Just how does that happen, anyway? I don't mean with just that phone, but with a whole range of stuff where the preprogrammed behavior seems monumentally stupid. Phones are particularly bad -- I had an old Qualcomm phone with a wheel on the side. If the wheel button was held in, it would lock the phone and unlocking was the same procedure.
Trouble is, pressing the wheel button also redialed the last number called (2-3 presses in a row). Of course I found this out after eating dinner with my dad and having him call me and ask why our dinner conversation (1.5 hours!) was on his voicemail!!
I worked with a company that had TWO public/16s and static NAT'd one public/16 to the other/16 internally. Of course its hard to blame hoarders since you could probably never get another/16, and IIRC these were "old" allocations from the 80s or early 90s when a/16 was to be had by just about anyone who asked.
I think you can almost chalk that up to "malevolent apathy" or create a new category of disaffected work actions based on the idea that rather than exercising greater than normal effort to recover from an error, no action is taken ("plausible deniability") or it gets covered it up.
But I think everyone's been at a point (bad day, bad job, too much to do, et al) where they've had something go wrong and they just couldn't be bothered to make amends. Sometimes its the result of a justification calculus (too busy, not a priority) but sometimes its the result of just not caring, disliking the affected person, etc.
The good news is you don't need to work in IT to have this mindset, any sufficiently large organization will do!
Under qualified people are a pain in the ass, and often a source of frustration for people that are qualified since it often becomes double duty making sure someone else's fuckups don't cause them for you.
But then there's also the barely-qualified lifers, too. There you get the double-whammy of long-term apathy and incompetence. They're just good enough to stick around, but bad enough that they deeply embed their stupidity, making improvements/upgrades almost impossible.
1) I do agree that the empty saber rattling that Bush has done isn't productive and does play into the propaganda machine, but I don't think that you can "empower the moderates" by negotiating. More broadly, what are we going to negotiate *on*? What's our give? Support for the Israelis? Even if any American politician was politically suicidal enough to negotiate American support for the Israelis, that dog won't hunt anymore -- pulling fake strings with Tel Aviv to score points with the Arabs has been done so often that even pathological theocrats won't fall for it. Trade is about all that's left, and the Chinese are already willing and able to sell them anything they want.
2) Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think you get where McCain is, both in human years and political experience, and suddenly change who you are radically and substantively. I guess if he won, you'd have to ask yourself how you'd know, anyway?
4) I've always thought Rice was something of a token. I know she's genius-level smart, etc, but I have a hard time believing she's there because Powell isn't.
I thought Obama-Clinton would have been a winning ticket, albeit perhaps regionally divisive. It drives my friends nuts, but I think Hillary would have made a pretty decent President. I couldn't vote for her over 2nd Amendment concerns, but other than that I don't think she would have been that bad. Plus we'd get Bill, who would be somewhere between Jimmy and Billy Carter as a public figure.
I just implemented on my home email system and it cut spam remarkably. For me, this means somewhere around 10 a week, where I was seeing somewhere around 25 a day.
1) So which Iran do we take at face value? The one that offers to negotiate, or the one that says the holocaust was a good idea and the Jews need to be wiped off the map? I don't doubt that there are moderates and large swaths of the population that DO want peace/negotiations/normalized relations with the West, but the problem with the Iranian government is that those people don't hold enough cards to matter, and the parliament has as much authority over meaningful issues in Iran as my local city council does. Khamenei and the mullahs, backed by his praetorian "Revolutionary Guard", hold all the real cards.
It's *not* that we can't negotiate with them, but that it seems very, very unlikely to be fruitful since the power brokers are not generally motivated by rationality but instead by theology. You can't tell a guy who believes that God told him to kill the Jews and Westerners and revive Xerxes/Mohammed's empire that God was wrong. Even if you try, who's to say that we won't end up with a "nothing to lose by cheating" mindset that will make negotiating pointless?
2) I don't think there's any way to adjudicate this. I don't think he's suddenly become a Bushite, I think he's figured out what it takes to get elected as a Republican, but it is largely a matter of opinion.
3) It's pretty hilarious how many people want to label him "a civil rights preacher", as if that magically clears away the ridiculous statements he makes. In a way, guys like Wright who still cling to the rhetoric, psychology and conspiracy theories of victimhood are actually their people's own worst enemies. Its unfortunate it took public exposure to drive Obama away from him.
4) She's a woman -- even Obama didn't have that kind of guts, and most of the "base" Republicans are traditionalists who don't really want a woman in a position of power. Or are you referring to the Geraldine Ferraro "base" of the Republican party?
1) Diplomacy with Iran makes academic sense until you start realizing you can't negotiate with a theocracy, particularly one that espouses neo-holocaust ambitions, hosts holocaust revision conferences, jails opposition figures, and practices "justice" in a way that is ripped out of the pages of European medieval history -- amputations, stoning, etc. Iran has not a rational or economic motivation, but a messianic *religious* motivation to incite violence against the west. What exactly are you going to negotiate, Shiite Sharia? As for the rest, how long until we "negotiate" with other stateless groups essentially running protection rackets with a flag waving in front? That is, once we get past the fact we're essentially entering into a *theological* debate with them.
2) All candidates broom the past administration. McCain would do no differently, any illusions that he's a Bush man are simply a political calculation on McCain's part to win the election. Will some guys get recycled into the thousands and thousands of political appointments made? Sure, but that's a question of scale and volume not the lingering influence of Bush.
3) Uhh, Rev. Wright? Obama panders to the left's own nutjobs who are as deluded and mistaken as Falwell and the evangelical movement, but they generally aren't religious figures in the traditional sense but secular figures as immersed in their own political theology, whether its the environment, diversity, gay rights, etc.
4) Obama's "distaste" for the Clinton dynasty only speaks to his own arrogance and will to power, not to some rational criticism of the Clinton administration. And where does he think he will get any seasoned White House staff members if not from the Clinton administration? The only other choice is the *Carter* administation, and assuming an average age of 50 in 1980, all those guys are even older than McCain -- pushing 80.
McCain has simply wised up and changed his message enough to win the backing of his party, I don't think anyone seriously doubts he has changed his view on anything fundamentally. His nomination of Sarah Palin shows he's willing to take gutsy moves. Obama's selection of Biden shows his willingness to suck up to the East Coast Democratic Machine.
That's right, it needs Crown regulation. I hope everyone remembers why we parted ways 200 some years ago and what the difference between a CITIZEN and a SUBJECT is.
"...all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." This MEANS something -- our rights do not spring from the approval of our government, our rights exist INDEPENDENT of the government.
Cable companies are in a tight spot and they really do not want to sell us the rope (bandwidth) that we will hang them with (lost advertising dollars) by ultimately allowing other people to provide content and undermine their primary business model, infotainment content delivery.
I'm not sure they will "win" though in the long run. There will be too many other options for both data and content delivery --- even though the menu is small and the content kind of crappy, cell phones are already showing TV and providing low-end broadband data connectivity, and there's no reason to believe that future network upgrades and signaling schemes will enable greater wireless data, allowing cable to generally be bypassed altogether.
They do have a short-term advantage with their symbiotic relationship with networks as well as a largely convenient and 'solved' technology that allows high definition viewing without rocket science, but this will gradually evaporate, too.
Do you really think that frat boy cocksucker Bush would have had a half an ounce's chance of invading Iraq if the Allah worshipping sand fruitcakes hadn't starting crashing planes into buildings? Or was that not "terrorism"?
I know the Democrats are weak enough to roll over for pretty much anything, but even they would have balked at a purely recreational war in Iraq without some kind of motivation.
That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many parts of the world.
Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.
In places with highly diverse cultures, the tension and the government repression seem to get ratcheted up.
You mean Bush Jr didn't inherit Clinton's lax regulation of investment banking & stock sales that led to the.com bubble and the collapse of MCI WorldCom and Enron?
Isn't that all total bullshit without factoring in long-term effects of presidential policies that seem to take effect when the other party gets into power? And without taking into effect who has been in control of congress, particularly the House?
Especially when you have guys like Charlie Rangel who can't pay real estate taxes on his Dominican estate and cheats on rent stabilized apartments (while taking contributions from the real estate company running the building!) running the House tax committee.
My guess is that the whole thing would probably be built not as a ship but more like an oil drilling platform and designed to withstand the most severe weather.
There's no good way to provide network connectivity to a truly mobile floating device, except via a dedicated satellite connection an that's no good for interactive use, so an oil platform type structure with data umbilicals either to land (preferably multiple continents) or via splice to existing undersea cables.
The latter connectivity option coupled with other connections to land probably enables Google to be a network operator or host a mid-ocean peering point, which has its own unique options.
I could swear I've heard that tsunamis aren't an issue out in the kind of water Google will be in (12+ miles out). Hurricaines are nasty, but they are generally more dangerous close to shore versus open water. Don't a lot of shipping companies send their large vessels *out* to sea when a storm approaches?
They seem capable of building large shipping vessels that can handle the risks of bad weather on the open seas, I'm sure a floating data center could be built to similar standards, including the ability to navigate the vessel to avoid bad weather or at least being anchored in the eye of a storm.
It's a matter of there being too many slime balls and con men out there in the world
Right, and since most of the major frauds and bad decisions have been perpetrated by management, perhaps to take the test I should require that management put up a surety bond equal to six months salary in case the company is committing financial fraud and I don't get paid.
I guess I'm with the crowd that refuses to knuckle under to workplace fascism.
I reached the same conclusion as willyhill when I read the article; Google is threatened by niche search and assuages these feelings by protecting preferred niche search solution providers and shunning others. An open market in niche search could lead to niche search providers aligning with Microsoft or other competitors, or generally undermining Google's dominance.
What I can't decide, though, is whether this is a conscious policy on Google's part or some kind of coincidental behavior that's arisen as a result of all the attempts to game Google's search algorithms.
I do agree with the article author's statements that monopolies often can't help but act like monopolies. Pperhaps Google needs to spend more money allowing guys like this to "appeal" the algorithm to humans vs. just being told to suck it hard.
Right, so every extra frame you send you tack on an extra 14 or 18 bytes.
A gig of data transmitted with 9000 byte jumbo frames is only about 120,000 frames. Its about 716,000 frames with 1500 byte frames. Even with low-end overhead of 14 bytes its 8 Mbytes of extra data transmitted, and that's on a single gig of data.
And even with offload engines, there's still other legacy BS at the hardware level that isn't completely eliminated and has to get done more often because of the extra frames being transmitted. And then there's the added latency with the extra frames as well, since it takes longer to send the greater volume of data required.
It may not matter for most small-transaction size clients, but for a lot of operations that move a large amount of data it really begins to matter.
Moving more data with lower overhead is ALWAYS better, and not being able to do this when you might otherwise be able to is ALWAYS a liability, even if it doesn't seem like it at the moment (*cough* 640K *cough*).
Slashdot Mirror
(*)I'd like to kill the IDIOT(s) who decided that
Just how does that happen, anyway? I don't mean with just that phone, but with a whole range of stuff where the preprogrammed behavior seems monumentally stupid. Phones are particularly bad -- I had an old Qualcomm phone with a wheel on the side. If the wheel button was held in, it would lock the phone and unlocking was the same procedure.
Trouble is, pressing the wheel button also redialed the last number called (2-3 presses in a row). Of course I found this out after eating dinner with my dad and having him call me and ask why our dinner conversation (1.5 hours!) was on his voicemail!!
...they'll let that fucking cat and his two little friends into your house and wreck everything...
I worked with a company that had TWO public /16s and static NAT'd one public /16 to the other /16 internally. Of course its hard to blame hoarders since you could probably never get another /16, and IIRC these were "old" allocations from the 80s or early 90s when a /16 was to be had by just about anyone who asked.
Are we ever going to get that?
I could give a shit about the GUI bells and whistles, that's for stroke artists with the see-through computer cases that glow in the dark.
But booting from USB sticks or drives would be a really worthwhile feature.
I think you can almost chalk that up to "malevolent apathy" or create a new category of disaffected work actions based on the idea that rather than exercising greater than normal effort to recover from an error, no action is taken ("plausible deniability") or it gets covered it up.
But I think everyone's been at a point (bad day, bad job, too much to do, et al) where they've had something go wrong and they just couldn't be bothered to make amends. Sometimes its the result of a justification calculus (too busy, not a priority) but sometimes its the result of just not caring, disliking the affected person, etc.
The good news is you don't need to work in IT to have this mindset, any sufficiently large organization will do!
Under qualified people are a pain in the ass, and often a source of frustration for people that are qualified since it often becomes double duty making sure someone else's fuckups don't cause them for you.
But then there's also the barely-qualified lifers, too. There you get the double-whammy of long-term apathy and incompetence. They're just good enough to stick around, but bad enough that they deeply embed their stupidity, making improvements/upgrades almost impossible.
1) I do agree that the empty saber rattling that Bush has done isn't productive and does play into the propaganda machine, but I don't think that you can "empower the moderates" by negotiating. More broadly, what are we going to negotiate *on*? What's our give? Support for the Israelis? Even if any American politician was politically suicidal enough to negotiate American support for the Israelis, that dog won't hunt anymore -- pulling fake strings with Tel Aviv to score points with the Arabs has been done so often that even pathological theocrats won't fall for it. Trade is about all that's left, and the Chinese are already willing and able to sell them anything they want.
2) Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think you get where McCain is, both in human years and political experience, and suddenly change who you are radically and substantively. I guess if he won, you'd have to ask yourself how you'd know, anyway?
4) I've always thought Rice was something of a token. I know she's genius-level smart, etc, but I have a hard time believing she's there because Powell isn't.
I thought Obama-Clinton would have been a winning ticket, albeit perhaps regionally divisive. It drives my friends nuts, but I think Hillary would have made a pretty decent President. I couldn't vote for her over 2nd Amendment concerns, but other than that I don't think she would have been that bad. Plus we'd get Bill, who would be somewhere between Jimmy and Billy Carter as a public figure.
I just implemented on my home email system and it cut spam remarkably. For me, this means somewhere around 10 a week, where I was seeing somewhere around 25 a day.
1) So which Iran do we take at face value? The one that offers to negotiate, or the one that says the holocaust was a good idea and the Jews need to be wiped off the map? I don't doubt that there are moderates and large swaths of the population that DO want peace/negotiations/normalized relations with the West, but the problem with the Iranian government is that those people don't hold enough cards to matter, and the parliament has as much authority over meaningful issues in Iran as my local city council does. Khamenei and the mullahs, backed by his praetorian "Revolutionary Guard", hold all the real cards.
It's *not* that we can't negotiate with them, but that it seems very, very unlikely to be fruitful since the power brokers are not generally motivated by rationality but instead by theology. You can't tell a guy who believes that God told him to kill the Jews and Westerners and revive Xerxes/Mohammed's empire that God was wrong. Even if you try, who's to say that we won't end up with a "nothing to lose by cheating" mindset that will make negotiating pointless?
2) I don't think there's any way to adjudicate this. I don't think he's suddenly become a Bushite, I think he's figured out what it takes to get elected as a Republican, but it is largely a matter of opinion.
3) It's pretty hilarious how many people want to label him "a civil rights preacher", as if that magically clears away the ridiculous statements he makes. In a way, guys like Wright who still cling to the rhetoric, psychology and conspiracy theories of victimhood are actually their people's own worst enemies. Its unfortunate it took public exposure to drive Obama away from him.
4) She's a woman -- even Obama didn't have that kind of guts, and most of the "base" Republicans are traditionalists who don't really want a woman in a position of power. Or are you referring to the Geraldine Ferraro "base" of the Republican party?
1) Diplomacy with Iran makes academic sense until you start realizing you can't negotiate with a theocracy, particularly one that espouses neo-holocaust ambitions, hosts holocaust revision conferences, jails opposition figures, and practices "justice" in a way that is ripped out of the pages of European medieval history -- amputations, stoning, etc. Iran has not a rational or economic motivation, but a messianic *religious* motivation to incite violence against the west. What exactly are you going to negotiate, Shiite Sharia? As for the rest, how long until we "negotiate" with other stateless groups essentially running protection rackets with a flag waving in front? That is, once we get past the fact we're essentially entering into a *theological* debate with them.
2) All candidates broom the past administration. McCain would do no differently, any illusions that he's a Bush man are simply a political calculation on McCain's part to win the election. Will some guys get recycled into the thousands and thousands of political appointments made? Sure, but that's a question of scale and volume not the lingering influence of Bush.
3) Uhh, Rev. Wright? Obama panders to the left's own nutjobs who are as deluded and mistaken as Falwell and the evangelical movement, but they generally aren't religious figures in the traditional sense but secular figures as immersed in their own political theology, whether its the environment, diversity, gay rights, etc.
4) Obama's "distaste" for the Clinton dynasty only speaks to his own arrogance and will to power, not to some rational criticism of the Clinton administration. And where does he think he will get any seasoned White House staff members if not from the Clinton administration? The only other choice is the *Carter* administation, and assuming an average age of 50 in 1980, all those guys are even older than McCain -- pushing 80.
McCain has simply wised up and changed his message enough to win the backing of his party, I don't think anyone seriously doubts he has changed his view on anything fundamentally. His nomination of Sarah Palin shows he's willing to take gutsy moves. Obama's selection of Biden shows his willingness to suck up to the East Coast Democratic Machine.
the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.
That's right, it needs Crown regulation. I hope everyone remembers why we parted ways 200 some years ago and what the difference between a CITIZEN and a SUBJECT is.
"...all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." This MEANS something -- our rights do not spring from the approval of our government, our rights exist INDEPENDENT of the government.
Cable companies are in a tight spot and they really do not want to sell us the rope (bandwidth) that we will hang them with (lost advertising dollars) by ultimately allowing other people to provide content and undermine their primary business model, infotainment content delivery.
I'm not sure they will "win" though in the long run. There will be too many other options for both data and content delivery --- even though the menu is small and the content kind of crappy, cell phones are already showing TV and providing low-end broadband data connectivity, and there's no reason to believe that future network upgrades and signaling schemes will enable greater wireless data, allowing cable to generally be bypassed altogether.
They do have a short-term advantage with their symbiotic relationship with networks as well as a largely convenient and 'solved' technology that allows high definition viewing without rocket science, but this will gradually evaporate, too.
You really are fucking stupid, aren't you?
Do you really think that frat boy cocksucker Bush would have had a half an ounce's chance of invading Iraq if the Allah worshipping sand fruitcakes hadn't starting crashing planes into buildings? Or was that not "terrorism"?
I know the Democrats are weak enough to roll over for pretty much anything, but even they would have balked at a purely recreational war in Iraq without some kind of motivation.
Maybe if he had his nose out of her snatch and paid attention to Islamic terrorism we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
China is spending millions on space suits and America is spending millions on bailing out big corporations. Strange how that works, huh?
Maybe they should spend that to keep people from putting melamine in their food.
That's the kind of culture I would like to see encouraged in
other places as well, not this "OMG terrorists" bullshit being
used as an excuse for more and more control in way too many
parts of the world.
Then vote for cultural homogeneity? There seldom seems to be OMG Terrorist! or repressive government problems when you have a homogeneous culture.
In places with highly diverse cultures, the tension and the government repression seem to get ratcheted up.
That Clinton, he was a real sharp study, especially when he was dildoing some fat cunt with a cigar.
You mean Bush Jr didn't inherit Clinton's lax regulation of investment banking & stock sales that led to the .com bubble and the collapse of MCI WorldCom and Enron?
Isn't that all total bullshit without factoring in long-term effects of presidential policies that seem to take effect when the other party gets into power? And without taking into effect who has been in control of congress, particularly the House?
Especially when you have guys like Charlie Rangel who can't pay real estate taxes on his Dominican estate and cheats on rent stabilized apartments (while taking contributions from the real estate company running the building!) running the House tax committee.
And they gain that economic advantage in Brazil through the use of near slave labor and slash and burn agriculture in the Amazon basin.
My guess is that the whole thing would probably be built not as a ship but more like an oil drilling platform and designed to withstand the most severe weather.
There's no good way to provide network connectivity to a truly mobile floating device, except via a dedicated satellite connection an that's no good for interactive use, so an oil platform type structure with data umbilicals either to land (preferably multiple continents) or via splice to existing undersea cables.
The latter connectivity option coupled with other connections to land probably enables Google to be a network operator or host a mid-ocean peering point, which has its own unique options.
I could swear I've heard that tsunamis aren't an issue out in the kind of water Google will be in (12+ miles out). Hurricaines are nasty, but they are generally more dangerous close to shore versus open water. Don't a lot of shipping companies send their large vessels *out* to sea when a storm approaches?
They seem capable of building large shipping vessels that can handle the risks of bad weather on the open seas, I'm sure a floating data center could be built to similar standards, including the ability to navigate the vessel to avoid bad weather or at least being anchored in the eye of a storm.
It's a matter of there being too many slime balls and con men out there in the world
Right, and since most of the major frauds and bad decisions have been perpetrated by management, perhaps to take the test I should require that management put up a surety bond equal to six months salary in case the company is committing financial fraud and I don't get paid.
I guess I'm with the crowd that refuses to knuckle under to workplace fascism.
I reached the same conclusion as willyhill when I read the article; Google is threatened by niche search and assuages these feelings by protecting preferred niche search solution providers and shunning others. An open market in niche search could lead to niche search providers aligning with Microsoft or other competitors, or generally undermining Google's dominance.
What I can't decide, though, is whether this is a conscious policy on Google's part or some kind of coincidental behavior that's arisen as a result of all the attempts to game Google's search algorithms.
I do agree with the article author's statements that monopolies often can't help but act like monopolies. Pperhaps Google needs to spend more money allowing guys like this to "appeal" the algorithm to humans vs. just being told to suck it hard.
Right, so every extra frame you send you tack on an extra 14 or 18 bytes.
A gig of data transmitted with 9000 byte jumbo frames is only about 120,000 frames. Its about 716,000 frames with 1500 byte frames. Even with low-end overhead of 14 bytes its 8 Mbytes of extra data transmitted, and that's on a single gig of data.
And even with offload engines, there's still other legacy BS at the hardware level that isn't completely eliminated and has to get done more often because of the extra frames being transmitted. And then there's the added latency with the extra frames as well, since it takes longer to send the greater volume of data required.
It may not matter for most small-transaction size clients, but for a lot of operations that move a large amount of data it really begins to matter.
Moving more data with lower overhead is ALWAYS better, and not being able to do this when you might otherwise be able to is ALWAYS a liability, even if it doesn't seem like it at the moment (*cough* 640K *cough*).