There is a big difference in cooling a battery VS cooling an engine though. The heat generated by the battery cells has to spread somehow to the outer edges of the battery for it to be dissipated by a cooling system. In cars, the energy density of the battery is hugely important, so you can't just lace the cell areas with good heat conductors without making the battery less efficient. This means a trade-off between how fast you can charge the battery (heat build-up) and how much power the battery can hold.
Just wanted to say, King's Bounty : Dark Side is available from Steam. It's early access, but many people have played it from start to finish several times and it's mostly bug-free (at least any serious bug) at the moment. It's due to release next month if you'd rather not play the early access version.
I've played it for a few hours and I can say, it's already much better than Warriors of the North. It's reminding me a lot of Crossworlds, which is a good thing.
Net neutrality is about source of data, not about the type of data. It still allows for QoS for voice and other real-time data uses. All it says is that traffic must be treated exactly the same depending on the source/origin. So you aren't allowed for example, to slow netflix down but let hulu go through at full speed, etc.
One should not minimize the value of knowledge either. I'm a lot more scared of ignorant smart people than of ignorant idiots. You could argue the point that trivia isn't knowledge, but even then, some basic knowledge of culture, cinema, politics and sports make for better rounded people. Most of the cultural questions have to do with influential people and it's still worth knowing about them, if only to know how they influenced trends or some such.
My monitor is a Dell 3007WFP, which was released in the US in December 2005 (so 8 years ago). It's also far from being the only 30" monitor released at that time with that resolution, although most modern 30 inchers seem to be 16:9 instead of my preferred 16:10.
As for pixels, I can definitely see pixels on mine if I disable AA in games, although I only need 2xAA for it to appear totally smooth. 4K would probably take it close to the point where the pixels aren't visible anymore from 3 feet away even with AA disabled, but I haven't used a 4K monitor yet so I'm not positive. I can absolutely guarantee that anyone would be able to make the difference between my monitor and a 4K one though.
I think you're underestimating how much GPU power games need these days. I bought a Dell 30" monitor 5 years ago, which I'm still using for gaming. The native resolution is 2560x1600, so not even close to the new 4K ones. At this resolution, my old 3 years old Radeon 5870 was struggling to get smooth framerates for several games. So I bought the new GTX 780 when it came out for $600. The new card is fantastic, I can finally play The Witcher 2 at full resolution with high settings, same with Bioshock Infinite, etc. Keep in mind, the new 4K resolutions will demand even more out of GPUs, so it's not likely that the demand will go down all that much yet.
Sure, if you're a gamer who fires up a 1080p console port once in a while, a cheap GPU will do. If you're an avid gamer who needs more than 1080p, you still need to buy the $400+ cards to keep up.
We were discussing human rights in general here, not just your 2nd amendment. I was responding to this idiotic statement by jcr:
No it didn't, and the idea that the constitution created our rights is a very dangerous misconception. Our rights are intrinsic to our human nature, and what the constitution does is delegate certain powers to the government.
The whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" concept creeps me out so much, especially if people are buying into it without thinking about it. Whenever people are talking about "self-evident truths", you should be extremely wary, especially when they have guns to back their statements up. I happen to agree with the ideals in this case, but I'm under no illusion that these "rights" would exist without the threat of violence to back them up.
I'm not American and I think your 2nd amendment was very poorly worded, especially the part about "bearing" arms. If the aim is to allow the general population to resist a potentially oppressive government, then guaranteeing the right to own weapons is enough. The right to take them with you everywhere is a completely different issue. Personally, I think walking around with a loaded weapon should be extremely illegal. In fact, wielding a loaded weapon should always be treated as if you were intending to use it right then and there. This would allow guns to be allowed for hunting, as well as in all actual self-defense situations, and insure their availability should civil war be necessary. Basically, carrying a loaded weapon with you in all other situations should be treated as criminal intent.
The Amish are only able to hold together without the threat of violence because they dump the responsibility on others. Small, tightly-knit group of people always have an ultimate solution to cases they can't handle : expulsion. These groups will typically use several methods to enforce their rules. Usually it starts with reason (convince people through logic), then shaming (for your Amish example above, that would be the forced beard-cutting and such) and finally when those fail, they expel the offending member from the community. To keep with your Amish example, when a violent offender becomes too much to handle for them, say a serial rapist or murderer, they call outside authorities to deal with them.
Let's pretend that this option wasn't available because the whole world is Amish. What happens when a few pariahs get together and go down the path of banditry? They'll steal and rape and pillage their ways until someone uses violence to stop them. So you start needing people to deal with those cases. So now you need a police force, etc...
To come back to your original statement, you're right that evolution applies to societies in general. The societies with the best set or rules (laws & ideology) will tend to prosper and others will fail. However, the willingness to use violence is the most basic component of every society. If tomorrow, somebody convinces half the people of a country that murder is right, the only option for the other half is to defend themselves. Sure, you can try to convince people through reason, but if that fails, violence is the only last resort that works. If you forgo violence and someone is willing to use it against you, you'll die, and all your nice ideologies about rights and peace and whatnot will go with you.
I understand well the intent behind the "unalienable rights" statement. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the physical reality and as such, it is untrue. I can make a document declaring that humans have the innate power of flight, but when I decide to jump off a cliff to act upon my belief, flapping my arms is not going to help me.
But that's my very point - they are not unalienable. They are made up. Human rights have no basis in reality, there's no fundamental law of nature that grant humans those rights. They are only an ideology and, as soon as someone with different views gathers the most power, they'll cease to exist. In the future, it's possible that technology will enable someone with a different ideology to seize power, and those "unalienable" rights would go away, perhaps never to return until humanity becomes extinct.
If rights effectively go away once you don't own the biggest guns anymore, then by definition they aren't unalienable : they are created by mankind. This is why you have to be willing to kill to defend your ideologies, otherwise people can use violence to enforce their way of life over you.
This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.
Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?
There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.
The fact that the victim might have been a criminal has nothing to do whatsoever with what happened.
Yeah, last time I had surgery, they wouldn't even lead me to any answer. It basically went :
Doctor : Why are you here? Me : Surgery. Doctor : What kind? Me : Eye surgery to correct strabismus. Doctor : Which eye? Me : Left.
They didn't just read stuff asking me to confirm it, I actually had to give them the information. I assume this way there's much less risk of a patient just confirming all the surgeon's questions.
Google will host email for your own domain for free. All you need to do is point your MX at their servers and register for a free account. No hassle, I've been doing this for years for my domains. Works like a charm. They also support POP3/IMAP access if you don't like using the web interface.
Basically, there's nothing you can do if you keep using WPA.
One option is to lower your wi-fi antenna power to exclude the area where the attacks are coming from. This can be hard to do if you need good coverage for a whole house or some such.
Your best bet would be to use either 802.1x or EAP-PEAP. That's highly dependent on what router you're using, usually only high-end routers support these options, although some home routers certainly do (I remember the good old WAP54G supporting it). If you're going 802.1x, just setup a radius server, configure your devices and you're pretty much set. If you go the PEAP route, you'll need some certificates, and possibly a radius server unless you use client certificates for authentication.
Both options will foil your wannabe hacker. Plus, you'll likely have the only advanced Wi-Fi setup around, gaining you geek creds;)
The way I do is is that I send an NDR on rejected mail caused by bad SPF records (with some anti-flood limits). So far, as far as I know, bounced emails always eventually reached us. What happens is the person gets a NDR mail ("We have rejected your email due to bad SPF records"). The person getting the bounce forwards it to their IT dept, where it's usually taken care of rather quickly. If it's a small business without a dedicated IT staff, I'm sometimes asked to explain how this works, but usually, such companies do not have SPF records at all, which means the mail won't bounce.
I'm french canadian and I don't think that, here, the "HR speak" has quite reached the lofty levels of stupidity that I hear about in the USA.
There are such things as synergies, even if I might not have used the term correctly, as the AC below pointed out. I was referring to the "whole being greater than the sum of its parts" concept. I've seen it happen often enough to know it's a real effect. Some people have personality traits that aren't that great alone, but if you mix them with some other people, sparks start flying. It's like a feedback loop is established between the brains, each weirdly feeding the other ones.
Where I work right now we have a few of those people. They're highly valued and are usually part of different teams or divisions, but sometimes, when an especially hard problem comes up which looks like it might require lots of lateral thinking to solve, they put these people in the same team for a few weeks. Much craziness usually ensues. The results are often quite entertaining to watch.
I used to think like you when I was younger (early twenties). I'm a geek with somewhat limited social skills and statements like "I may not be as smart as you, but I'm street smart!" brought only snickering from me.
However, after gaining work experience and being part of several different teams, I can say that "social intelligence" is as important as the analytic kind. Not in all situations of course. Sometimes, having a good traditional IQ will save the day, but other times, you really need an empathic, smooth talker. Who's the most important person, the guy who knows how to build the rocket, or the guy who can convince people who know know how to build the rocket to set their differences aside and actually build it?
I'm guessing you haven't seen a good "people person" yet work their magic. They'll intuitively grasp that Bob feels under-appreciated because he isn't getting enough recognition, and they'll send some attaboy! emails to compensate. They're able to pair people with good synergies together. Maybe two guys are extremely competitive and it keeps slowing down the whole team's progress? The social person will naturally have them designing competitive solutions to problems so that the project will benefit from their "biggest penis" contest, without them even realizing they're being gently manipulated.
Like most geeks, early on I was mostly blind to these social games, but they are critical to the success of any project which has lots of people working towards a common goal. Don't dismiss it so easily.
That's entirely my point. What you link to isn't Cisco gear, it's rebranded Linksys. Any switch that isn't running Cisco IOS (or at least CatOS for the older chassis switches) isn't real Cisco gear. All Cisco did was confusing average person and destroy the good reputation of the Cisco brand.
On the other hand, there's a reason Cisco gear is expensive: it's enterprise class. A few months ago I went to a client's site to help expend a microwave network. Prior to doing the upgrade, I asked what gear was running at the remote location. "It's all Cisco switches and routers!", I was told. So we start working, installing new fiber lines and antennas. At one point, I needed to remotely shut down a switchport in one of remote locations to prevent a spanning loop. I try ssh, then telnet, no connection. I try http, and what do I see, it's one of those "Linksys by Cisco" SMB switch. That particular model didn't allow me to shut down a single port, nor did it allow me to re-allocate the limited PoE wattage to new equipment. Also, as far as I could see, no real diagnostic info on the ports, other than a packet counter and up/down status.
We lost almost 2 hours to send someone to drive to the location and back, just to unplug a network cable. Now, I'm not going to say that Linksys switches aren't perfectly fine in some small business environments, but once you start having a big network they're a headache. Rebranding consumer-grade equipment with the Cisco trademark was one of the stupidest decision I've seen a large company make. Every networking professional I've talked to thought it was a terrible idea; it's almost impossible to see how management could ever even consider the idea, let alone go ahead with it.
It's decisions like this one that make me think that Cisco's hegemony in the network is coming to an end. You can't have management that clueless and thrive. Also, they're still acting like they're the only game in town, with prices that are borderline ridiculous and byzantine licensing rules (ASA licensing, I'm looking at you!). It's a good thing Juniper has grown up and is now making some pretty awesome routers for very good prices. On the switch level, Cisco is still ahead of the pack, but other vendors like HP are stepping up.
I think it's sad, because Cisco hardware tends to be awesome. Hopefully Cisco can go back to having more engineers making some business decisions, because the current leadership certainly doesn't understand the moving market.
There is a reason for this non-indie bundle. THQ is on the verge of bankruptcy. This is basically their last attempt at getting some much-needed money so that they can release their in-development games (such as the South Park RPG) instead of going under. I suppose they contacted the humble bundle guys and made them an offer in percentages that they couldn't refuse.
I still think they should have called it something else than "Humble Bundle", maybe make another catchy name for enterprise sponsored bundles, but I don't think it was a bad idea by itself. If THQ can get say, 5 or 10 millions from the bundle, it might just allow them to turn around and come back to profitability.
Your comment is troll-ish and I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but Psychonauts is one of the best games I've ever played. It's so good I replay it every 2-3 years. For some reason, some gems never get the success they deserve, same with Beyond Good and Evil. Anyway if you've never played Psychonauts, give it a try, and prepare to be awed at its sheer inventiveness. Giant world cubes. Godzilla. Lake monsters (called Linda). Milkmen secret agents. Brain removing dentists. Stratetic war games against Napoleon. Mexican cage matches. Corrida. Meat circuses...
The idea with IPv6 is that, even though your network prefix will be assigned to you by your ISP and is subject to change (for example, if you move to a new ISP), you typically won't configure any device with a fixed prefix. You'll assign them a host address (through DHCP, router advertisements or static) and the the prefix will be assigned to your router only. For example, on a cisco router, you would use : ipv6 general-prefix ISP-prefix XXXX:XXXX:XXXX::/48
Everything else will be using that general prefix, gotten from the core router. If, for some reason, you later move to a new ISP with a new prefix, then you only have to change your general prefix. Your internal network adresses won't change, they'll remain the same, except with the auto-appended new general prefix. Pretty much just like what you'd get with NAT right now.
It's very elegantly designed, but it takes a while to wrap your head around all its intricacies, especially if you're very used to the IPv4 way of doing things.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference in cooling a battery VS cooling an engine though. The heat generated by the battery cells has to spread somehow to the outer edges of the battery for it to be dissipated by a cooling system. In cars, the energy density of the battery is hugely important, so you can't just lace the cell areas with good heat conductors without making the battery less efficient. This means a trade-off between how fast you can charge the battery (heat build-up) and how much power the battery can hold.
Just wanted to say, King's Bounty : Dark Side is available from Steam. It's early access, but many people have played it from start to finish several times and it's mostly bug-free (at least any serious bug) at the moment. It's due to release next month if you'd rather not play the early access version.
I've played it for a few hours and I can say, it's already much better than Warriors of the North. It's reminding me a lot of Crossworlds, which is a good thing.
Net neutrality is about source of data, not about the type of data. It still allows for QoS for voice and other real-time data uses. All it says is that traffic must be treated exactly the same depending on the source/origin. So you aren't allowed for example, to slow netflix down but let hulu go through at full speed, etc.
One should not minimize the value of knowledge either. I'm a lot more scared of ignorant smart people than of ignorant idiots. You could argue the point that trivia isn't knowledge, but even then, some basic knowledge of culture, cinema, politics and sports make for better rounded people. Most of the cultural questions have to do with influential people and it's still worth knowing about them, if only to know how they influenced trends or some such.
and the user can always exit Steam and drop to GNOME to run non-Steam games.
Indeed. All three of them too!
My monitor is a Dell 3007WFP, which was released in the US in December 2005 (so 8 years ago). It's also far from being the only 30" monitor released at that time with that resolution, although most modern 30 inchers seem to be 16:9 instead of my preferred 16:10.
As for pixels, I can definitely see pixels on mine if I disable AA in games, although I only need 2xAA for it to appear totally smooth. 4K would probably take it close to the point where the pixels aren't visible anymore from 3 feet away even with AA disabled, but I haven't used a 4K monitor yet so I'm not positive. I can absolutely guarantee that anyone would be able to make the difference between my monitor and a 4K one though.
I think you're underestimating how much GPU power games need these days. I bought a Dell 30" monitor 5 years ago, which I'm still using for gaming. The native resolution is 2560x1600, so not even close to the new 4K ones. At this resolution, my old 3 years old Radeon 5870 was struggling to get smooth framerates for several games. So I bought the new GTX 780 when it came out for $600. The new card is fantastic, I can finally play The Witcher 2 at full resolution with high settings, same with Bioshock Infinite, etc. Keep in mind, the new 4K resolutions will demand even more out of GPUs, so it's not likely that the demand will go down all that much yet.
Sure, if you're a gamer who fires up a 1080p console port once in a while, a cheap GPU will do. If you're an avid gamer who needs more than 1080p, you still need to buy the $400+ cards to keep up.
We were discussing human rights in general here, not just your 2nd amendment. I was responding to this idiotic statement by jcr :
No it didn't, and the idea that the constitution created our rights is a very dangerous misconception. Our rights are intrinsic to our human nature, and what the constitution does is delegate certain powers to the government.
The whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" concept creeps me out so much, especially if people are buying into it without thinking about it. Whenever people are talking about "self-evident truths", you should be extremely wary, especially when they have guns to back their statements up. I happen to agree with the ideals in this case, but I'm under no illusion that these "rights" would exist without the threat of violence to back them up.
I'm not American and I think your 2nd amendment was very poorly worded, especially the part about "bearing" arms. If the aim is to allow the general population to resist a potentially oppressive government, then guaranteeing the right to own weapons is enough. The right to take them with you everywhere is a completely different issue. Personally, I think walking around with a loaded weapon should be extremely illegal. In fact, wielding a loaded weapon should always be treated as if you were intending to use it right then and there. This would allow guns to be allowed for hunting, as well as in all actual self-defense situations, and insure their availability should civil war be necessary. Basically, carrying a loaded weapon with you in all other situations should be treated as criminal intent.
The Amish are only able to hold together without the threat of violence because they dump the responsibility on others. Small, tightly-knit group of people always have an ultimate solution to cases they can't handle : expulsion. These groups will typically use several methods to enforce their rules. Usually it starts with reason (convince people through logic), then shaming (for your Amish example above, that would be the forced beard-cutting and such) and finally when those fail, they expel the offending member from the community. To keep with your Amish example, when a violent offender becomes too much to handle for them, say a serial rapist or murderer, they call outside authorities to deal with them.
Let's pretend that this option wasn't available because the whole world is Amish. What happens when a few pariahs get together and go down the path of banditry? They'll steal and rape and pillage their ways until someone uses violence to stop them. So you start needing people to deal with those cases. So now you need a police force, etc...
To come back to your original statement, you're right that evolution applies to societies in general. The societies with the best set or rules (laws & ideology) will tend to prosper and others will fail. However, the willingness to use violence is the most basic component of every society. If tomorrow, somebody convinces half the people of a country that murder is right, the only option for the other half is to defend themselves. Sure, you can try to convince people through reason, but if that fails, violence is the only last resort that works. If you forgo violence and someone is willing to use it against you, you'll die, and all your nice ideologies about rights and peace and whatnot will go with you.
I understand well the intent behind the "unalienable rights" statement. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the physical reality and as such, it is untrue. I can make a document declaring that humans have the innate power of flight, but when I decide to jump off a cliff to act upon my belief, flapping my arms is not going to help me.
But that's my very point - they are not unalienable. They are made up. Human rights have no basis in reality, there's no fundamental law of nature that grant humans those rights. They are only an ideology and, as soon as someone with different views gathers the most power, they'll cease to exist. In the future, it's possible that technology will enable someone with a different ideology to seize power, and those "unalienable" rights would go away, perhaps never to return until humanity becomes extinct.
If rights effectively go away once you don't own the biggest guns anymore, then by definition they aren't unalienable : they are created by mankind. This is why you have to be willing to kill to defend your ideologies, otherwise people can use violence to enforce their way of life over you.
This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.
Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?
There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.
The fact that the victim might have been a criminal has nothing to do whatsoever with what happened.
Yeah, last time I had surgery, they wouldn't even lead me to any answer. It basically went :
Doctor : Why are you here?
Me : Surgery.
Doctor : What kind?
Me : Eye surgery to correct strabismus.
Doctor : Which eye?
Me : Left.
They didn't just read stuff asking me to confirm it, I actually had to give them the information. I assume this way there's much less risk of a patient just confirming all the surgeon's questions.
Google will host email for your own domain for free. All you need to do is point your MX at their servers and register for a free account. No hassle, I've been doing this for years for my domains. Works like a charm. They also support POP3/IMAP access if you don't like using the web interface.
Basically, there's nothing you can do if you keep using WPA.
One option is to lower your wi-fi antenna power to exclude the area where the attacks are coming from. This can be hard to do if you need good coverage for a whole house or some such.
Your best bet would be to use either 802.1x or EAP-PEAP. That's highly dependent on what router you're using, usually only high-end routers support these options, although some home routers certainly do (I remember the good old WAP54G supporting it). If you're going 802.1x, just setup a radius server, configure your devices and you're pretty much set. If you go the PEAP route, you'll need some certificates, and possibly a radius server unless you use client certificates for authentication.
Both options will foil your wannabe hacker. Plus, you'll likely have the only advanced Wi-Fi setup around, gaining you geek creds ;)
...I think anyone you uses the words *retarded* [or adds tard to the end of a real world like Gonadtard] should be instantly blocked.
Oh yeah? You're just being a unitard.
The way I do is is that I send an NDR on rejected mail caused by bad SPF records (with some anti-flood limits). So far, as far as I know, bounced emails always eventually reached us. What happens is the person gets a NDR mail ("We have rejected your email due to bad SPF records"). The person getting the bounce forwards it to their IT dept, where it's usually taken care of rather quickly. If it's a small business without a dedicated IT staff, I'm sometimes asked to explain how this works, but usually, such companies do not have SPF records at all, which means the mail won't bounce.
I'm french canadian and I don't think that, here, the "HR speak" has quite reached the lofty levels of stupidity that I hear about in the USA.
There are such things as synergies, even if I might not have used the term correctly, as the AC below pointed out. I was referring to the "whole being greater than the sum of its parts" concept. I've seen it happen often enough to know it's a real effect. Some people have personality traits that aren't that great alone, but if you mix them with some other people, sparks start flying. It's like a feedback loop is established between the brains, each weirdly feeding the other ones.
Where I work right now we have a few of those people. They're highly valued and are usually part of different teams or divisions, but sometimes, when an especially hard problem comes up which looks like it might require lots of lateral thinking to solve, they put these people in the same team for a few weeks. Much craziness usually ensues. The results are often quite entertaining to watch.
I used to think like you when I was younger (early twenties). I'm a geek with somewhat limited social skills and statements like "I may not be as smart as you, but I'm street smart!" brought only snickering from me.
However, after gaining work experience and being part of several different teams, I can say that "social intelligence" is as important as the analytic kind. Not in all situations of course. Sometimes, having a good traditional IQ will save the day, but other times, you really need an empathic, smooth talker. Who's the most important person, the guy who knows how to build the rocket, or the guy who can convince people who know know how to build the rocket to set their differences aside and actually build it?
I'm guessing you haven't seen a good "people person" yet work their magic. They'll intuitively grasp that Bob feels under-appreciated because he isn't getting enough recognition, and they'll send some attaboy! emails to compensate. They're able to pair people with good synergies together. Maybe two guys are extremely competitive and it keeps slowing down the whole team's progress? The social person will naturally have them designing competitive solutions to problems so that the project will benefit from their "biggest penis" contest, without them even realizing they're being gently manipulated.
Like most geeks, early on I was mostly blind to these social games, but they are critical to the success of any project which has lots of people working towards a common goal. Don't dismiss it so easily.
That's entirely my point. What you link to isn't Cisco gear, it's rebranded Linksys. Any switch that isn't running Cisco IOS (or at least CatOS for the older chassis switches) isn't real Cisco gear. All Cisco did was confusing average person and destroy the good reputation of the Cisco brand.
On the other hand, there's a reason Cisco gear is expensive: it's enterprise class. A few months ago I went to a client's site to help expend a microwave network. Prior to doing the upgrade, I asked what gear was running at the remote location. "It's all Cisco switches and routers!", I was told. So we start working, installing new fiber lines and antennas. At one point, I needed to remotely shut down a switchport in one of remote locations to prevent a spanning loop. I try ssh, then telnet, no connection. I try http, and what do I see, it's one of those "Linksys by Cisco" SMB switch. That particular model didn't allow me to shut down a single port, nor did it allow me to re-allocate the limited PoE wattage to new equipment. Also, as far as I could see, no real diagnostic info on the ports, other than a packet counter and up/down status.
We lost almost 2 hours to send someone to drive to the location and back, just to unplug a network cable. Now, I'm not going to say that Linksys switches aren't perfectly fine in some small business environments, but once you start having a big network they're a headache. Rebranding consumer-grade equipment with the Cisco trademark was one of the stupidest decision I've seen a large company make. Every networking professional I've talked to thought it was a terrible idea; it's almost impossible to see how management could ever even consider the idea, let alone go ahead with it.
It's decisions like this one that make me think that Cisco's hegemony in the network is coming to an end. You can't have management that clueless and thrive. Also, they're still acting like they're the only game in town, with prices that are borderline ridiculous and byzantine licensing rules (ASA licensing, I'm looking at you!). It's a good thing Juniper has grown up and is now making some pretty awesome routers for very good prices. On the switch level, Cisco is still ahead of the pack, but other vendors like HP are stepping up.
I think it's sad, because Cisco hardware tends to be awesome. Hopefully Cisco can go back to having more engineers making some business decisions, because the current leadership certainly doesn't understand the moving market.
There is a reason for this non-indie bundle. THQ is on the verge of bankruptcy. This is basically their last attempt at getting some much-needed money so that they can release their in-development games (such as the South Park RPG) instead of going under. I suppose they contacted the humble bundle guys and made them an offer in percentages that they couldn't refuse.
I still think they should have called it something else than "Humble Bundle", maybe make another catchy name for enterprise sponsored bundles, but I don't think it was a bad idea by itself. If THQ can get say, 5 or 10 millions from the bundle, it might just allow them to turn around and come back to profitability.
Your comment is troll-ish and I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but Psychonauts is one of the best games I've ever played. It's so good I replay it every 2-3 years. For some reason, some gems never get the success they deserve, same with Beyond Good and Evil. Anyway if you've never played Psychonauts, give it a try, and prepare to be awed at its sheer inventiveness. Giant world cubes. Godzilla. Lake monsters (called Linda). Milkmen secret agents. Brain removing dentists. Stratetic war games against Napoleon. Mexican cage matches. Corrida. Meat circuses...
Hold on, I think I'll go reinstall it...
The idea with IPv6 is that, even though your network prefix will be assigned to you by your ISP and is subject to change (for example, if you move to a new ISP), you typically won't configure any device with a fixed prefix. You'll assign them a host address (through DHCP, router advertisements or static) and the the prefix will be assigned to your router only. For example, on a cisco router, you would use :
ipv6 general-prefix ISP-prefix XXXX:XXXX:XXXX::/48
Everything else will be using that general prefix, gotten from the core router. If, for some reason, you later move to a new ISP with a new prefix, then you only have to change your general prefix. Your internal network adresses won't change, they'll remain the same, except with the auto-appended new general prefix. Pretty much just like what you'd get with NAT right now.
It's very elegantly designed, but it takes a while to wrap your head around all its intricacies, especially if you're very used to the IPv4 way of doing things.