From what I can tell (roughly) at least half of/. is civil libertarian, and at least half of/. is against spam. Therefore, by pidgeonhole principal, at least one person on/. is a hypocrite.
(OK, that was a complete and utter troll.)
It's perfectly possible to hold both views without conflict. You can say whatever you want. If you send out spam, so be it. If you abuse mail relays that aren't yours, that's different from just simple spamming. If you make zombie botnets to send your spam, that's also not an issue of speech but of property.
Likewise, other people can publish blacklists. And, I can choose to have my servers read those blacklists because I choose not to read your spam. As soon as you try to outlaw spam too heavy handedly, you may wind creating an environment that outlaws the blacklists too.
No, but they do correspond to the location of the stargates.
Is "Stargates" a codename for yo momma's orifices? I only ask because, I'm certain she has sufficient mass to distort a gravity map. I feel quite ribald for saying this.
You folks all know why this is right ? I mean what is the use of SSL-encryption if you don't know who your 'talking' to ?
Yeah, because talking to somebody whose identity I can't be sure of over an encrypted link is *soooo* much worse than talking to somebody whose identity I can't be sure of over a link that can be trivially sniffed. That's why telnet is better than SSH.
Which would be semi-significant if having a "proper" SSL cert actually gave me an iron-clad guarantee that I was talking to who I thought I was talking to, which it naturally can't.
Firefox allows you to make temporary exceptions; you're just not doing it. When you click on the "Add an exception" button, followed by the "Get Certificate" button, there's a checkbox with the text "Permanently store this exception". Guess what happens if you leave that box unchecked and click the "Confirm Exception" box? A temporary exception is made.
It is technically possible, but when it is hidden behind so much terrible UI, it barely matters that the feature technically exists. Most users would rather have their identity stolen than have to wade through that mess. Frankly, losing all of your money, and spending years sorting out the consequences of identity theft is a lot more convenient than the Firefox cert warning UI.
Would someone please care to define "limited government" in a clear, unambiguous way - this term gets used a lot and despite trying to understand it, I still have no idea what it means. What sort of powers would such a government retain? What services would it provide?
A properly limited government is defined as follows:
A government with sufficient limits that it leaves me alone, but with sufficient powers to bother everybody else to make sure that they leave me alone.
This seems like a really interesting comment. I'm going to schedule a project kickoff meeting for next week where we can discuss some strategies for reading your comment as efficiently as possible. Reading your comment is a very high strategic priority for me, so I'll try to get a hardware provisioning meeting scheduled ASAP after the kickoff meeting so that I can let everybody know that I'm eventually going to request some hardware to use for reading your comment.
I setting a rough goal of having your comment read before the end of the fiscal year, but there is a good chance that the project will be pushed back a bit somewhere into the next few FY's.
If true, that is so mind-bogglingly retarded that I really don't know what else to say. Surely even Congress will have to laugh them out of the building?
Has there ever been a show getting canceled that slashdot doesn't blame on the time slots and/or episode ordering? Seriously people, if the audience had been big enough and the ratings high enough, they would have moved them to prime time slots. The last pick of the shows also get last pick of the time slots, either deal with it or stay off the air then.
Sure, there are plenty of shows that deserved to die. You don't generally hear much about them because they deserved to die. Nobody invests time and effort begging to have them back, and for the most part they are so forgettable that you never hear about them again.
The reason that most canceled shows that you do hear about are spoken of as being canceled unfairly is simply a selection bias. To throw out one that I do remember - SeaQuest. I think it was a good premise, but by the third season it had gone so far from what they had originally intended that they lost off of their fans, but never managed to attract their new target audience. No amount of scheduling games would have made up for the sheer badness of some of the episodes. Scheduling games didn't help the continuity when a character was mourned, got killed off and then was alive and well, never to be seen again. Still, the show wasn't all that dependent on the continuity, so the executives who rearranged the episodes didn't have a huge negative effect.
OTOH, for Firefly they refused to show the damned pilot at any point in the original broadcast run. If "Lost" had been treated as badly as Firefly, it never would have made any money either.
I can't help but wonder what you could actually use 100Gbit/s for, I mean to the best of my knowledge (which is not all that vast I admit) you'd be hard pressed to find a storage unit that can handle these sorts of speeds.
Just depends on what you consider a "storage unit," and what you are willing to pay for it.
If "storage unit" means a hard drive, then no.
If "storage unit" means a big box in a data center with room for hundreds of drives, then yes you will be able to find interesting uses for this speed right now.
The sad thing is, I kind of understood parts of that.
Still, when will Google just admit that they are trying to solve an impossible problem, and allow the option of transcription straight to IPA? With IPA, at least I can muddle through it and try to figure out what it means. With an attempted full English transcription, I get gibberish that I have to mentally translate back into an intermediate form, and then try to guess at what it is supposed to mean. Extra levels of indirection just make it harder, not easier.
Weren't a bunch of Congress-critters talking about raising the oil spill liability limit in order to compel BP to pay more money? How is that compatible with the prohibition on ex post facto laws? For that matter, how is the Superfund program compatible? It's punishing companies for actions that weren't illegal at the time they engaged in them.
I had the same reaction. I think that the liability limits shouldn't have been there in the first place, so I do think that BP should be responsible for the full sum. OTOH, I can't figure out what the point of a liability limit is, if you are going to raise it as soon as somebody is liable for anything. I mean, it clearly has no value if it doesn't provide any guarantee of limitation.
If I were BP, I'd probably make a point of paying out the full current liability limit ASAP. If you can hit the cap before they raise it, that seems like it would result in the stronger ex-post facto argument. Still, my understanding of what the congresscritters want to do is that they have twisted the wording enough to be consistent with prior precident, such that it will almost certainly be considered a legal law, which is IMO, shocking.
No, the one thing we do NOT need is more federal regulation. There are plenty of other companies to choose from; pick a prepaid company and work with them.
There are limits to the amount of available spectrum, and the federal government enabled these businesses by offering legal monopolies on chunks of spectrum. Choices are not only extremely limited, but extremely limited by the federal government's decisions with regard to spectrum allocation. Trying to suggest that government should keep a hands-off approach in a business where it created the monopolies means that the government should actually revoke the spectrum allocation, and thus ban the business completely.
The people, via their agent - the government, absolutely have a right to make whatever regulations they want on an industry that they collectively created. If Verizon or AT&T think that the regulations are unreasonable, they can go find another line of work.
Your employer having access to things you do with IT equipment they furnish is pretty much standard operating procedure, and has been for some time now. I'm having some trouble understanding how this even got to the Supreme Court. The fact that the government allowed them to use the devices for personal messaging doesn't mean that it gave up the right to see what they were doing with them.
Indeed. When i was in corporate IT doing a lot of end-user support and training a few years ago, we always operated under some basic rules: * Sometimes I need to capture network traffic to see what the hell is making that switch act funny. If I intercept an email about the costume you want to wear when you next have intimate relations, it's your fault for using my network to send the message. Even if I find it hilarious. * Sometimes I decide to re-image machines because they are acting funny and might have a virus or whatever. I decide when to do this. You've been told not to store work-related data on the laptop. You have been provided with VPN's, network shares, and everything else you need for storing data safely. If I delete your only copy of a novel you just wrote, that's your fault. You shouldn't have been storing it on a laptop that wasn't yours. * Sometimes, I decide to replace your assigned Palm Pilot. (This was a few years ago. One or two people had "smart" phones, but they weren't common yet.) I may decide to give you a nicer one. I may decide to give you a crappier one and give yours to a boss. You've been shown how to sync your Palm Pilot with your computer, so you should never lose significant data when I replace it with a wiped one. If the shopping list on your PDA includes condoms, and a Real Doll, I'll probably make fun of you. * IT Giveth. IT can Taketh Away whenever it feels like it. IT can read.
We may have been slightly less colorful in explaining the rules to users, but it was pretty close. We occasionally had people with very personal stuff on their work machines and devices because they considered the lack of control over the data to be acceptable, but it was always explained that the devices were ours. We occasionally destroyed iTunes music libraries, and things like that. We explained to the users that they were lucky to have permissions to be able to install iTunes in the first place. They generally accepted it, and we never had to go to the Supreme Court to establish, "This is ours, we can see what it is used for."
Frankly, I think that things like cell phones paid with public funds should have texts made part of the public record, and freely available. Temporarily hold back publishing if there is something actively related to an active investigation like, "We are sending the SWAT team to XYZ's house at 3:00 pm on the 12th to arrest him." But, anything held back should have a clear notation of when it will be available. (XYZ is arrested, or the 13th of the month).
Repeat after me: programming languages and frameworks do not make developers dumber. It's this kind of thinking that forces every developer-user of a complicated system to be continually faced with issues outside of their domain of expertise, or even just the current problem focus. *That's* what causes these problems.
I disagree. I just think that fancy tools like Python, Qt, and Visual Studio Intellisense, all make me dumber in ways that I find acceptable. I'm usually willing to trade being slightly stupider than I otherwise would be if it means that I am more productive as a result. Consider it a form of "ignorance is bliss."
Proton, Neutron, Electron. Have we come up with any new technologies out of any sub-atomic particles since then?
Personally, I find this fascinating. Especially if it means the Standard Model has to be revised (again!), since you can never tell what you're going to get when the theory has to be scrapped....
Understanding the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons has been very significant in modern semiconductor design and fabrication. A lot of pure research into subatomic particles has contributed to the computer that you used to ask the question. (Also, LED's, and LCD's, etc.)
LOL reminds me of the time I worked for Citibank. I was on the overnight shift and there were few people in the building so we regularly staged "midnight acquisition raids" on different areas of the building. He's right though, sometimes the only way to get your perks is to take matters in your own hands.
I was at a place that used to be part of Lehman Brothers. I guess well executed commando raids may be somewhat exclusive to the financial sector. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it feels oddly correct.
And, to all the people who think a person would be fired for it... You seem to misunderstand the nature of the commando raid. You don't wander around going, "Hey everybody, I got my new chair by taking it!!! Everybody come look!!!" Among other things, we would steal chairs from the 5th floor, and assign them randomly to people in rows near us to see if there was any response first. Once we had used unwilling patsies for the "training missions," we were able to establish the safety parameters. The overnight guys would then assign a nice chair to the cube next to them so that they could have a nice chair overnight, but them move it to the patsy's cube during the day when anybody might be around to look for it. Because we were moving slowly, I think most people assumed that the cleaning crew was occasionally getting chairs mixed up when they pulled them out of the cubes to vacuum. When a person from our group was going to be assigned a nice chair in a commando raid, they might be seen to leave a little early, so that if there was a new chair in their cube the next morning, everybody knew they had nothing to do with it. (And we had already deployed a handful of random nice chairs to people who knew that they weren't in on it, so they would have no reason to make any accusation.)
Also, since we were one of the only groups that was in the office late, we got to be good friends with security, so we knew for sure that the only major intelligence resource in the building was sufficiently loyal to us.
Like a third of the department was former military. We ran clean operations.
He could probably go for a minor raise, but the opportunity is ripe for picking up a few quality of life perks. Something that costs the company nothing, like a new job title, would be perfect. Maybe try to weasel some time to work from home or flex hours, or maybe just a new chair.
When I was last in the corporate world, we strictly acquired perks like nicer chairs and our own white boards via commando-style raids. We would actually have strategic planning meetings for the raids. The 8 pm Network Operations shift change was our standard time, and the 5th floor our standard target.
That said, the OP will never get what he's worth at his current job. He deserves it. A great boss would give it to him, but it'll probably never happen. He's in the corporate equivalent of the "friend zone." His best hope for exploiting the situation is to get as much experience as possible, and the most inflated title possible, and try and use that as leverage when moving on to the next job.
I was hired as a data entry grunt for my first job as a programmer. I got something like a token 50 cent an hour raise for the move because management valued me, and appreciated the fact that it turned out I was more skilled than they initially expected when I was hired for the grunt job. But, there was no way they were going to double my salary after I had already demonstrated I was willing to do higher level work for the entry level pay.
So, in conclusion, it is a tactical error to do all the work you can without getting any of the money upfront; and the fifth floor will never muster adequate defenses to be able to repel (or even track) an elite squad of NOC monkeys.
There will be. Just as soon as the damned EMACS is burned off the face of this world, we can finally have peace. Until then, the corpses will just keep getting stacked up.
Do you honestly think that you are bound to university's will just because you signed a paper? That they can simply decide that they don't like something you've done so you have to pay them 300 pounds? Seriously?
They don't have the ability to jail you, but they can certainly sue for breach of contract. If you want to stay a student there, then they naturally have more authority over you and can put all sorts of extra terms on. I don't know if he would be liable for the fine if he decided to walk away from the school and abandon whatever he already paid in tuition.
You can pay once for a data stream. It's called Internet service.
Telephone and television are services on top of those data plans, and as such, they are extras. You pay extra for more. In an ideal world, that extra work is easy (just provide the "television" and "telephone" services on top of IP transports), but actually, because of a mixture of legacy systems (e.g., analog television) and QoS requirements (your telephone-over-cable connection is only pretending to be POTS), running these services is not so straightforward. It's fair to pay more for more services. "More is better", remember, and we pay more for better.
Okay, I'm in LA. Show me a mobile operator that will let me just get an Internet connection for my smart phone. I can use Skype and Google for my phone and SMS needs. A buddy of mine just searched high and low, and found that some providers offer a data plan without voice service only if you can prove that you are completely deaf. So, short of spending time at more Rock concerts, I'm not sure that I can take advantage of your claim that it is possible to pay only for Internet.
Back in 1983, I worked at Digital Productions where we had one of the very few commercially owned Cray (X-MP) computers. We were doing 'proper work' of making some of the earliest CGI for film and advertising. There was a bit of film before (Tron, Westworld, Looker, JPL stuff, etc) but The Last Starfighter was the first major film to use CGI exclusively for its spaceships, etc. in flying sequences. (Robert Preston drove a mockup car for ground scenes.) Each minute of film took (on rough avg) an hour of CPU time. All the rendering code was written in FORTRAN and ran on the Cray, outputting to film on a custom digital film printer.
Today, the games you can play on your iPhone/Android or even the aging Nintendo DS have better graphics!! Resolution is a lot lower (not 3000x5000!) but at the screen size it certainly looks much better - and rendered in real time!
Eek, you guys were rendering at 5k in the 80's? Seriously? What were the modeling and animation tools like at that point? Can you point me towards any more information about what the pipeline was like?
Re:another solution to an already solved problem..
on
Visualizing System Latency
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Where await and svctm are average wait (milliseconds) for the disk & queue and service time for the disk.
Or do you mean something else?
The data presented in the article are actually quite a bit more subtle and interesting than the summary data you've got there. It's probably be impossible to notice the effects of the "icy lake" phenomenon they describe with average summary data like that, or to appreciate the effect of shouting. (Most IO's happen relatively quickly during the shouting, so the average doesn't skew up very high. What's remarkable about the shouting is the sudden burst of outliers indicating a few accesses with terrible performance.)
# Ban Microsoft shares # Ban NFS # Put users on Linux and servers on NetBSD
If you are banning MS style shares, and also banning NFS, how exactly *do* you want all your users on Linux desktops to access their data on the BSD servers? Might as well just ban all TCP/IP traffic from the network, and note that you now have much more available bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly possible to hold both views without conflict. You can say whatever you want. If you send out spam, so be it. If you abuse mail relays that aren't yours, that's different from just simple spamming. If you make zombie botnets to send your spam, that's also not an issue of speech but of property.
Likewise, other people can publish blacklists. And, I can choose to have my servers read those blacklists because I choose not to read your spam. As soon as you try to outlaw spam too heavy handedly, you may wind creating an environment that outlaws the blacklists too.
Is "Stargates" a codename for yo momma's orifices? I only ask because, I'm certain she has sufficient mass to distort a gravity map. I feel quite ribald for saying this.
Yeah, because talking to somebody whose identity I can't be sure of over an encrypted link is *soooo* much worse than talking to somebody whose identity I can't be sure of over a link that can be trivially sniffed. That's why telnet is better than SSH.
Which would be semi-significant if having a "proper" SSL cert actually gave me an iron-clad guarantee that I was talking to who I thought I was talking to, which it naturally can't.
It is technically possible, but when it is hidden behind so much terrible UI, it barely matters that the feature technically exists. Most users would rather have their identity stolen than have to wade through that mess. Frankly, losing all of your money, and spending years sorting out the consequences of identity theft is a lot more convenient than the Firefox cert warning UI.
A properly limited government is defined as follows:
A government with sufficient limits that it leaves me alone, but with sufficient powers to bother everybody else to make sure that they leave me alone.
This seems like a really interesting comment. I'm going to schedule a project kickoff meeting for next week where we can discuss some strategies for reading your comment as efficiently as possible. Reading your comment is a very high strategic priority for me, so I'll try to get a hardware provisioning meeting scheduled ASAP after the kickoff meeting so that I can let everybody know that I'm eventually going to request some hardware to use for reading your comment.
I setting a rough goal of having your comment read before the end of the fiscal year, but there is a good chance that the project will be pushed back a bit somewhere into the next few FY's.
Depends on how much the donation campaign raises.
Sure, there are plenty of shows that deserved to die. You don't generally hear much about them because they deserved to die. Nobody invests time and effort begging to have them back, and for the most part they are so forgettable that you never hear about them again.
The reason that most canceled shows that you do hear about are spoken of as being canceled unfairly is simply a selection bias. To throw out one that I do remember - SeaQuest. I think it was a good premise, but by the third season it had gone so far from what they had originally intended that they lost off of their fans, but never managed to attract their new target audience. No amount of scheduling games would have made up for the sheer badness of some of the episodes. Scheduling games didn't help the continuity when a character was mourned, got killed off and then was alive and well, never to be seen again. Still, the show wasn't all that dependent on the continuity, so the executives who rearranged the episodes didn't have a huge negative effect.
OTOH, for Firefly they refused to show the damned pilot at any point in the original broadcast run. If "Lost" had been treated as badly as Firefly, it never would have made any money either.
Just depends on what you consider a "storage unit," and what you are willing to pay for it.
If "storage unit" means a hard drive, then no.
If "storage unit" means a big box in a data center with room for hundreds of drives, then yes you will be able to find interesting uses for this speed right now.
Did you license having that impression? You probably should have.
The sad thing is, I kind of understood parts of that.
Still, when will Google just admit that they are trying to solve an impossible problem, and allow the option of transcription straight to IPA? With IPA, at least I can muddle through it and try to figure out what it means. With an attempted full English transcription, I get gibberish that I have to mentally translate back into an intermediate form, and then try to guess at what it is supposed to mean. Extra levels of indirection just make it harder, not easier.
I had the same reaction. I think that the liability limits shouldn't have been there in the first place, so I do think that BP should be responsible for the full sum. OTOH, I can't figure out what the point of a liability limit is, if you are going to raise it as soon as somebody is liable for anything. I mean, it clearly has no value if it doesn't provide any guarantee of limitation.
If I were BP, I'd probably make a point of paying out the full current liability limit ASAP. If you can hit the cap before they raise it, that seems like it would result in the stronger ex-post facto argument. Still, my understanding of what the congresscritters want to do is that they have twisted the wording enough to be consistent with prior precident, such that it will almost certainly be considered a legal law, which is IMO, shocking.
There are limits to the amount of available spectrum, and the federal government enabled these businesses by offering legal monopolies on chunks of spectrum. Choices are not only extremely limited, but extremely limited by the federal government's decisions with regard to spectrum allocation. Trying to suggest that government should keep a hands-off approach in a business where it created the monopolies means that the government should actually revoke the spectrum allocation, and thus ban the business completely.
The people, via their agent - the government, absolutely have a right to make whatever regulations they want on an industry that they collectively created. If Verizon or AT&T think that the regulations are unreasonable, they can go find another line of work.
Indeed. When i was in corporate IT doing a lot of end-user support and training a few years ago, we always operated under some basic rules:
* Sometimes I need to capture network traffic to see what the hell is making that switch act funny. If I intercept an email about the costume you want to wear when you next have intimate relations, it's your fault for using my network to send the message. Even if I find it hilarious.
* Sometimes I decide to re-image machines because they are acting funny and might have a virus or whatever. I decide when to do this. You've been told not to store work-related data on the laptop. You have been provided with VPN's, network shares, and everything else you need for storing data safely. If I delete your only copy of a novel you just wrote, that's your fault. You shouldn't have been storing it on a laptop that wasn't yours.
* Sometimes, I decide to replace your assigned Palm Pilot. (This was a few years ago. One or two people had "smart" phones, but they weren't common yet.) I may decide to give you a nicer one. I may decide to give you a crappier one and give yours to a boss. You've been shown how to sync your Palm Pilot with your computer, so you should never lose significant data when I replace it with a wiped one. If the shopping list on your PDA includes condoms, and a Real Doll, I'll probably make fun of you.
* IT Giveth. IT can Taketh Away whenever it feels like it. IT can read.
We may have been slightly less colorful in explaining the rules to users, but it was pretty close. We occasionally had people with very personal stuff on their work machines and devices because they considered the lack of control over the data to be acceptable, but it was always explained that the devices were ours. We occasionally destroyed iTunes music libraries, and things like that. We explained to the users that they were lucky to have permissions to be able to install iTunes in the first place. They generally accepted it, and we never had to go to the Supreme Court to establish, "This is ours, we can see what it is used for."
Frankly, I think that things like cell phones paid with public funds should have texts made part of the public record, and freely available. Temporarily hold back publishing if there is something actively related to an active investigation like, "We are sending the SWAT team to XYZ's house at 3:00 pm on the 12th to arrest him." But, anything held back should have a clear notation of when it will be available. (XYZ is arrested, or the 13th of the month).
I disagree. I just think that fancy tools like Python, Qt, and Visual Studio Intellisense, all make me dumber in ways that I find acceptable. I'm usually willing to trade being slightly stupider than I otherwise would be if it means that I am more productive as a result. Consider it a form of "ignorance is bliss."
Understanding the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons has been very significant in modern semiconductor design and fabrication. A lot of pure research into subatomic particles has contributed to the computer that you used to ask the question. (Also, LED's, and LCD's, etc.)
I was at a place that used to be part of Lehman Brothers. I guess well executed commando raids may be somewhat exclusive to the financial sector. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it feels oddly correct.
And, to all the people who think a person would be fired for it... You seem to misunderstand the nature of the commando raid. You don't wander around going, "Hey everybody, I got my new chair by taking it!!! Everybody come look!!!" Among other things, we would steal chairs from the 5th floor, and assign them randomly to people in rows near us to see if there was any response first. Once we had used unwilling patsies for the "training missions," we were able to establish the safety parameters. The overnight guys would then assign a nice chair to the cube next to them so that they could have a nice chair overnight, but them move it to the patsy's cube during the day when anybody might be around to look for it. Because we were moving slowly, I think most people assumed that the cleaning crew was occasionally getting chairs mixed up when they pulled them out of the cubes to vacuum. When a person from our group was going to be assigned a nice chair in a commando raid, they might be seen to leave a little early, so that if there was a new chair in their cube the next morning, everybody knew they had nothing to do with it. (And we had already deployed a handful of random nice chairs to people who knew that they weren't in on it, so they would have no reason to make any accusation.)
Also, since we were one of the only groups that was in the office late, we got to be good friends with security, so we knew for sure that the only major intelligence resource in the building was sufficiently loyal to us.
Like a third of the department was former military. We ran clean operations.
When I was last in the corporate world, we strictly acquired perks like nicer chairs and our own white boards via commando-style raids. We would actually have strategic planning meetings for the raids. The 8 pm Network Operations shift change was our standard time, and the 5th floor our standard target.
That said, the OP will never get what he's worth at his current job. He deserves it. A great boss would give it to him, but it'll probably never happen. He's in the corporate equivalent of the "friend zone." His best hope for exploiting the situation is to get as much experience as possible, and the most inflated title possible, and try and use that as leverage when moving on to the next job.
I was hired as a data entry grunt for my first job as a programmer. I got something like a token 50 cent an hour raise for the move because management valued me, and appreciated the fact that it turned out I was more skilled than they initially expected when I was hired for the grunt job. But, there was no way they were going to double my salary after I had already demonstrated I was willing to do higher level work for the entry level pay.
So, in conclusion, it is a tactical error to do all the work you can without getting any of the money upfront; and the fifth floor will never muster adequate defenses to be able to repel (or even track) an elite squad of NOC monkeys.
There will be. Just as soon as the damned EMACS is burned off the face of this world, we can finally have peace. Until then, the corpses will just keep getting stacked up.
I was thinking centigallons per mile, actually.
They don't have the ability to jail you, but they can certainly sue for breach of contract. If you want to stay a student there, then they naturally have more authority over you and can put all sorts of extra terms on. I don't know if he would be liable for the fine if he decided to walk away from the school and abandon whatever he already paid in tuition.
Okay, I'm in LA. Show me a mobile operator that will let me just get an Internet connection for my smart phone. I can use Skype and Google for my phone and SMS needs. A buddy of mine just searched high and low, and found that some providers offer a data plan without voice service only if you can prove that you are completely deaf. So, short of spending time at more Rock concerts, I'm not sure that I can take advantage of your claim that it is possible to pay only for Internet.
Eek, you guys were rendering at 5k in the 80's? Seriously? What were the modeling and animation tools like at that point? Can you point me towards any more information about what the pipeline was like?
The data presented in the article are actually quite a bit more subtle and interesting than the summary data you've got there. It's probably be impossible to notice the effects of the "icy lake" phenomenon they describe with average summary data like that, or to appreciate the effect of shouting. (Most IO's happen relatively quickly during the shouting, so the average doesn't skew up very high. What's remarkable about the shouting is the sudden burst of outliers indicating a few accesses with terrible performance.)
If you are banning MS style shares, and also banning NFS, how exactly *do* you want all your users on Linux desktops to access their data on the BSD servers? Might as well just ban all TCP/IP traffic from the network, and note that you now have much more available bandwidth.