HyperV has many more dependencies than other virtualization stuff.
For example,.if your host and management client are not in the same AD domain but you want to use MMC to remote manage a HyperV host (say you do not want to allow multiple people to remote desktop to the host), to configure the permissions and other stuff you often have to download and run an _unsupported_ tool: http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/HVRemote
And even so, it often still doesn't work, e.g. the added firewall rules might not work for some stupid reason and you have to turn off the firewalls completely.
In contrast with VMware you need a lot few number of ports opened to do remote management, and you normally won't have problems getting remote management. In fact it's almost a "given" that you'd be mainly using remote management.
HyperV may also not work so well if you're not running Linux guests. Recently a colleague had a problem with a Linux guest- some (ICMP echo) frames/packets were being sent but not others (ARP replies)! I solved it by restarting the hyper-v virtual switch. Perhaps that HyperV server was not updated. Whatever it is, even vmware GSX server years ago caused me fewer problems than HyperV.
"eternaldoctorwho" is correct that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away in a two-party first past the post system.
It is only throwing your vote away if there is only ever one election, and there will be no other elections in the future.
Otherwise if there will be future elections, it can be a signal to other voters and also the candidates. If the 3rd party gets a significant number of votes, the rest of the voters might start to consider that the 3rd party might actually have a chance in the _next_ election.
The other candidates may consider that too and start changing their behaviour. If the behaviour is closer to what those voters want, even if the 3rd party never wins, their goals are better served.
In contrast if 98% of the voters just kept voting for one of the two, why should either change?
If the voters have consistently not been getting candidates they like then obviously their "game theory" and strategies are not working. Whereas the winning candidates are doing better.
The resources in this world are finite and there are opportunity costs when doing one thing instead of another. In my opinion the cost:benefit and risk:reward ratio of this sort of research aren't good enough. Better to do something else first.
Many like to use the excuse that others will do it if "we" don't do it, and my reply is it'll at least be later rather than sooner, and it's still a stupid reason to do something, because as our technology improves we may start to have the capability to create the equivalent of a "Cheap Big Red Button That Kills Everyone", so do we put our resources into developing that first just because we can, or do we first concentrate on building a society where nobody would ever push such a button even if it exists?
Maybe "nothing" if it's legally considered an Act of (Game) God;).
If someone stole your in-game objects, then sure, same thing as if someone stole stockmarket shares, the money in bank accounts, changed some digital land title registration... Unless of course the theft is considered part of the game (ala EVE Online).
No, because those would be losses due to an "Act of God" (where God = the gods of the game). That said I believe people have tried to sue God before.;)
To me it a knife threat doesn't even have to be involved for something wrong to have been done. If someone borrowed your virtual sword on the understanding that he would return it in good condition, but that someone refuses to give it back or sells it, then it is theft. You no longer can use the sword.
Unless of course you have both agreed to play a game where such behaviour is considered part of the game (e.g. EVE Online), in which case, you should have no legal redress (that said, could getting the courts involved be considered part of the game too?;) ).
Digital trinkets? Those numbers in bank accounts and stock market shares are digital trinkets too. The only difference is whether the courts and governments decide they are different or not.
When enough people think a stamp, a pokemon card, or a stockmarket share or a bunch of digits in a computer are valuable, it is valuable.
Denying it can cause bigger problems, like the case years ago in China when some guy "borrowed" another guy's "virtual sword" and then sold it (for a significant amount of real money). The victim went to the cops first, but apparently the cops just laughed, so in the end the victim handled it himself and murdered the perp. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/mar/31/china.internationalnews
Not saying it was right to do so. But if someone borrowed something precious of yours, then sold it off (breach of trust/betrayal), and when you find out, just offered you the cash (presumably less than what you think it was worth), and you go to the cops who then laugh at you, I'd think you would be rather pissed off.
They could use solar to reduce their electric bill, but currently it's likely to just cost them more, unless there are subsidies which means taxpayers would be paying for their electricity (in return for hopefully improved solar tech in the long run).
"The fact that we have more race, ethnicity and economic heterogeneity, and we have this huge problem of poverty, should not mean we don't want qualified teachers - the strategies become even more important," Dr. Darling-Hammond said. "Thirty years ago, Finland's education system was a mess. It was quite mediocre, very inequitable. It had a lot of features our system has: very top-down testing, extensive tracking, highly variable teachers, and they managed to reboot the whole system."
Singapore and South Korea do about as well as Finland but with a different approach - the students do a lot more work, have more pressure and I think they have a higher student to teacher ratio (more expensive directly for the State). FWIW I think I'd prefer to be a Finnish student than a Singaporean student. The former apparently enjoy the process of being educated more.
Yes there's plenty of medical advances being done in Europe, Japan and presumably elsewhere, but if you're a billionaire and they can't fix your problem in the USA, it's usually not likely it can be fixed elsewhere either. And that's why I said the USA has the best healthcare money can buy.
But if you're not a multi-millionaire[1], then it sucks to be sick in the USA.
[1] Nowadays you could be a millionaire mainly because your house is expensive, but you may not have much money to spend.
We don't even have space stations with decent radiation shielding and artificial gravity. To me those are one of the first requirements for practical long distance space travel. Once you have those, getting anywhere within the solar system is no longer a suicide trip.
You could use that reasoning to abolish the entire patent system...
If you can patent something that someone with the same problem/task could independently come up with in a day or less, and thus make them spend weeks in patent negotiation or litigation, that slows down progress.
Does it encourage more innovation? I think many of the people and companies actually trying to make stuff will still do so in the absence of patents.
Anyone seriously think that Apple wouldn't be making money from the iPhone if there were no patents at all? They can still prevent fakes and copies with trademark and copyright laws.
"Opportunity cost" if the device fails before the design lifespan.
The device might be cheaper than the rockets, fuel etc involved in sending it there.
Sometimes you also need to launch something within a particular time range, otherwise the next best time could be decades or even a century later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_window
So if you launch it and the stuff fails, you just wasted many millions and many years. The scientists who wanted it there for their research might die before the 2nd try.
There are many reasons why they would do so. Even you might do so if convinced that it's in your best interest to plead guilty even though innocent.
Imagine if you think by pleading guilty you had 100% chance of 2 years in prison and if you didn't you had a 90% chance of decades in prison, which would you pick? Did the chap have a lawyer helping him?
That's what the UK police claimed right? Does the guy admit he created that letter? If he doesn't I'd give him the benefit of doubt unless there is any other evidence.
Beginning with the alternative hypothesis that America has a future.
So if you're going to die eventually, why are you still bothering to breathe now? Why not die now?
As for the topic, in order for Software to save the USA, the US education system has to improve.
There were 14 million manufacturing jobs in the USA in 2004. 1) How many of those 14 million would be to work in the software industry? 2) How many of them would be cheaper and/or better than people elsewhere in the world? A lot of software stuff is not constrained by location so can be done by someone else, sure many Indian programmers might be crap, but not all programmers in the rest of the world would be crappier than those 14 million...
From what I see the current US education system might not leave people behind on grades, but definitely leaves many people behind on quality. So how are the millions of those left behind going to compete in the software world? A crap programmer can be replaced by a small script. So the education system has to improve so that even the average US citizen is better educated compared to the competition.
BUT even if the education system improves, that just buys maybe a few decades of time. Humans are still very remarkable and competitive from a tech perspective- they consume about 100W (assuming 2000 kcal diet) for computing tasks, and can do many things easily that computers can't for the same power consumption. The disadvantage is it takes about 16 or more years to get a "release ready" human - making the upfront costs rather high. Humans start to become less competitive if computers and robots start being able to do more and more human things; faster, better and cheaper.
So if a few humans augmented by computers and robots start outcompeting millions of humans, it can get ugly in a winner takes all freemarket capitalist world.
In a more socialist world with safety nets, it may not matter so much that most people don't have "real jobs", the productivity of the actual producers will be high enough so that from the taxes everyone can still be fed, clothed, sheltered, entertained, even if all they produce are FB posts and youtube videos (they might be cool, interesting or amusing ones though - e.g. crazy people in wingsuits jumping off mountains).
As for Science Fiction, if the AIs ever get smarter and more powerful than us, there might still be hope - they might keep us around as pets- hopefully by that time we would have established a pervasive culture where the strong take care of the weak and enjoy doing so, and the AIs adopt it too... Otherwise we'd all be considered redundant and a waste of resources.
Slashdot Mirror
So far it's not reproducing very well is it?
Thus if it's a meme it's not a very good one.
HyperV has many more dependencies than other virtualization stuff.
For example,.if your host and management client are not in the same AD domain but you want to use MMC to remote manage a HyperV host (say you do not want to allow multiple people to remote desktop to the host), to configure the permissions and other stuff you often have to download and run an _unsupported_ tool: http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/HVRemote
Or wade through 5 pages of stuff:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/jhoward/archive/2008/03/28/part-1-hyper-v-remote-management-you-do-not-have-the-requested-permission-to-complete-this-task-contact-the-administrator-of-the-authorization-policy-for-the-computer-computername.aspx
And even so, it often still doesn't work, e.g. the added firewall rules might not work for some stupid reason and you have to turn off the firewalls completely.
In contrast with VMware you need a lot few number of ports opened to do remote management, and you normally won't have problems getting remote management. In fact it's almost a "given" that you'd be mainly using remote management.
HyperV may also not work so well if you're not running Linux guests. Recently a colleague had a problem with a Linux guest- some (ICMP echo) frames/packets were being sent but not others (ARP replies)! I solved it by restarting the hyper-v virtual switch. Perhaps that HyperV server was not updated. Whatever it is, even vmware GSX server years ago caused me fewer problems than HyperV.
Yeah right.
"eternaldoctorwho" is correct that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away in a two-party first past the post system.
It is only throwing your vote away if there is only ever one election, and there will be no other elections in the future.
Otherwise if there will be future elections, it can be a signal to other voters and also the candidates. If the 3rd party gets a significant number of votes, the rest of the voters might start to consider that the 3rd party might actually have a chance in the _next_ election.
The other candidates may consider that too and start changing their behaviour. If the behaviour is closer to what those voters want, even if the 3rd party never wins, their goals are better served.
In contrast if 98% of the voters just kept voting for one of the two, why should either change?
If the voters have consistently not been getting candidates they like then obviously their "game theory" and strategies are not working. Whereas the winning candidates are doing better.
Read again. Where did I say do nothing?
Then logically in the not so long run we are doomed if we persist in developing technologies that allow mass killing to be cheaper and easier.
The resources in this world are finite and there are opportunity costs when doing one thing instead of another. In my opinion the cost:benefit and risk:reward ratio of this sort of research aren't good enough. Better to do something else first.
Many like to use the excuse that others will do it if "we" don't do it, and my reply is it'll at least be later rather than sooner, and it's still a stupid reason to do something, because as our technology improves we may start to have the capability to create the equivalent of a "Cheap Big Red Button That Kills Everyone", so do we put our resources into developing that first just because we can, or do we first concentrate on building a society where nobody would ever push such a button even if it exists?
Maybe "nothing" if it's legally considered an Act of (Game) God ;).
If someone stole your in-game objects, then sure, same thing as if someone stole stockmarket shares, the money in bank accounts, changed some digital land title registration... Unless of course the theft is considered part of the game (ala EVE Online).
No, because those would be losses due to an "Act of God" (where God = the gods of the game). That said I believe people have tried to sue God before. ;)
;) ).
To me it a knife threat doesn't even have to be involved for something wrong to have been done. If someone borrowed your virtual sword on the understanding that he would return it in good condition, but that someone refuses to give it back or sells it, then it is theft. You no longer can use the sword.
Unless of course you have both agreed to play a game where such behaviour is considered part of the game (e.g. EVE Online), in which case, you should have no legal redress (that said, could getting the courts involved be considered part of the game too?
Digital trinkets? Those numbers in bank accounts and stock market shares are digital trinkets too. The only difference is whether the courts and governments decide they are different or not.
When enough people think a stamp, a pokemon card, or a stockmarket share or a bunch of digits in a computer are valuable, it is valuable.
Denying it can cause bigger problems, like the case years ago in China when some guy "borrowed" another guy's "virtual sword" and then sold it (for a significant amount of real money). The victim went to the cops first, but apparently the cops just laughed, so in the end the victim handled it himself and murdered the perp. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/mar/31/china.internationalnews
Not saying it was right to do so. But if someone borrowed something precious of yours, then sold it off (breach of trust/betrayal), and when you find out, just offered you the cash (presumably less than what you think it was worth), and you go to the cops who then laugh at you, I'd think you would be rather pissed off.
In contrast some places handle it better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486
They could use solar to reduce their electric bill, but currently it's likely to just cost them more, unless there are subsidies which means taxpayers would be paying for their electricity (in return for hopefully improved solar tech in the long run).
Agh, I mean the Singapore and South Korea way is cheaper directly for the state: fewer high quality teachers required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/from-finland-an-intriguing-school-reform-model.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
"The fact that we have more race, ethnicity and economic heterogeneity, and we have this huge problem of poverty, should not mean we don't want qualified teachers - the strategies become even more important," Dr. Darling-Hammond said. "Thirty years ago, Finland's education system was a mess. It was quite mediocre, very inequitable. It had a lot of features our system has: very top-down testing, extensive tracking, highly variable teachers, and they managed to reboot the whole system."
Singapore and South Korea do about as well as Finland but with a different approach - the students do a lot more work, have more pressure and I think they have a higher student to teacher ratio (more expensive directly for the State). FWIW I think I'd prefer to be a Finnish student than a Singaporean student. The former apparently enjoy the process of being educated more.
Yes there's plenty of medical advances being done in Europe, Japan and presumably elsewhere, but if you're a billionaire and they can't fix your problem in the USA, it's usually not likely it can be fixed elsewhere either. And that's why I said the USA has the best healthcare money can buy.
But if you're not a multi-millionaire[1], then it sucks to be sick in the USA.
[1] Nowadays you could be a millionaire mainly because your house is expensive, but you may not have much money to spend.
The USA has the best healthcare (and government?) money can buy.
But if you don't have enough money...
Reduction in choice may reduce the amount of eating/drinking people have to do in order to avoid decision fatigue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
We don't even have space stations with decent radiation shielding and artificial gravity. To me those are one of the first requirements for practical long distance space travel. Once you have those, getting anywhere within the solar system is no longer a suicide trip.
Meanwhile the best use for moon/mars trips is for sending people we don't want (even if it's only figuratively): http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1282675&cid=28478857
The Pacific is big but while I'm not so worried about this uranium thing I'm a bit worried about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
You could use that reasoning to abolish the entire patent system...
If you can patent something that someone with the same problem/task could independently come up with in a day or less, and thus make them spend weeks in patent negotiation or litigation, that slows down progress.
Does it encourage more innovation? I think many of the people and companies actually trying to make stuff will still do so in the absence of patents.
Anyone seriously think that Apple wouldn't be making money from the iPhone if there were no patents at all? They can still prevent fakes and copies with trademark and copyright laws.
Well, he told the police he was planning to do
Where did you get that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/27/asim-kausar-jailed-ricin-recipe?newsfeed=true
Kauser told police he had downloaded the information out of "curiosity and a thirst for knowledge".
I see no report that Kauser admitted to writing the "jihad" letter the police found (or "found" ;) ).
Don't assume the UK police would never do dubious stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Disputed_facts_and_events
"Opportunity cost" if the device fails before the design lifespan.
The device might be cheaper than the rockets, fuel etc involved in sending it there.
Sometimes you also need to launch something within a particular time range, otherwise the next best time could be decades or even a century later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_window
So if you launch it and the stuff fails, you just wasted many millions and many years. The scientists who wanted it there for their research might die before the 2nd try.
Many people have actually plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/When_the_Innocent_Plead_Guilty.php
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/faqs/
There are many reasons why they would do so. Even you might do so if convinced that it's in your best interest to plead guilty even though innocent.
Imagine if you think by pleading guilty you had 100% chance of 2 years in prison and if you didn't you had a 90% chance of decades in prison, which would you pick? Did the chap have a lawyer helping him?
That's what the UK police claimed right? Does the guy admit he created that letter? If he doesn't I'd give him the benefit of doubt unless there is any other evidence.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Disputed_facts_and_events
I'm personally more concerned about corrupt/bad cops than I am of terrorists. They have a far higher chance of ruining my life.
Beginning with the alternative hypothesis that America has a future.
So if you're going to die eventually, why are you still bothering to breathe now? Why not die now?
As for the topic, in order for Software to save the USA, the US education system has to improve.
There were 14 million manufacturing jobs in the USA in 2004.
1) How many of those 14 million would be to work in the software industry?
2) How many of them would be cheaper and/or better than people elsewhere in the world? A lot of software stuff is not constrained by location so can be done by someone else, sure many Indian programmers might be crap, but not all programmers in the rest of the world would be crappier than those 14 million...
From what I see the current US education system might not leave people behind on grades, but definitely leaves many people behind on quality. So how are the millions of those left behind going to compete in the software world? A crap programmer can be replaced by a small script. So the education system has to improve so that even the average US citizen is better educated compared to the competition.
BUT even if the education system improves, that just buys maybe a few decades of time. Humans are still very remarkable and competitive from a tech perspective- they consume about 100W (assuming 2000 kcal diet) for computing tasks, and can do many things easily that computers can't for the same power consumption. The disadvantage is it takes about 16 or more years to get a "release ready" human - making the upfront costs rather high. Humans start to become less competitive if computers and robots start being able to do more and more human things; faster, better and cheaper.
So if a few humans augmented by computers and robots start outcompeting millions of humans, it can get ugly in a winner takes all freemarket capitalist world.
In a more socialist world with safety nets, it may not matter so much that most people don't have "real jobs", the productivity of the actual producers will be high enough so that from the taxes everyone can still be fed, clothed, sheltered, entertained, even if all they produce are FB posts and youtube videos (they might be cool, interesting or amusing ones though - e.g. crazy people in wingsuits jumping off mountains).
As for Science Fiction, if the AIs ever get smarter and more powerful than us, there might still be hope - they might keep us around as pets- hopefully by that time we would have established a pervasive culture where the strong take care of the weak and enjoy doing so, and the AIs adopt it too... Otherwise we'd all be considered redundant and a waste of resources.
Would be quite expensive, but letting water go thru and nothing else would save millons in remediation.
The membrane replacement cost is one of the main costs in making RO water. Energy costs are high too, but about the same order of magnitude.
So to save money the graphene membrane has to be cheaper or it has to use less energy to filter water.
I'm wondering if there are other things it lets through and not just water. Ammonia? Acetone?