My guess is that direct query of my ISPs nameservers would be better than using my local nameserver with theirs specified as a forwarder, since it would eliminate the transactional latency of my own nameserver.
There have been close to 500 people who have been in space, slightly more than half are American. The national average for imprisonment is something close to 10% in the states, so well, they are shooting way below the average. 10% is the general population, which includes blacks and hispanics who commit crimes way above their rate in the population.
1 in 500 is probably, well, astronomical compared to the violent crime rate of white people with multiple post-graduate science degreees.
There is no "free" solution to African problems (or any, really) that doesn't come with baggage and unintended consequences.
Cutting the death rate from malaria or other endemic diseases only results in overpopulation; Africans who survive malaria will only end up strarving in famines or taking an AK round in some mindless civil war made worse by the resulting population pressures.
Meanwhile Bill & Melinda Gates and the rest of the neocolonial problem solvers win the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.
Oh, stuff a sock in your myopic, left-wing righteous self-indignation.
Africa is a fucking disaster area, and it has very, very little to do with endemic diseases that have existed for millenia on the continent. Tse-tse flies, malaria, worms -- Africans have lived with them forever.
What exactly do you think Africa's crack libertarian leaders are going to do with a population explosion? Do you think that Sudan will be offering a generous hand in Darfur? That maybe Robert Mugabe's agricultural policies will feed them? They'll all get good jobs in Kimberly working for Debeers? Just how much better do you think Africa's advanced social, political and economic systems are going to treat that 10-20% increase in population?
Sure, those diseases should be cured, and those afflicted Africans can be considered beneficiaries but you cannot deny the result is MORE OVERPOPULATION in a region so badly marred by social and political conflict, MUCH of it self-inflicted. This is a real issue, it's not just social darwinism -- Africans could solve their own insect and disease problem if Africans had domestic industries, stable political systems, and non-corrosive social systems.
Where's the money "saving Africans" spent on that? Why spend it on "solutions" that result in problems worse than those they solved?
Of course not, no more than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has conisders the outcome of increased overpopulation and the ensuing political, social and environmental chaos that will be caused by curing endemic diseaes in third world countries.
This is what ALWAYS happens when someone seizes upon a single good idea and then decides to make it manditory; CFLs save tons of energy, but they contain mercury. The intelligent people who use them know this and dispose of properly; the masses won't, so the "solution" they eliminates mercury emissions from power plants ends up INCREASING mercury in the environment from millions of illegally disposed of CFLs.
In true California fashion, they will probably institute manditory $10 deposits on CFLs as well as creating a massive new lightbulb disposal infrastructure which will use more resources, produce more CO2 and cost billions more than just keeping incandescents.
...even if the sentence is only a fine, it needs to be a felony. Felonies carry obnoxious baggage which you seldom can escape, and for many "business professionals", having a felony on their record can preclude their ability to obtain professional licenses or cause them to lose the ones they have.
But I do agree that penalties for this kind of bad behavior need to be focused on the individuals and the fines payable by them personally.
Schools could easily stop bullying but they would need to not be wimps about it and be willing to dole out serious punishments, which in todays, PC touchy-feely environment they may not be willing to do.
The key to stopping the bullying is segregating and isolating the bully. Bullying is almost always reinforced by the school age onlookers who laugh or otherwise provide encouragement (passive or active) to the bully. On his own in a controlled environment with no audience, the bully is powerless.
Having a bullying investigation and due process system which involved manditory parental involvement and police contact where any physical violence was threatened or actually happened is critical, too. This mitigates false charges but also creates an environment where its hard to escape the process for bullies, as well as making retribution on the victims more difficult and costly.
It's also very desirable to (coercively, if necessary) involve witnesses to bullying (along with their parents). Most parents would be understandably upset at their kids if they stood by and laughed or otherwise encouraged a bully. If students and parents began to understand that any behavior NOT involving stopping bullying or reporting it was basically participating IN bullying (and had consequences of its own), then it would undermine the audience support bullies get.
It's also critical that bullies and their parents understand that if substantive evidence exists that their child was and continues to be a bully that they WILL be EXPELLED PERMAMENTLY from the school district. All but the worst parents want that, since it usually involves an enormous sacrifice from the parents to get their kid into another school ($$$ for private schools or major transportation hassles).
Unfortunately, doing this is time-consuming and expensive for districts as well as exposing them to (generally unjustified) civil lawsuits from parents who can't believe their angel is an asshole. And schools, administrators and teachers are just too soft, and in many urban districts racial politics raises its head as well (can't quite be expelling a bunch of blacks or latinos...).
I generally encourage my kids to keep their heads down and avoid bullies if possible, but I also tell them that if they are bullied in a way thats at all physical, they have my complete support if they need to physically fight the bully (without weapons, of course) and should they feel they are a victim or are threatened with weapons, I'm perfectly willing to make the principal's life a living hell until the situation is resolved and the bullying stops. Usually a few phone calls from a lawyer to the principal and the school district has remarkable effects, especially if it involves someone everyone "knows" is a bully.
Nice blame the victim mindset. I suppose you tell women who have been raped to stay home, people who have their cars ripped off to buy more theft-proof cars, and so on.
The better choice is for the banks to recognize that client systems are highly vulnerable and make their own security more immune from these problems. If I was a bank, I would also strongly consider blackholing IP space outside of their normal service area. More of an irritant to serious criminals that a real deterrent, but it might make it irritating enough to prevent smaller time theives.
The challenge, though, is reducing costs in a way that produces savings that actually translate from the spreadsheet to real-world operations, whereas up-front purchase prices are guaranteed savings realizable without any effort.
Man-hour reductions are even harder to realize since unlike dollar savings, it's often impossible to accrue the savings in a way that makes eliminating a FTE realistic -- employees who save 5 minutes here, 5 minutes there can't always have that time savings turned into either less work or fewer people.
And then there are the intangible considerations -- managers who don't want reduced headcount for power/empire reasons, fears of reduced QoS from lower headcounts, more complicated time/personnel management, let alone the challenges of switching a computing platform.
And then there's the issues of "general" expenses like power savings that almost nobody notices or cares about except at the most macro level where switching platforms might not even be noticed as anything other than a statistical abberation.
Or at least find a simple, inexpensive treatment that allowed them to redner it cured for all intents and purposes?
How would that effect our attitude towards things that cause cancer or are seen as highly carcinogenic? Would smoking become the equivilent of poor oral hygiene (probably not considering the other problems)?
It's often interesting to wonder how or if our priorities or attitudes would change if suddenly what was a major problem for decades becomes considered an easily curable condition.
What's the manufacturing/engineering/economic reason that so many things use external power bricks instead of internal transformers?
Has the manufacturing of power bricks become so efficient that they are in effect "free" and device designers simply assume a DC power source?
Does the extra space/heat/complexity of including the transformer within the device and the larger power connector required to actually plug it in make the devices that much more expensive to manufacture or somehow less attractive to customers because their 4x4x1 gizmo is now 5x5x2?
It just seems kind of baffling to me -- the transformer circuits are probably "circuits 101" in terms of complexity and they're not that large. I just don't understand how its cheaper and simpler to source bricks from a third party (and all the associated logistics) as well as the more complicated packaging (usually you see much more elaborate internal packaging for bricks).
My understanding of this is that it's still a Beta feature, plus I've been holding out somewhat to run VMWare since I already have a large number of existing VMs.
I work as a so-called network consultant, and several of my regular clients are Mac based. After the Intel Duo laptops came out and a certain amount of pleading and begging, I traded in my Dell for a Macbook -- partly with the idea that VMWare for OS X would make it much easier.
Now that it's here, the reality is less than exciting. Bootcamp works really well, and for the most part either I can get by in OS X or I *need* XP, so having both simultaneous doesn't really matter that much. Disk space on a Macbook is also something of a premium, even with a 100GB disk -- VMs eat disk for lunch, and dragging out externals isn't always a practical option for me.
The lack of the ability to use a Bootcamp partition really drags on Fusion's practicality for me -- maintaining two XP setups is a pain and a huge suck on disk space.
The lack of OS X VMs is also a big disappointment. From what I've read on the VMWare forums, they're playing this sort of as an Apple legal department issue. Lame. I would have MUCH rather see them be more aggressive, "We have it working in the lab but Apple won't approve it".
Either way, I'm finding it hard to get excited. If I was desktop based, it'd be easier to get interested since disk, RAM and CPU power would be better distributed.
The main problem with this is that as of Exchange 2003, MS will not provide assistance resolving mailbox issues for mailboxes > 2GB.
Is this documented at MS's site at all?
Please tell me it is, I have a couple of users I can't wait to buttfuck with this information. They can basically expect to either toss their precious, hoarded email or expect to be told "I told you so" when their mailbox is unusable. With some I might just delete half the email on principal, since there's really nothing they can complain about and nothing I can do if MS won't support it.
You're being a little unfair to the IT department. "Too cheap to upgrade" implies that the capital dollars and approval is available, but not being spent in the name of thrift. "Email is not a storage system" can be a reasonable argument in environments where significant expense *has* been spent to provide substantive filesharing resources.
I worked someplace where we didn't cap email boxes AND couldn't get two nickels to rub together from finance due to the crappy business environment and meddling holding company (capital expenses over $10k had a Rube Goldberg approval process requiring no fewer than 17 approvals, 7 requiring actual printed form signatures).
It ended up being a disaster -- 350 people and an information store of 300GB. Lucky for me the array controller died and corrupted all 24 disks a month *after* I left. Fortunately I made sure that the CIO's lack of a backbone on policies AND finances were made clear to his boss and the head of HR before I left.
It'd be nice to have, say, 1900-2400mhz available as a common wireless spectrum usable for phones, data, whatever. As you point out, there are physical limitations and opening yet another narrow spectrum entry, filling it with providers who oversell capacity only invites a lather, rinse, repeat cycle of more spectrum, more overselling.
Worse is the mobile devices which are either made deliberately hardware incompatible or take a long time to become available in multiband configurations. It would be nice to have a single band which would make devices more portable (barring encoding differences) and make the radio costs cheaper through fewer designs and less complexity.
The upgrade also includes large beige junction boxes, which is causing the predictable uproar among the affluent, yard-obsessed yuppies who live in the suburb in question. I like the collection of shibboleths, but doesn't living in the suburbs exclude you from being a Young Urban Professional?
I think "appearance-obsessesed bourgeoisie" is probably a better description.
and getting together enough tax money to do major upgrades could take a decade. If the municipal network provider was able to have the municipality issue tax-free bonds on behalf of the network provider, it shouldn't be hard to raise money to perform significant upgrades, and the upgrades ought be cheaper this way than via a private entity borrowing money from a bank or issuing their own bonds (we'll ignore the broader issue of the "cost" of the bonds tax-exempt status).
What I think should happen, though, is that cities should build in some of the underground infrastructure -- cable tunnels, equipment vaults, perhaps even mandating a standard for house-to-street cabling connections the same way they do sewer and water connections -- and then require the utilities to use these facilities, but on an equal basis.
This way the big last-mile problem isn't so big anymore, since there's a pre-built and standard infrastructure in place for running wire.
Except that the lawyers for the gun company will simply illustrate that the gun worked as designed; pull trigger, fire bullet.
The gun was never advertised as having a proper target selection feature.
In fact, I've ever heard some suggest that firearms should only have safeties that prevent accidental discharges (ie, dropping the gun or other mechanical firing system failures) and not traditional safeties, since the traditional safety teaches the misleading idea that the gun is "safe", which promotes unsafe handling practices.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that direct query of my ISPs nameservers would be better than using my local nameserver with theirs specified as a forwarder, since it would eliminate the transactional latency of my own nameserver.
I've run my own recursive server that does not forward to the ISPs for about 8 years and have never had a problem with slow resolution.
The only time its even noticable is when doing a traceroute with name resolution, and even then I'm surprised at how fast most names resolve.
You go in, but you probably can't get out.
Lisa's only hope is to give in to her new bizzare celebrity status -- a pictorial in Hustler, a web site and a couple of scenes with Ron Jeremy.
1 in 500 is probably, well, astronomical compared to the violent crime rate of white people with multiple post-graduate science degreees.
There is no "free" solution to African problems (or any, really) that doesn't come with baggage and unintended consequences.
Cutting the death rate from malaria or other endemic diseases only results in overpopulation; Africans who survive malaria will only end up strarving in famines or taking an AK round in some mindless civil war made worse by the resulting population pressures.
Meanwhile Bill & Melinda Gates and the rest of the neocolonial problem solvers win the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.
Oh, stuff a sock in your myopic, left-wing righteous self-indignation.
Africa is a fucking disaster area, and it has very, very little to do with endemic diseases that have existed for millenia on the continent. Tse-tse flies, malaria, worms -- Africans have lived with them forever.
What exactly do you think Africa's crack libertarian leaders are going to do with a population explosion? Do you think that Sudan will be offering a generous hand in Darfur? That maybe Robert Mugabe's agricultural policies will feed them? They'll all get good jobs in Kimberly working for Debeers? Just how much better do you think Africa's advanced social, political and economic systems are going to treat that 10-20% increase in population?
Sure, those diseases should be cured, and those afflicted Africans can be considered beneficiaries but you cannot deny the result is MORE OVERPOPULATION in a region so badly marred by social and political conflict, MUCH of it self-inflicted. This is a real issue, it's not just social darwinism -- Africans could solve their own insect and disease problem if Africans had domestic industries, stable political systems, and non-corrosive social systems.
Where's the money "saving Africans" spent on that? Why spend it on "solutions" that result in problems worse than those they solved?
I'm pretty sure my 3G iPod will not charge on USB, only firewire. Maybe this changed in newer ones, but mine will only charge on firewire.
(There is a power brick-to-firewire adapter, so it doesn't have to be a firewire port on a computer, but no USB connection will work.)
Of course not, no more than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has conisders the outcome of increased overpopulation and the ensuing political, social and environmental chaos that will be caused by curing endemic diseaes in third world countries.
This is what ALWAYS happens when someone seizes upon a single good idea and then decides to make it manditory; CFLs save tons of energy, but they contain mercury. The intelligent people who use them know this and dispose of properly; the masses won't, so the "solution" they eliminates mercury emissions from power plants ends up INCREASING mercury in the environment from millions of illegally disposed of CFLs.
In true California fashion, they will probably institute manditory $10 deposits on CFLs as well as creating a massive new lightbulb disposal infrastructure which will use more resources, produce more CO2 and cost billions more than just keeping incandescents.
...even if the sentence is only a fine, it needs to be a felony. Felonies carry obnoxious baggage which you seldom can escape, and for many "business professionals", having a felony on their record can preclude their ability to obtain professional licenses or cause them to lose the ones they have.
But I do agree that penalties for this kind of bad behavior need to be focused on the individuals and the fines payable by them personally.
Schools could easily stop bullying but they would need to not be wimps about it and be willing to dole out serious punishments, which in todays, PC touchy-feely environment they may not be willing to do.
The key to stopping the bullying is segregating and isolating the bully. Bullying is almost always reinforced by the school age onlookers who laugh or otherwise provide encouragement (passive or active) to the bully. On his own in a controlled environment with no audience, the bully is powerless.
Having a bullying investigation and due process system which involved manditory parental involvement and police contact where any physical violence was threatened or actually happened is critical, too. This mitigates false charges but also creates an environment where its hard to escape the process for bullies, as well as making retribution on the victims more difficult and costly.
It's also very desirable to (coercively, if necessary) involve witnesses to bullying (along with their parents). Most parents would be understandably upset at their kids if they stood by and laughed or otherwise encouraged a bully. If students and parents began to understand that any behavior NOT involving stopping bullying or reporting it was basically participating IN bullying (and had consequences of its own), then it would undermine the audience support bullies get.
It's also critical that bullies and their parents understand that if substantive evidence exists that their child was and continues to be a bully that they WILL be EXPELLED PERMAMENTLY from the school district. All but the worst parents want that, since it usually involves an enormous sacrifice from the parents to get their kid into another school ($$$ for private schools or major transportation hassles).
Unfortunately, doing this is time-consuming and expensive for districts as well as exposing them to (generally unjustified) civil lawsuits from parents who can't believe their angel is an asshole. And schools, administrators and teachers are just too soft, and in many urban districts racial politics raises its head as well (can't quite be expelling a bunch of blacks or latinos...).
I generally encourage my kids to keep their heads down and avoid bullies if possible, but I also tell them that if they are bullied in a way thats at all physical, they have my complete support if they need to physically fight the bully (without weapons, of course) and should they feel they are a victim or are threatened with weapons, I'm perfectly willing to make the principal's life a living hell until the situation is resolved and the bullying stops. Usually a few phone calls from a lawyer to the principal and the school district has remarkable effects, especially if it involves someone everyone "knows" is a bully.
Nice blame the victim mindset. I suppose you tell women who have been raped to stay home, people who have their cars ripped off to buy more theft-proof cars, and so on.
The better choice is for the banks to recognize that client systems are highly vulnerable and make their own security more immune from these problems. If I was a bank, I would also strongly consider blackholing IP space outside of their normal service area. More of an irritant to serious criminals that a real deterrent, but it might make it irritating enough to prevent smaller time theives.
The challenge, though, is reducing costs in a way that produces savings that actually translate from the spreadsheet to real-world operations, whereas up-front purchase prices are guaranteed savings realizable without any effort.
Man-hour reductions are even harder to realize since unlike dollar savings, it's often impossible to accrue the savings in a way that makes eliminating a FTE realistic -- employees who save 5 minutes here, 5 minutes there can't always have that time savings turned into either less work or fewer people.
And then there are the intangible considerations -- managers who don't want reduced headcount for power/empire reasons, fears of reduced QoS from lower headcounts, more complicated time/personnel management, let alone the challenges of switching a computing platform.
And then there's the issues of "general" expenses like power savings that almost nobody notices or cares about except at the most macro level where switching platforms might not even be noticed as anything other than a statistical abberation.
Or at least find a simple, inexpensive treatment that allowed them to redner it cured for all intents and purposes?
How would that effect our attitude towards things that cause cancer or are seen as highly carcinogenic? Would smoking become the equivilent of poor oral hygiene (probably not considering the other problems)?
It's often interesting to wonder how or if our priorities or attitudes would change if suddenly what was a major problem for decades becomes considered an easily curable condition.
What's the manufacturing/engineering/economic reason that so many things use external power bricks instead of internal transformers?
Has the manufacturing of power bricks become so efficient that they are in effect "free" and device designers simply assume a DC power source?
Does the extra space/heat/complexity of including the transformer within the device and the larger power connector required to actually plug it in make the devices that much more expensive to manufacture or somehow less attractive to customers because their 4x4x1 gizmo is now 5x5x2?
It just seems kind of baffling to me -- the transformer circuits are probably "circuits 101" in terms of complexity and they're not that large. I just don't understand how its cheaper and simpler to source bricks from a third party (and all the associated logistics) as well as the more complicated packaging (usually you see much more elaborate internal packaging for bricks).
...only gets you bigger contracts. The brass and purchasing guys don't care, only the grunts in the field deal with that.
My understanding of this is that it's still a Beta feature, plus I've been holding out somewhat to run VMWare since I already have a large number of existing VMs.
I work as a so-called network consultant, and several of my regular clients are Mac based. After the Intel Duo laptops came out and a certain amount of pleading and begging, I traded in my Dell for a Macbook -- partly with the idea that VMWare for OS X would make it much easier.
Now that it's here, the reality is less than exciting. Bootcamp works really well, and for the most part either I can get by in OS X or I *need* XP, so having both simultaneous doesn't really matter that much. Disk space on a Macbook is also something of a premium, even with a 100GB disk -- VMs eat disk for lunch, and dragging out externals isn't always a practical option for me.
The lack of the ability to use a Bootcamp partition really drags on Fusion's practicality for me -- maintaining two XP setups is a pain and a huge suck on disk space.
The lack of OS X VMs is also a big disappointment. From what I've read on the VMWare forums, they're playing this sort of as an Apple legal department issue. Lame. I would have MUCH rather see them be more aggressive, "We have it working in the lab but Apple won't approve it".
Either way, I'm finding it hard to get excited. If I was desktop based, it'd be easier to get interested since disk, RAM and CPU power would be better distributed.
The main problem with this is that as of Exchange 2003, MS will not provide assistance resolving mailbox issues for mailboxes > 2GB.
Is this documented at MS's site at all?Please tell me it is, I have a couple of users I can't wait to buttfuck with this information. They can basically expect to either toss their precious, hoarded email or expect to be told "I told you so" when their mailbox is unusable. With some I might just delete half the email on principal, since there's really nothing they can complain about and nothing I can do if MS won't support it.
You're being a little unfair to the IT department. "Too cheap to upgrade" implies that the capital dollars and approval is available, but not being spent in the name of thrift. "Email is not a storage system" can be a reasonable argument in environments where significant expense *has* been spent to provide substantive filesharing resources.
I worked someplace where we didn't cap email boxes AND couldn't get two nickels to rub together from finance due to the crappy business environment and meddling holding company (capital expenses over $10k had a Rube Goldberg approval process requiring no fewer than 17 approvals, 7 requiring actual printed form signatures).
It ended up being a disaster -- 350 people and an information store of 300GB. Lucky for me the array controller died and corrupted all 24 disks a month *after* I left. Fortunately I made sure that the CIO's lack of a backbone on policies AND finances were made clear to his boss and the head of HR before I left.
It'd be nice to have, say, 1900-2400mhz available as a common wireless spectrum usable for phones, data, whatever. As you point out, there are physical limitations and opening yet another narrow spectrum entry, filling it with providers who oversell capacity only invites a lather, rinse, repeat cycle of more spectrum, more overselling.
Worse is the mobile devices which are either made deliberately hardware incompatible or take a long time to become available in multiband configurations. It would be nice to have a single band which would make devices more portable (barring encoding differences) and make the radio costs cheaper through fewer designs and less complexity.
It's clearly the most important one after the prime object.
I think "appearance-obsessesed bourgeoisie" is probably a better description.
What I think should happen, though, is that cities should build in some of the underground infrastructure -- cable tunnels, equipment vaults, perhaps even mandating a standard for house-to-street cabling connections the same way they do sewer and water connections -- and then require the utilities to use these facilities, but on an equal basis.
This way the big last-mile problem isn't so big anymore, since there's a pre-built and standard infrastructure in place for running wire.
Except that the lawyers for the gun company will simply illustrate that the gun worked as designed; pull trigger, fire bullet.
The gun was never advertised as having a proper target selection feature.
In fact, I've ever heard some suggest that firearms should only have safeties that prevent accidental discharges (ie, dropping the gun or other mechanical firing system failures) and not traditional safeties, since the traditional safety teaches the misleading idea that the gun is "safe", which promotes unsafe handling practices.