of two main features. The first is storage and the second is virtual machine migration (vMotion for example). Systems controlled as containers have substantially lower bandwidth requirements since storage is far smaller (30-100MB containers vs. 40GB or larger virtual disks) and because we distribute the containers predictively, we can do it far slower. We donâ€(TM)t migrate virtual machines either.
In a well designed container platform most database actions are performed with Map/Reduce technologies. This means the only traffic on the data center network is query and result. We donâ€(TM)t attempt to read terabyte or larger files from storage systems. We instead transmit a query to the nodes containing segments of the data and collect the results of the query and reduce duplicate responses. This does benefit from low latency, but high speed (10GBe, 40GBe, or greater) has no real performance benefit.
Cisco QoS is as always based on hardware, this limits the QoS mechanisms to effectively a small number of queues. Prioritization is limited as there are effectively 6 usable classes of traffic. While drop probability in DSCP can be helpful, itâ€(TM)s very difficult to implement meaningfully when the network canâ€(TM)t understand the actual type of data involved.
A proper data center switch would be fully programmable on a stream by stream basis. Like the back end of ACI or FabricPath, it would break from traditional Ethernet forwarding and instead use traffic specific tunnels with real understanding of QoS needs. This canâ€(TM)t be done with Cisco hardware.
An optimal data center switch topology would have the following:
1) High performance later-3 switches for legacy virtual machine support. Simple IPv4 routing with large buffers and marking for low-latency lossless would suffice for almost all data center needs. NSX and Hyper-V will handle the rest.
2) 1Gb or multi-gig (latency not performance) with enormous buffers for all modern container and FaaS traffic. They should be able to have extremely high performance REST APIs to insert and purge streams into/from the topology with QoS rules. They should be entirely layer-3 based and should allow Docker/Kubernetes or others to program MAC address tables and should block all layer-2 traffic which hasnâ€(TM)t been programmed into the forwarding table by a controller.
Now that being said, pure layer-3 switching with NAT support would be far better. Layer-2 is dead. All of that can be programmed from the control plane and skip learning. This isnâ€(TM)t 1990 when every machine had a random MAC address which had to be learned accidentally. Instead, data centers and clouds (container farms and FaaS) know all the MAC addresses of all the interfaces properly. In fact, the controllers already have all the IP to MAC mappings known internally. As such, a data center switch would allow these to be programmed instead of learned or snooped.
Gnome... I honestly have no idea how this thing has survived this long.
KDE... don't get me wrong... Mattias Etttrich is one of my favorite people but KDE has evolved into what looks and feels like retro computing.
The entire Linux desktop is in such utter and total disarray in 2018, these days, I just configure runlevel 3 and remote in if I need it. ElementaryOS is pretty, and I like it, but heaven forbid you actually need to do something on it.
Now.. if someone were to take Linux as a desktop seriously, they would invest i... actually I think that ship has completely sailed. I would say ChromeOS was starting to show promise, but there will be no Linux left in that soon.
"so you can actually run a properly designed, maintained, and supportable operating system"
So, it's designed, maintained and able to be supported but doesn't actually have support?
I'm struggling here. Which operating system are you suggesting is designed, maintained and supportable?
I've been using Linux since pretty much the first time I managed to borrow an Yggdrasil CD from a friend and eventually figured out how to make the boot floppies. I've used many operating systems before and after that.
I've only ever seen a handful of "designed" operating systems. They were interesting academic research topics which never really became more.
I've seen a few maintained operating systems, do varying scales. I think that Elementary OS seems to be slowly closing in on being maintained. I actually think they're doing a pretty good job of trying to make a Linux which seems kinda usable, but "init 3" works for me. ArchLinux and Ubuntu Core are starting to look good too. Windows and Mac are extremely well maintained.
Supportable... I think most operating systems are generally supportable. I've always had three categories of OS
Mac) Instead of making an OS and proper documentation to make fixing things possible, they made an awesome reinstall and restore system so that any user can reinstall their entire machine by holding key during boot and clicking next, next next finished.
Windows) Offers the exact same feature as the Mac, but also is well known and supported on a massive scale. Many things can be easily fixed with a Google and a few clicks and such, but people instead tend to reinstall because it's probably faster.
Linux) Absolutely everything can be fixed... and if you're a linux person, you probably are very good at fixing those things... not because it's easy. It's absolutely black magic. It's just that you spend 30% of your time working and 70% of your time fixing your Linux system. It's basically the Ford of computing. You can fix everything with little more than a screw driver, a wrench and a hammer and it's all really easy to understand. Hit here, smack there, bang there.. it's fixed. And you can anything you want with that Ford... you can easily convert it to a driving hot dog. But just like a Ford, Linux will never be pretty, it will never be the best solution for everything. It's just a damn good tool you accept can fit just about anywhere even if you'll spend 70%-90% of your time just banging on it with a hammer hoping it will work.
But WSL... oh baby... I mean... every time I start working on my PC and I start Ubuntu without having to start the Linux kernel and I get all that yummy Linux goodness... I want to get and ASCII art image of Megan Fox, rub whip cream all over the screen and go to town. Windows + Linux all on the same box. I mean you're in the butter zone baby.
Dude, I'm a Microsoft fanboi... also a Linux fanboi... WSL is like Christmas every day for me.
I have Macs also... I don't really know why... but they are pretty. I buy them and swear I'll use them someday. I am an iPhone user though. I have and love my iPhone 6S Plus and can't wait to get a new battery for it in Paris in a few weeks.
People like debating about which OS is best. The answer is pretty simple... they're all pretty great these days... though if I ever see Gnome again, I'll vomit on whoever's keyboard it is in front of me. Move on... if it bothers you...maybe Slashdot is not the right place for you.
"Unfortunately, while some security programs are able to remove parts of the infection, the rootkit component needs manual removal help."
I have never in my life ever heard of any type of malware or code that can be written that can :
"Be removed with human assistance" that cannot be removed by a program.
If someone were even a mildly competent "security researcher", they would write a script or a program that would do the removal that is needed as well as provide detailed instructions of how to use it if necessary.
Under no circumstance should you ever trust anyone who claims to be competent in security who is not able to do this. And as such, you should never let them connect to your computer.
I mean seriously, CVEs are how we report vulnerabilities of this sort. Once the CVE is reported and someone shares the virus with programmers (which are like security researchers but tend to fix problems instead of updating the LinkedIn everytime they learn a new buzz word), the virus/malware is disassembled/decompiled as well as run in sandboxes with all system calls hooked and the attack vectors are identified. Once this is known, it is possible to undo pretty much anything that has been done.
So... if you don't know enough about security to do those things and you make comments about how something can't be done without human intervention, then you're more or less useless when it comes to security.
If you happen to have a computer infected with this virus, contact any of the many antivirus companies out there and pass it along to them. They'll properly document it and make a removal tool for it. It's not particularly difficult.
Out of the box, Windows sets you up with OneDrive and points all of your storage stuff to OneDrive. The result is that all your files are backed up.
Out of the box, Apple sets up iCloud and points all your file storage to iCloud. The result is that all your files are backed up.
You can use DropBox or a thousand alternatives if you want.
If you want a better solution, you can use either Windows Backup and Restore or Apple Time Machine which does pretty much the same thing.
If you're a developer, then all your stuff is on Github or similar.
As for applications, Windows Store and App Store makes that pretty quick and simple. Of course, there are some other programs you would install otherwise, but it's not like you can't download them.
Also, if you have a Mac or a Microsoft Surface, you can simply reinstall the OS no matter how bungled it may by simply connecting to the Internet from the UEFI system and recovering from the cloud for example.
You have to be an absolute moron in 2018 to no have access to all your stuff.
That said, to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how to maintain good backups of my Linux systems. I keep most of my stuff on Github. Other than VS Code and.NET Core, I don't really use much more than a simple Linux install anyway. I don't use anything but Raspberry, Orange and Banana Pis for servers anymore. I have 25,000 of them now. When they die, I just throw them away and get more.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not judging, but telephone autocorrect often automatically inserts words as substitutions when the author is more likely to use that word. This is why people who are fond of iPhones often complain when they try Android and vise verse as the phone has not learned their typing habits yet.
I would imagine that you may have intended to write milk?
Adding a domain to Office365 is REALLY easy and the whitelist/blacklist thing is pretty non-existent.
Never use a mail provider which can't offer mass-economy for spam and malware checking. You pretty much are screwed into using one of the evil empires for your mail, but it works a lot better than other solutions.
I use Microsoft because I already pay for Office anyway. For a few more bucks a year, I have a domain and if nothing else, they are professional about how they handle their business. Yesterday, I actually received a real telephone call from a real Microsoft representative (though definitely with a strong Indian accent) letting me know that my credit card expired and an e-mail account had be frozen because of it. Apparently, I had updated my credit card but forgot to attach it to the account.
I think it costs me $100 a year, and I'm sure I could get it a lot cheaper elsewhere. But the spam filtering on Office365 is just too damn good.
Recruiter = Person who still applies to work in a job that was replaced by computers 25 years ago and they didn't actually notice
I have a simple response to recruiters when they say :
Them : I have a great customer...
Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you...
Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
Them : We're hiring 17 great people for a project...
Me : Good luck! You're attempting to build a team without any real knowledge of how they will work together as a team. You're actually throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some will stick. If you're hiring 17 more or less random people for a project, most of those people are basically just desperate and if I were there, I'd have to do all their jobs for them. You'd be better off hiring two or three known assets and have them bring their own people in. In reality, if you're hiring 17 people at once, you should actually be outsourcing the project.
There are many things to say to recruiters... my dad was a recruiter back before the Internet. Back then, to look at jobs outside of your local area, it was the only way to go. Once the web came around, recruiters were basically people who couldn't find a real job for themselves and now are trying to do it for someone else.
The internet democratized funding of elections in the sense that it supports contributing to one party or the other.
As you mentioned Bernie and Jill had the issue of visibility.
The reason for this as I mentioned was visibility. The candidates couldn't constantly insert plugs on their TV interviews about their websites and how to donate to their campaigns. They lacked the platforms to raise money.
All the names I mentioned, Bezos, Nadella, Zuck, etc... all have mass media platforms where they could directly support open political platforms for non-party associated candidates. While all these people do lobby heavily and contribute heavily to campaigns of party candidates, they do this because the two party system makes it nearly impossible to do business on a market monopoly scale if the politicians aren't purchased.
To present the two party system as it has evolved, consider it to be little more than a reality TV series about professional wrestlers. You have "The good guys" and "The bad guys". Of course, everyone thinks their own team is the good guys, but that's irrelevant with the exception that mass media and the parties themselves market themselves as the good guys and the other team as the bad guys. It's become very important in American politics that we clearly see only white and black hats, nothing in-between. After all, a democrat could never look at a guy like Mitt Romney and say "Wow... once in a while he makes a lot of sense" or a republican can never look at Obama and say "He really did try very hard to do what he thought was best for the American people". Instead, we have to be programmed to call the other people names and speak hateful about them.
When we vote, we vote on nothing regarding substance. What happens is that we have organizations responsible for team management. This would be the RNC and DNC. They are responsible for polling the people and supporting whichever candidate will almost guarantee them the most power. They run their business like a reality TV show. They put on little shows like debates and they don't measure whether people are best represented by those candidates, they are measuring whether or not they market those people well enough to get them into office as representatives of their parties. This is how we ended up with Hillary and Trump, possibly the two most horrible possible candidates at a national level in a century.
The goal of the parties is to dominate the other team in the government. They talk smack like a WWE showdown before the fights. They treat the senate floor as though it were a sports arena. They would sell tickets to filibusters like main events if they could. Imagine in the voice of a wrestling announcer "On one side, there are a bunch of people wearing coordinated uniforms that cost more than the typical American's annual salary. On the other side stands a 82 year old man with heart conditions. His goal, to read War and Peace from cover to cover to stonewall his enemy. Can he do it. Will his heart give out. Tune it at..."
The two party system in itself is probably responsible for more school shootings than anything else. It's the national leaders. The people who should be the true heroes of the country, the people who should stand out above as beacons of good behavior and maturity behaving like a bunch of brawlers. They sell competition and they sell hate. The play with the lives of the people from initial insemination forward as though these are game pieces and they pass laws left and right, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but instead because they are establishing their power base and using peoples lives as political capital.
Consider this... which country in the world passes more laws than any other country?
How many of the laws that it passes are passed almost entirely on party lines?
How many of these laws are passed with little or no open debate. In other words, are the laws openly discussed and weighed based on their merits or are they passed mostly by a single part
Both the democrats and the republicans depend very heavily on people with low IQs. People with 1/3 of a brain and able to think for themselves would be devestating for the two party system.
If killing off the EPA and pumping the atmosphere full of crap will dumb the people down, both the republicans and the democrats will thrive.
Heaven forbid someone with a brain figured out that the elections are about visibility. Candidates sell their souls (if theyâ€(TM)re smart enough to have one to begin with) to either team red or team blue to provide them publicity and therefore making it possible to gain votes.
Someone like Bezos, Nadella, Zuckerburg or a few others could easily overpower either of the two parties and simply provide crowd sourcing platforms for alternative candidates with no party ties.
Imagine a political system where someone who actually cared about the people and the country could run for office by employing a platform that played commercials for them during YouTube videos. Imagine if Facebook and Google, leading up to elections would provide equal free airtime to candidates no matter what their political persuasion.
The parties would lose power and the people would be exposed to a set of candidates who didnâ€(TM)t sell all their political capital before ever reaching the ballot.
Imagine if all the major social media networks educated the people that they not only donâ€(TM)t have to vote for a party sponsored candidate, but if they were true Americans, they would prove it by not voting for red or blue but instead red, white and blue.
Of course, with this research, it would probably make sense to pump the air full of crap and dumb the people down so they wouldnâ€(TM)t be able to understand that. After all, American politics depends on people being so stupid that they actually attack liberals and conservatives as if there are only two types of people in the whole country. Imagine if people were smart enough to realize that their own opinions are not the only right ones.
I suppose breaking up the two party system just wouldnâ€(TM)t make good TV. Think of how much money CNN, Fox, BBC, etc... make simply playing the American people against each other.
The proper terminology is "American sized people". I've found people in most countries generally understand what that means.
I was really with you there for a while.. then I remembered Harley Davidson motorcycles... or even sports cars... I've taught my children that any machine that makes that much noise is poorly designed. Well designed machines don't make noise like that.
:(
I think that was in reference to a Ferrari making the popping sounds. I taught them that any machine that makes that much noise is only operated by assholes who don't mind driving something which is basically broken by design and can't operate within decent sound limits. Within 5 years, consumer electric or fuel cell vehicles will far outperform super sports cars. So, electric drive train vehicles will be able to run fairly silent and within only 20 years of evolution will have accomplished substantially more than internal combustion engine vehicles did in nearly 100.
If Harley's are still allowed and people try to tolerate them, then a flying vehicle will be no different.
That said, the third dimension is logical and underground is far better than above... though tunneling also requires air quality management
What's a taxi driver?
Wait... that's a question for 3-10 years from now. I'll say it then when it becomes relevant... kinda like "What's a CD?"
Oh damn,,, just damn... I'm sorry... you're suggesting that the average person will find it easier to pilot a vehicle in three dimensions than in two?
Just OMG... do you realize that instead of left and right, the driver of the vehicle would be responsible for managing yaw, pitch and roll?
I was stuck behind a learner driver (in the middle of a city during business hours no less) the other day. She nearly drove onto the side walk several times... which is extra impressive since there was a bicycle lane that was at least a meter across between a fairly wide normal lane and the sidewalk. She will need months to simply master turning the vehicle without endangering the people around her too much.
I absolutely refuse to imagine human operators in three dimensional space.
Now, self piloting vehicles, that could be a real option. Especially if all cars are tied into a single centralized traffic management system.
To be fair, I pretty much would simply be happy if we could just eliminate human drivers and if The Boring Company works out, we can still have the third dimension without the massive amount of energy waste required for lifting an American sized human in a VTOL traffic environment.
Short selling is not an investment. For the most part, almost all forms of trading is not investing. Investing means you're taking an invested interest in the company. Loaning a company money is investing in that company. Buying shares from an offering is investing in the company.
Short selling is betting against the company. It's pretty much an anti-investment.
When you short sell, you're selling shares you don't even own and then delivering those shares after it fails. You are never really an owner of the shares. You're only ever buying enough of them to deliver them to a customer who already owns them having bought shares from you that you didn't actually own to begin with. The person you're selling to is on the other hand willing to buy shares from you (possibly at a discount) expecting the value to go up instead of down and they are gaining a few bucks by simply buying them for less than their market value.
I am so looking forward to the absolute collapse of the "free market economy". I fear it will send my children to war, but the simple fact that short selling is legally allowed is proof that we have failed.
Supply and demand.
If a person costs too much, you have to use less people
If you use less people, there are less jobs
If there are less jobs, there is less money to be redistributed
If there is less money to be redistributed, there are fewer people buying your stuff or using your service.
If you raise your prices to compensate for lower demand, to increase wages, you'll lose more customers
It's a vicious circle. The answer is... we need something like basic income... but instead of basic income, we need a government run labor bureau that pays all of their employees (the entire nation) a livable salary and everyone has to work at least 1 month of the year. The government will maintain a list of jobs which need to be done for the government and will also provide an agency for companies and people to hire other people from.
So if it's your month to work, you'll probably end up sorting trash for recycling. But it's one month of the year. As long as you don't have an overactive gag reflex, you'll be fine. You might end up travelling to old-peoples homes to fix their roof... whatever it'll be fine.
People will be given better jobs to do if they have higher skill sets. But if you have 11 months of the year to sit around and do nothing, watch a youtube video or read a book, get some training... whatever. If you are so useless you can bother with that, then sort trash.
Then people like me will have a great time. I'll work every single day and night... just as I always have. And 11 months of the year, I'll work on projects I think will actually improve the system. But since I don't really have to work those 11 months, I'll have the option to either do my own thing without starving... or I can work for someone else for more money during that time.
The point is, if 90% of the worlds population just decided to disappear tomorrow, the 10% who actually really love what they do would keep doing it... I can honestly see myself and my daughter working to develop technology to convert a nearby tunnel in the mountain into a farm which would produce 12 months a year with little or no human intervention. I can easily see my wife working at the hospital as a nurse 4 days a week (intead of 5 or 6 now) to take care of people in need. I can easily see my son sitting in his desk chair growing roots from his ass and developing back and neck problems while watching youtube and playing LoL.
We simply don't need most of the people working now. Ship them away... we'll be fine. Bring us 1/12th the population each month and let them clean our windows and sort our trash. The rest of the time, send them someplace warm and happy. Let them live the life and we'll do just fine.
If we force everyone to have goals oriented towards productivity... they'll produce... and if they produce, we'll consume. If we consume, we end up in a Pixar movie on a space ship while a robot left on earth is looking for a single living flower among towers of garbage. If most people are happy living in hotel rooms on beaches with fancy drinks... let them do it 11 months of the year... we don't want them... we don't need them... offer this to 90% of the people and let's be done with it. Let's just give them everything in the tropics... we'll ship them a steady supply of booze and little umbrellas.
Once Uber/Lyft/Google and others manage to make self-driving taxis, cars, buses, etc... a reality, And once Amazon manages to make shopping from your couch as convenient time-wise thanks to automated same day delivery... what you suggest will become almost critical.
We hear a lot about self driving and automation of things we encounter in daily life. But consider areas like construction where 3d printed printed foundations and houses that are manufactured to be clicked together with a self-driving truck mounted crane in a few hours. Also consider real and practical agricultural automation projects such as 3d printed meats and farms run in excavated tunnels that can produce crops all year round without the use of pesticides or even humans.
Consider also that automating these jobs will cause a massive slump as collateral. For example, if your company doesn't need employees, you don't need employee lawyers, HR, etc... You can seriously shrink your needs in the management of payroll and more.
The fact is, there will still be MANY MANY jobs, but many of them will be dealing with things like sorting trash.
There will no be enough jobs for the massive number of people we have... well unless we use the American system of imprisoning as many people as possible while hiring as many more as possible to run the prisons. Or alternatively, we can put them into the military and hope they get killed before they fuck up the employment stats. Or we can hire 1.2 million of them to work in the TSA and another 150 thousand to work in the DHS. Of course, if we scare the shit out of everyone enough, we can hire another million as cops... and they'll all need guns, so that's a lot more jobs.
No... the US government will have to stop hiring everyone themselves for "national security jobs" sooner or later. And I think that 2 million career criminals is about all they can really milk out of the population even with things like persecution of ex-cons no matter what their crimes were. And although the French, Dutch, British and a few others are trying really really hard to make a good industry off of terrorist threats and anti-immigrant propaganda, I don't think there's a future in this.
We have to reach the point where people can afford to live while working less. Either a 3 or 4 day work week is a good start. It could be one month on, one month off. But we need to adjust to the reality that we can't all live off of fear based economies.
Let's not forget that the energy market is going to die.... slowly, but it will die. Consider that using a slow trickle down effect, we will see the majority of our energy come from renewables over the next few decades. This isn't a prediction, this is a trend. It's already happening and will continue to happen. We will build massive solar and wind farms. Running solar is very cost effective once it's built. Running wind, we have some stuff to figure out, but it's nothing compared to running coal, oil or nuclear. But just as hydro electricity is well understood now, we'll understand other sources soon.
Companies like Tesla will sell solar roof tiles as well. This is something my entire neighborhood is currently investigating as a communal option. We'll replace all our roof tiles with Tesla or some other brand's solution within 10 years.
Some places like California if I recall correctly are requiring solar roofs in new construction (under certain circumstances) now.
Once solar goes it, there will be some maintenance, but it will be minimal. In fact, in 50 years when the market is saturated and the vast majority of energy is produced without the grid and more or less every house has solar tiles, the industry will have shrunken away. Rednecks in Alabama will be plucking tiles out of landfill and selling full sets for pennies on the dollar at pawn shops so they can buy some Busch beer and bullets.
Data centers will shrink considerably over time... this means that modern data centers which produce 30MW of power themselves to sustain their opera
I'm not convinced this is true.
I travel a lot... in spurts. Like one year on, three years off. I use Uber exclusively because it allows me to handle my expense accounts cleanly. If I use Yellow in NY and Black in London, etc... I'd have to manage a bunch of receipts and scan them and all that shit. On the road, I even try to eat at places that accept either Paypal or Apple Pay so that full receipts are sent to my accounts there. On top of that, I only use airlines and hotels that allow me to pay with Paypal.
Taxi drivers and Uber drivers certainly make a large part of their income from locals. But locals who can afford taxis are generally people who are better at managing their money. In addition, people using taxis to get around the city in NY for business are expensing it. In either of these cases, the cleanliness of the payment system of Uber or Lyft is worth higher prices.
I honestly haven't even considered city taxi services in years because I simply don't want the hassle of doing expenses or even the added work itemizing on taxes.
The bad part for the taxi companies is that unless they were to collaborate on a massive international level to offer the same service that Uber or Lyft offers, they have no defense against this. Let's be honest, in a period of 2 weeks, I used Uber in NYC, Tokyo, Oslo and London... I had absolutely no problems and was happy to do it. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to use a taxi in Japan, taxis in London are REALLY REALLY unreliable outside the two inner zones. And frankly, taxis in NYC are not too bad, but more often than not, my credit card doesn't work in their machines because of the massive amount of anti-fraud tech that is supposed to protect me as opposed to inconvenience me.
I think this will certainly hit Uber, but as you said, it will simply cause a price adjustment which has been needed anyway.
I have absolutely no idea how this contributed to the thread other than to brag... as an anonymous coward that you live in Beverly Hills.
Magic Leap into the poor house.
At $2,295, this is no longer an easy purchase for a developer. Especially for something which at this time should be seen as â€oeI as a developer add more value to the platform than the platform adds to my productsâ€
At that price, I would have to go through way too much pain to order the 3 units I would need to even consider using time on this. There needs to be one for developers, one for QA and one for business folks. Thatâ€(TM)s almost $7000 just to get started.
Whatâ€(TM)s more, itâ€(TM)s a large investment to make in a market which is unproven from a vendor that is very much unproven. I seriously doubt they will even have a logistics strategy sorted out by the time I manage to ship a product on the platform. What I mean is, all their resellers will try it and stock a few and then give up. All sales would then end up being direct or through Amazon.
Also, with a product priced to sell hardly a few thousand units at that price point, there will be almost no usable bug reports generated. The result will be that a truly substandard platform will be shipped.
Developing quality products on platforms like this depends heavily on mass economy. If you donâ€(TM)t have at least a hundred thousand users, there will simply not be enough user feedback to make anything worth using.
Holy sheep shit... I was like â€oeIs this a late April 1st entry?â€
I honestly avoid Python as much as possible as I do with C even though I just pumped out a few thousand lines of a Linux kernel module in it.
I think the real issue with Python is not whether it is suited for large projects or not, but instead is that the package repository is completely blasted with piss poor quality modules.
Most of the Python modules I have attempted to use (thanks to Google and SE telling me I should), I find I spend a great deal of time fixing or rewriting modules and then feeling as if I have to take ownership of them as theyâ€(TM)re mostly abandoned.
Python as a language is extremely versatile. It can do almost anything and generally can also do it well. I do develop a lot of computers and language tools including JITs, but I wouldnâ€(TM)t even know where to begin to write a JIT compiler for Python as there are far too many circumstances to consider. The language is simply far too rich and flexible to be able to write meaningful optimizers and code generators.
The architecture to Python also sells memory consumption as a good thing. The nice part is that itâ€(TM)s a pointer-free language. This means that a defragmenter can be part of the garbage collector. The bad news is, Python probably more actively allocates memory than any other language Iâ€(TM)ve bothered with.
I believe I could, with a great deal of effort write good, clean, and performant code in Python. Itâ€(TM)s probably better however to focus on programming languages which are too difficult for most scripters.
What in the world are you on about?
There are private practices in all these countries. There isnâ€(TM)t even anything that says you have to be a government employed doctor after the country pays for your education. You donâ€(TM)t even have to stay in the country.
As for salary, some countries like Lithuania have very poor pay for doctors and dentists as part of their socialistic system. But the Nordic countries still have doctors and surgeons being paid very well for their time. And even better, you donâ€(TM)t have an army of idiot doctors checking each room just to add an hour to their billing because theyâ€(TM)re buried under student debt.
There is no indentured servitude or slavery. No serfs. Itâ€(TM)s a competitive market and doctors can job hop freely to increase their income just like anywhere else.
There are even things like serving as a doctor in backwoods places like Longyearbyen which pays very well and entirely tax free to make it so that you can be damn near rich within a few years of graduation and move back to civilization.
But Iâ€(TM)m guessing you have some picture in your mind which makes you think that socialism is some sort of forced work or labor. Soviet Socialism was not socialism. It was simply sold that way.
I was raised American and I am now in Norway. I am on a 5 week long vacation traveling first class by train with my wife, kids and a niece. We have been to Hamburg, Brussels, Paris and London and weâ€(TM)re continuing on tomorrow... and itâ€(TM)s thanks to socialism that I can market myself in a free market socialist economy and do this.
Oh and I happily pay 50% income tax on a BIG FAT salary and bonuses.
Though... you probably know better. You heard about it on Fox News.
I donâ€(TM)t see this being a problem.
:
Ciscoâ€(TM)s data center switches (something which has fed me and my family for 6 years) are not adapting to modern networks. Cisco is so heâ€(TM)ll bent on ACI and even EVPN that they are not making their systems cloud friendly.
See, ACI is â€oeSoftware Defined†in purely the loosest sense of the word. It is very poorly suited for use with containers and FaaS as those systems leave most of the networking to systems like Kubernetes and the ACI topology isnâ€(TM)t well suited for those topologies.
EVPN is nifty if you need a lot of layer-2 broadcast domains that terminate at physical ports. But containers and FaaS terminate inside of Docker for example.
Legacy data centers thrive on high performance low latency links. This is because of two main features. The first is storage and the second is virtual machine migration (vMotion for example). Systems controlled as containers have substantially lower bandwidth requirements since storage is far smaller (30-100MB containers vs. 40GB or larger virtual disks) and because we distribute the containers predictively, we can do it far slower. We donâ€(TM)t migrate virtual machines either.
In a well designed container platform most database actions are performed with Map/Reduce technologies. This means the only traffic on the data center network is query and result. We donâ€(TM)t attempt to read terabyte or larger files from storage systems. We instead transmit a query to the nodes containing segments of the data and collect the results of the query and reduce duplicate responses. This does benefit from low latency, but high speed (10GBe, 40GBe, or greater) has no real performance benefit.
Cisco QoS is as always based on hardware, this limits the QoS mechanisms to effectively a small number of queues. Prioritization is limited as there are effectively 6 usable classes of traffic. While drop probability in DSCP can be helpful, itâ€(TM)s very difficult to implement meaningfully when the network canâ€(TM)t understand the actual type of data involved.
A proper data center switch would be fully programmable on a stream by stream basis. Like the back end of ACI or FabricPath, it would break from traditional Ethernet forwarding and instead use traffic specific tunnels with real understanding of QoS needs. This canâ€(TM)t be done with Cisco hardware.
An optimal data center switch topology would have the following
1) High performance later-3 switches for legacy virtual machine support. Simple IPv4 routing with large buffers and marking for low-latency lossless would suffice for almost all data center needs. NSX and Hyper-V will handle the rest.
2) 1Gb or multi-gig (latency not performance) with enormous buffers for all modern container and FaaS traffic. They should be able to have extremely high performance REST APIs to insert and purge streams into/from the topology with QoS rules. They should be entirely layer-3 based and should allow Docker/Kubernetes or others to program MAC address tables and should block all layer-2 traffic which hasnâ€(TM)t been programmed into the forwarding table by a controller.
Now that being said, pure layer-3 switching with NAT support would be far better. Layer-2 is dead. All of that can be programmed from the control plane and skip learning. This isnâ€(TM)t 1990 when every machine had a random MAC address which had to be learned accidentally. Instead, data centers and clouds (container farms and FaaS) know all the MAC addresses of all the interfaces properly. In fact, the controllers already have all the IP to MAC mappings known internally. As such, a data center switch would allow these to be programmed instead of learned or snooped.
So the way I see it, Amazon is on the
Push a patch as a UEFI module and reboot? SecureBoot will validate itâ€(TM)s signature and it can be staged to run before the drive firmware.
I suppose there are still machines running BIOS, but I donâ€(TM)t think I have owned any in several years.
I certainly would hope that the â€oesecurity companies†have the ability to do this.
You're telling me!!!
Gnome... I honestly have no idea how this thing has survived this long.
KDE... don't get me wrong... Mattias Etttrich is one of my favorite people but KDE has evolved into what looks and feels like retro computing.
The entire Linux desktop is in such utter and total disarray in 2018, these days, I just configure runlevel 3 and remote in if I need it. ElementaryOS is pretty, and I like it, but heaven forbid you actually need to do something on it.
Now.. if someone were to take Linux as a desktop seriously, they would invest i... actually I think that ship has completely sailed. I would say ChromeOS was starting to show promise, but there will be no Linux left in that soon.
"so you can actually run a properly designed, maintained, and supportable operating system"
... I want to get and ASCII art image of Megan Fox, rub whip cream all over the screen and go to town. Windows + Linux all on the same box. I mean you're in the butter zone baby.
So, it's designed, maintained and able to be supported but doesn't actually have support?
I'm struggling here. Which operating system are you suggesting is designed, maintained and supportable?
I've been using Linux since pretty much the first time I managed to borrow an Yggdrasil CD from a friend and eventually figured out how to make the boot floppies. I've used many operating systems before and after that.
I've only ever seen a handful of "designed" operating systems. They were interesting academic research topics which never really became more.
I've seen a few maintained operating systems, do varying scales. I think that Elementary OS seems to be slowly closing in on being maintained. I actually think they're doing a pretty good job of trying to make a Linux which seems kinda usable, but "init 3" works for me. ArchLinux and Ubuntu Core are starting to look good too. Windows and Mac are extremely well maintained.
Supportable... I think most operating systems are generally supportable. I've always had three categories of OS
Mac) Instead of making an OS and proper documentation to make fixing things possible, they made an awesome reinstall and restore system so that any user can reinstall their entire machine by holding key during boot and clicking next, next next finished.
Windows) Offers the exact same feature as the Mac, but also is well known and supported on a massive scale. Many things can be easily fixed with a Google and a few clicks and such, but people instead tend to reinstall because it's probably faster.
Linux) Absolutely everything can be fixed... and if you're a linux person, you probably are very good at fixing those things... not because it's easy. It's absolutely black magic. It's just that you spend 30% of your time working and 70% of your time fixing your Linux system. It's basically the Ford of computing. You can fix everything with little more than a screw driver, a wrench and a hammer and it's all really easy to understand. Hit here, smack there, bang there.. it's fixed. And you can anything you want with that Ford... you can easily convert it to a driving hot dog. But just like a Ford, Linux will never be pretty, it will never be the best solution for everything. It's just a damn good tool you accept can fit just about anywhere even if you'll spend 70%-90% of your time just banging on it with a hammer hoping it will work.
But WSL... oh baby... I mean... every time I start working on my PC and I start Ubuntu without having to start the Linux kernel and I get all that yummy Linux goodness
Dude, I'm a Microsoft fanboi... also a Linux fanboi... WSL is like Christmas every day for me.
I have Macs also... I don't really know why... but they are pretty. I buy them and swear I'll use them someday. I am an iPhone user though. I have and love my iPhone 6S Plus and can't wait to get a new battery for it in Paris in a few weeks.
People like debating about which OS is best. The answer is pretty simple... they're all pretty great these days... though if I ever see Gnome again, I'll vomit on whoever's keyboard it is in front of me. Move on... if it bothers you...maybe Slashdot is not the right place for you.
Here's the problem.
"Unfortunately, while some security programs are able to remove parts of the infection, the rootkit component needs manual removal help."
I have never in my life ever heard of any type of malware or code that can be written that can :
"Be removed with human assistance" that cannot be removed by a program.
If someone were even a mildly competent "security researcher", they would write a script or a program that would do the removal that is needed as well as provide detailed instructions of how to use it if necessary.
Under no circumstance should you ever trust anyone who claims to be competent in security who is not able to do this. And as such, you should never let them connect to your computer.
I mean seriously, CVEs are how we report vulnerabilities of this sort. Once the CVE is reported and someone shares the virus with programmers (which are like security researchers but tend to fix problems instead of updating the LinkedIn everytime they learn a new buzz word), the virus/malware is disassembled/decompiled as well as run in sandboxes with all system calls hooked and the attack vectors are identified. Once this is known, it is possible to undo pretty much anything that has been done.
So... if you don't know enough about security to do those things and you make comments about how something can't be done without human intervention, then you're more or less useless when it comes to security.
If you happen to have a computer infected with this virus, contact any of the many antivirus companies out there and pass it along to them. They'll properly document it and make a removal tool for it. It's not particularly difficult.
Huh? What operating system are you using?
.NET Core, I don't really use much more than a simple Linux install anyway. I don't use anything but Raspberry, Orange and Banana Pis for servers anymore. I have 25,000 of them now. When they die, I just throw them away and get more.
Out of the box, Windows sets you up with OneDrive and points all of your storage stuff to OneDrive. The result is that all your files are backed up.
Out of the box, Apple sets up iCloud and points all your file storage to iCloud. The result is that all your files are backed up.
You can use DropBox or a thousand alternatives if you want.
If you want a better solution, you can use either Windows Backup and Restore or Apple Time Machine which does pretty much the same thing.
If you're a developer, then all your stuff is on Github or similar.
As for applications, Windows Store and App Store makes that pretty quick and simple. Of course, there are some other programs you would install otherwise, but it's not like you can't download them.
Also, if you have a Mac or a Microsoft Surface, you can simply reinstall the OS no matter how bungled it may by simply connecting to the Internet from the UEFI system and recovering from the cloud for example.
You have to be an absolute moron in 2018 to no have access to all your stuff.
That said, to be honest, I have absolutely no idea how to maintain good backups of my Linux systems. I keep most of my stuff on Github. Other than VS Code and