Owning both a 4 and a mini - i'd suggest that yes, the touchscreen experience is compromised on the mini. However - the weight is just so much less, i find myself using it more often. But if i need to do any sort of extensive touchscreen or keyboard input, the 4 is far preferable. Its just so heavy...
I think the 10" form factor is better - the keyboard is SO much easier to use. But it is just too heavy. If they can get the weight of the 10" model down a bit to something like 3/4 of what it currently is, I think they're on a winner.
I currently have both an iPad 4 and iPad mini for evaluation purposes and the mini is just so much lighter. But the form factor on the 4 is better for trying to actually do anything other than browse (typing anything, etc).
FInd me something else that has had 65 vulnerabilities patched and a zero day in the wild within 30 days, AFTER several months of exploits in the wild, and I'll shit-can that software too.
No... hybrid 7200 is the sane choice, which is what they are still going to be building. Difference between 5400 large capacity drive and 7200 for same money in a laptop = very little difference, because on a laptop or desktop you're not doing a huge amount of random seek to make the rotational latency vs areal density trade off worth it. Hybrid on the other hand is MUCH faster than even 7200 in day to day use. Noi it's not SSD fast, but it's not SSD price/GB, either.
Depends on the workload, but you're right - for desktop users they likely don't do anywhere near as much random IO (vs sequential) to make the rotational speed vs areal density trade-off worth it. However, a hybrid 7200 is much faster in the real world and hardly any more expensive. So i can see why seagate have just canned 7200s. Those who want them for arrays where the SSD cache is of dubious use on a per-drive level will buy 10,000 rpm or faster anyhow.
Having gone from a 7200 rpm drive to a hybrid, the difference is night and day. Yes SSD is faster (i have one in another machine but the difference between plain 7200 and 5400 is nothing like the jump to hybrid. Hybrid is not much more than a regular drive.
The way it works, you get allocated a PREFIX. Not a single IP. Generally a/56 or a/48. So you have several trillion IPv4 internets worth of IP to play with behind your home DSL. Typically you'll configure your router to be xxxx::1, and then behind that its up to you. So yes, you'll get a static IPv6 prefix, thats the whole point. I'm running IPv6 native here through internode.
Conversely, get a tunnel from a tunnel broker to use whilst on the road vpn style (essentially tunnel into ipv6 network via local ipv4) and access your systems over ipv6 when on the road.
So, tell me, what exactly are the valid reasons for NOT implementing this other than to allow a site to fill up your hard drive.
The lack of ability to determine whether or not bar.foo.com and baz.foo.com are affiliated with one another. They may be the same company, they may be entirely different organsiations. They should NOT therefore be forced to share the same storage quota.
The spec as TFA author is interpreting it is broken. In actual fact, the spec leaves this open as an implementation detail and does not define the behaviour.
The inode tables thing is a good point. Even if the space is constrained via quota, unless the number of files is limited, you could perhaps create a mass of 0 byte files to perform an inode DOS without needing to bother about subdomain BS.
Pet peeve: people who can't understand that "nearly infinite" was intended to mean "essentially infinite" and feel the need to be a nazi about it because they have nothing of actual worth to contribute to discussion.
Should each subdomain get 5MB of space? The standard says no
So, where is the limit supposed to apply? To all subdomains of.com? To all subdomains of.au? How about my ISP who offers me FOO.power.on.net? Should every customer's website on power.on.net have to share the same space?
Poorly thought out standard is poor.
The browsers obviously didn't put a limit in for subdomains because it doesn't make sense. You have no idea where the organisational boundary is with regards to domain vs. subdomain.
Correct solution here I guess is to limit the space your browser can consume (we're in 2013 now, maybe give it 1GB in total, adjustable) and move on.
That. Win8 breaks search, local previous versions, backup, amongst other things. The start menu is annoying but it is not the sole reason I hate it. Not by a long shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Owning both a 4 and a mini - i'd suggest that yes, the touchscreen experience is compromised on the mini. However - the weight is just so much less, i find myself using it more often. But if i need to do any sort of extensive touchscreen or keyboard input, the 4 is far preferable. Its just so heavy...
I think the 10" form factor is better - the keyboard is SO much easier to use. But it is just too heavy. If they can get the weight of the 10" model down a bit to something like 3/4 of what it currently is, I think they're on a winner.
I currently have both an iPad 4 and iPad mini for evaluation purposes and the mini is just so much lighter. But the form factor on the 4 is better for trying to actually do anything other than browse (typing anything, etc).
FInd me something else that has had 65 vulnerabilities patched and a zero day in the wild within 30 days, AFTER several months of exploits in the wild, and I'll shit-can that software too.
Same reason Firefox doesn't support DHCP based WPAD despite having patches submitted for such support in 2006.
A lot more secure. Linux and the BSDs have holes found in them all the time, along with everything else. Pascal would be a lot more secure than C.
You're still relying on the C library to be secure. Many/most are not.
Hybrid in my MBP cut boot time from about 30 seconds to 13-14 seconds (from power button press, including EFI post). 750GB for 150 bucks.
Depends on the benchmark / workload. Throw random 4k IOs at both drives and the blue will get trounced.
No... hybrid 7200 is the sane choice, which is what they are still going to be building. Difference between 5400 large capacity drive and 7200 for same money in a laptop = very little difference, because on a laptop or desktop you're not doing a huge amount of random seek to make the rotational latency vs areal density trade off worth it. Hybrid on the other hand is MUCH faster than even 7200 in day to day use. Noi it's not SSD fast, but it's not SSD price/GB, either.
Depends on the workload, but you're right - for desktop users they likely don't do anywhere near as much random IO (vs sequential) to make the rotational speed vs areal density trade-off worth it. However, a hybrid 7200 is much faster in the real world and hardly any more expensive. So i can see why seagate have just canned 7200s. Those who want them for arrays where the SSD cache is of dubious use on a per-drive level will buy 10,000 rpm or faster anyhow.
The nand in hybrid drives is SLC and not MLC. SLC nand is a lot more reliable than consumer grade MLC.
Having gone from a 7200 rpm drive to a hybrid, the difference is night and day. Yes SSD is faster (i have one in another machine but the difference between plain 7200 and 5400 is nothing like the jump to hybrid. Hybrid is not much more than a regular drive.
The way it works, you get allocated a PREFIX. Not a single IP. Generally a /56 or a /48. So you have several trillion IPv4 internets worth of IP to play with behind your home DSL. Typically you'll configure your router to be xxxx::1, and then behind that its up to you. So yes, you'll get a static IPv6 prefix, thats the whole point. I'm running IPv6 native here through internode.
Works fine for me.
I'd like to introduce you to the idea of subnets, and how even if you have a /8, you likely won't use all the IPs in ONE fucking subnet.
I've seen ATMs still running OS2 / eComStation within the past couple of years.
Conversely, get a tunnel from a tunnel broker to use whilst on the road vpn style (essentially tunnel into ipv6 network via local ipv4) and access your systems over ipv6 when on the road.
I guess the way to do this is via certificate - and allocate x MB of storage per SSL certificate.
The lack of ability to determine whether or not bar.foo.com and baz.foo.com are affiliated with one another. They may be the same company, they may be entirely different organsiations. They should NOT therefore be forced to share the same storage quota.
The spec as TFA author is interpreting it is broken. In actual fact, the spec leaves this open as an implementation detail and does not define the behaviour.
Best post in thread.
The inode tables thing is a good point. Even if the space is constrained via quota, unless the number of files is limited, you could perhaps create a mass of 0 byte files to perform an inode DOS without needing to bother about subdomain BS.
Pet peeve: people who can't understand that "nearly infinite" was intended to mean "essentially infinite" and feel the need to be a nazi about it because they have nothing of actual worth to contribute to discussion.
By "didn't put a limit in for subdomains", I of course mean "didn't include subdomains in the parent's quota".
So, where is the limit supposed to apply? To all subdomains of .com? To all subdomains of .au? How about my ISP who offers me FOO.power.on.net? Should every customer's website on power.on.net have to share the same space?
Poorly thought out standard is poor.
The browsers obviously didn't put a limit in for subdomains because it doesn't make sense. You have no idea where the organisational boundary is with regards to domain vs. subdomain.
Correct solution here I guess is to limit the space your browser can consume (we're in 2013 now, maybe give it 1GB in total, adjustable) and move on.
That. Win8 breaks search, local previous versions, backup, amongst other things. The start menu is annoying but it is not the sole reason I hate it. Not by a long shot.