I've always wished there was a way to take an arbitrary area in Google maps and then overlay it over some other area on Google maps with a correction for the difference in projection so as to easily compare the sizes of areas.
I actually think that part of the effectiveness of some drugs, especially drugs aimed at pain, is enhanced by euphoria because it provides a mood elevation that counter-acts the mood depression of pain and the serious illness that often accompanies it.
I think that even if they create magic pills that block pain with zero euphoria they might find that in controlled testing the drugs are viewed as less effective because they don't treat the mood depression that accompanies pain-causing illness.
An interesting example is nitrous oxide at the dentist -- it doesn't really reduce pain, you just don't really mind it because of the psychoactive effects. I think a lot of the claims of pain reduction with marijuana are probably a similar phenomenon.
The key to magic new pain medication probably is figuring out how to provide some kind of mood elevation but in a way that's minimally habit forming and minimally impairing of cognitive and motor function, but doesn't completely reduce these effects.
The focus on removing all mood enhancing properties is probably a mistake and seems more driven by moral calculus around gaining rewards without sacrifice than it is about pain reduction.
While I'm sure individuals in the DEA are still subscribed to a marijuana-driven moral panic and opposed to anything other than jailing marijuana users and dealers, the broader culture has moved so far towards legalization and acceptance its hard to see how the DEA isn't affected by this, too.
Maybe they hold out some kind of hope that the next state to legalize marijuana has all kinds of provable problems related to it or the public loses interest, it seems like the tide is rising too fast for even the DEA to stop it.
I kind of expected the DEA to have some major show of force in Colorado, hundreds of agents raiding and seizing every dispensary and grow operation they could find within months of legalization. This might have made it seem futile to legalize it on the state level and dissuaded other states. But now that there's a half-dozen or more (it's so many you lose count) legal states showing big tax revenue and little problems even DEA-scale manpower and money can't really stop it.
I'd like to think the Obama's non-interference directive had something to do with it (and maybe it did), but I mostly think it was a combination of cultural attitude changes and the war on terror shifting domestic security priorities so much that it made the DEA kind of irrelevant.
There's also the idea that some cops worry that small-time pot dealers (mostly blacks) will turn to other, potentially more dangerous, types of criminal behavior if pot is legalized and undermines their income.
Just speaking as a parent of a 13 year old, I can say that controlling my kid's desire to play Fortnite scores about 7-8/10 on those questions. It probably hasn't devolved into a totally destructive addiction because he hasn't snuck out to other kids' houses to play or attempted to restore access to the PS4 when it has been taken away by mom and dad.
1) When he can't play, he will watch videos about Fortnite and often engages mom and dad in conversations about new Fortnite weapons, skins, etc.
2) Wants to spend money on skins, etc.
3) "5 more minutes"
4) "Why can't I play? There's nothing else to do." pouting, moping, etc.
5) Iffy here, although when we find out about bad grades/missing assignments (days/week later) it seems to correlate with high levels of desire to play
6) Definitely seems more motivated to keep playing if he gets killed early
7) Caught lying more than once about how long he has been playing/when he was supposed to stop (mom said 8, he tells dad 9..)
8) This hasn't happened.
9) High levels of game play correlated with missing homework & poor school performance, albeit cause/effect confusion
10) "If I can buy this in-game thing, I will pay you back, do extra chores, etc"
I agree on the switches for the most part, the problem I have is that switches require power and if you want to do any segmentation or VLANs, you have to buy more expensive switches to get that functionality. Switches are also kind of obtrusive if the use case doesn't allow them to be hidden or mounted out of the way.
There's also the nuisance factor in troubleshooting when you wind up with daisy chains. A bad cable, power or switch issue can lead to annoying failure modes that are difficult to track down. I've had wireless work in one part of the house and not another until I sorted out that mid-chain switch had a problem.
In some ideal world you would have some kind of in-wall switch, 2 or 4 gang, that could be powered via PoE from its upstream neighbor. I seem to remember 3Com or somebody briefly touting an in-wall small switch, but I don't remember much about it or if the idea has persisted. It kind of doesn't help to have it run off PoE if it has a downstream switch or device which turn needs PoE, but I'd guess something like this would have local power as an option.
I'm sure VLANs and mounting is kind of a minor thing 98% of the world wouldn't care about it.
I kind of figured XPoint DIMM would wind up in alternative form factors oriented around hyperconverged architectures, something (much) smaller than blade systems that would allow many (6+) nodes in a 2-4U space without losing storage density in the process. Blown XPoint DIMMs would just be replaced by pulling the whole blade and swapping out DIMMs. By having many nodes you don't worry about losing compute capacity or redundancy.
But I can never make hyperconverged work from a cost basis -- too many nodes required for redundancy and storage density is tough to get when you're chained to 2.5" disks without giant-ass servers. Then there's crappy licensing that is structured to recoup 95% (in actuality, more like 120%...) of the savings from not having a SAN. Plus there's too many new weird failure modes.
Why would you mix and match DRAM and Xpoint on the same bus anyway when Xpoint is so much slower than DRAM? Even without extra verification and writes its still much slower than DRAM and would seem to clog the channel.
I'll admit that maybe I don't know something about existing DRAM access paths/channels/buses, AFAIK the NUMA node was basically the smallest subdivision. Or is it possible to address individual DRAM modules/pages in parallel with others on the same NUMA node?
I guess I had figured that DRAM interfacing Xpoint was meant to be mostly a speed/simplicity thing, faster than PCI NVMe and meant to be on a distinct memory bus from DRAM.
The application that came to mind was just using it as superfast block storage in maybe hyperconverged systems or monolithic DB servers.
I've always been kind of skeptical about it on VMware. I've never seriously tested it beyond screwing around on pre-production systems, enabling and disabling it in BIOS and then doing pretty much the same setup operations with VMs. But it sure seemed like performance was generally more even and predictable with it disabled.
But to this day I'm kind of convinced that I need to double up on vCPUs with it enabled vs. disabled, mostly because it seems like VMware schedules workloads as if HT were real cores.
I leave it enabled, though, because I'm mostly convinced on production systems with large workloads it might actually be beneficial and I think that the code is biased towards it being an enabled and expected CPU feature.
Wireless is so much easier but I find it sucks for high bandwidth. 802.11ac can't really deliver without near line of sight and 5 ghz 802.11g isn't much better.
You can play games with bandwidth steering by running multiple APs with unique SSIDs, but that's a pain, too, and its just simpler from a family tech support perspective to run a single SSID and let the fucking radios sort it out.
And of course in 2001 I lacked the foresight to consider running dedicated drops for a smarter/better access point layout, so now I kind of have a compromise of AP placement. My house is only 2k square feet on 2 levels, so 3 APs covers the whole house but I feel like the locations are all kind of compromised by using half-assed locations that have wired access.
So where streaming bandwidth matters, wired is still better IMHO. I've occasionally considered going whole-hog and expanding the wired layout for both CCTV and improved access point locations but I have to admit my appetite for home IT has waned as I've aged and I don't know that I give a shit enough anymore to make the money and substantial labor feel worth it.
I've been in several new houses that were not wired for anything more complicated than cable/sat tv.
I think "housing shortage" is a common issue these days and that means margins are high enough and labor in demand enough that builders aren't tacking on $10k options like structured data wiring for most new houses. Most consumers will just use a shitty AP plugged into the cable modem because that's good enough for them.
My boss bought a "custom" house in a development. He ended up having a bunch of ethernet put in, but he had to pay for it and getting it done right was a major PITA because the monkeys they hire for electrical are paid to mow through the house stringing romex and don't know shit about data cabling or structured wiring. Their employer wants them in and out ASAP and residential electrical construction is bottom barrel work done as quickly as possible.
And part of it also means you need to have some idea of furniture layout and where actual equipment will be placed. I've certainly lived in places where even the electrical outlets were in bad locations, let alone cable jacks on wrong walls, etc. It's not hard to see the most flexible installation needing to add way more jacks than you'd use simply because the builder would have no idea what you'd use where. Like if I built new, I'd want 2x quad jacks in each room
I remodeled in 2003 and about half the house was open enough for stringing ethernet and I knew where stuff was going yet I still couldn't add enough jacks -- the goddamn entertainment center has 5 wired components and needed a switch because I only ran 2 jacks and there are two other places like this in the house.
I keep thinking that part of the reason Apple has been such a closed garden and kept such a stranglehold on i-device hardware and software is that opening up the platform is a late-stage, slowing-growth expansion strategy they plan to unleash once they have significant declines in iPhone sales volumes.
I can't help but think there's a world of potential uses for iPhones that get stymied because of Apple's restrictions on software functionality, I/O devices etc. It's a small computer with built-in display and camera -- if you had PC-like wide-open software and hardware integration, I think new and novel uses would explode.
I sort of agree, but as someone who owns a 95 pound pit-dane mix I think it's more complicated than that.
When we have a new person who will be in our house a lot, we have them give the dog a treat (including issuing the 'wait' command and then the release command to take the food) so that the dog sees them as being 'OK' and a food supplier.
That being said, a few of these people have a background fear of the dog due to his size and dominant personality and the dog simply doesn't let them be, he continues to challenge them. I think its because he senses their fear and it makes him skeptical of them.
When we've had unexpected people over (door-door types, etc) the dog is NUTS. Quite often the shadier the visitor, the MORE the dog is nuts. Call me crazy, but I think dogs can SMELL motivation/aggression. I think it's part of why cops have such trouble with dogs -- they simply project aggression and hostility and dogs react to that.
I think if someone broke into my house, it would take more than a handful of treats. I think the dog would be in full-on dominance mode and 95 pounds of dog is fucking scary no matter how bad-ass you are and most humans are going to have a fear response to that. Unless you can somehow overcome this and project a submission to the dog, at least at our house you're gonna have a bad time.
Maybe some kind of dog expert would defuse the situation easily, but your random hood thief isn't that. Shooting a dog will kind of work, but there's plenty of evidence that dogs don't fall over and die from wounding shots, they keep going until they can't. My neighbor is a cop and he says he has seen guys empty 9 mm pistols into dogs with limited effect. Part of it is an agitated dog is a tough target and results in superficial wounds, but part of it is that cornered animals don't quit. Plus if you are looking to steal laptops/tablets/jewlry and get in-and-out, you're not blazing away with a handgun at a dog.
That was my first thought, but upon closer(?) reading it sounds like "security researchers" aren't getting informed of these submissions because some of the scan engine owners are holding back the data.
I'm trying to decide if "security researchers" means actual people with that as some kind of job title or whether it's small fries who have lost their free data feed.
If this was somebody with, say, more than $25 million in Amazon shares it'd have more resonance, and if was someone or some group with in excess of $100 million in shares it would have even more.
My guess is that the big money isn't at all opposed to this, in fact, they probably love it, although they would probably prefer it be developed for more consumer-friendly purposes so that it seems benign (ala Alexa) rather than immediately being turned into a dystopian police state tool.
Most new ships already are diesel-electric with electric motors in azimuth thrust pods.
The problem for "electric" ships is that it takes megawatts of power to move them, I'm guessing even covering the top of a container ship with solar panels wouldn't provide sufficient power to make more than 1-2 knots, if that.
I've been in IT for 26 years, currently at a consulting outfit.
Most established companies are not happily moving themselves into the cloud "to save money", in fact I have worked on two large scale projects to return cloud-migrated services back on site because the costs associated with cloud are high, the pricing is opaque and the service and support is awful.
I deal with a lot of customers who *want* to go to the cloud, but in a wishful thinking way because they have zero idea of the cost and don't understand that their work processes are bound to complex interdependencies that require multiple complete systems to be moved to some kind of virtualization host at minimum, if not complete re-engineering of applications, migrations to other applications, etc.
Usually the motivation seems to be driven by short-sighted managers who merely look at potential cost reductions related to staff and/or capex -- they count those savings without understanding the costs they will no absorb, every month for every user, essentially forever and at the whim of their provider.
Email is the one service that seems to have the most cloud traction, despite the fact that it's generally cheaper over 50 users to run it on-premise given the now-standard assumptions of on-premise virtualization (ie, the marginal infrastructure cost is zero) and reasonably competent IT staff.
Cloud does make sense for organizations adopting a new application which is expansionary, with all of the usual cautions about cost stability, vendor stability and the extreme lock-in and difficulty in not using that platform in the future should a change become necessary.
It probably also makes some sense for entirely new businesses that are built around the web or mobile, where core infrastructure and processes are tied to the web anyway and the systems can be engineered for cloud and cloud limitations. It's a lot easier to start a business and ramp it up quickly when you can add demand-based infrastructure vs. on-premise infrastructure.
The fundamental problem with subway trains is that because they hold a large number of passengers they have to stop at every station
I don't claim to be a mass transit expert, and the proof is getting on a NYC 6 express when I should have paid more attention and gotten on a 6 local.
As it turns out, express trains don't stop at all the stations.
The real complication seems to be that adding an express line to a route means you need an extra set of tracks since the express is bound to pass the local at some point and this is a problem if you didn't dig the tunnel with this in mind.
Desperate Microsoft who sees Cortana being ignored and Azure not attracting cloud business in talks with Wal Mart who sees Amazon eroding their market and leaving them mostly as the butt of jokes as the place where the strange dregs of society shop.
I'd like to see the negotiation between them. Microsoft enforcing ridiculous licensing and Azure rates, Wal Mart tell them the new deal is half of whatever Microsoft wants to charge and half-off again next year.
We know they've got plenty of bandwidth since they'll cheerfully sell it to you for a premium.
It looks to me like the Mercedes dealerships have plenty of cars, too, does that mean they should give them away?
I don't want to defend Comcast, but you're making a bad argument. Just because there is more of good available at a higher price doesn't mean they need to increase the quantity they provide at a lower price.
I don't know if there was much if any "need" for Comcast's congestion management system. I have seen many businesses pay for top tier Comcast Business speeds and simply not be able to move bits at the speed they were paying for. Usually they were located in an area that was "residential" in terms of Comcast infrastructure and my guess was their neighborhood aggregation point was oversold In each case Comcast tried to wriggle out of it, but once the tickets got escalated high enough or we got a decent tech on site they'd mostly acknowledge there just wasn't enough backhaul out of that geographical area.
So my guess Comcast may have had a bonafide interest in discouraging some bandwidth hogs to deal with over-subscription problems *just* as their marketing department was rolling out a ton of ads for higher bandwidth. I'd guess the solution was over-applied and a lot of areas without any contention, though.
And of course Comcast is surely engaging in all kinds of pricing schemes that maximize revenues and treat bandwidth with artificial scarcity, but that doesn't mean they have some kind of obligation to provide you with more.
The dependence on hardware decoding is probably a major factor. Encoders want the largest possible audience and will always defer to the coding schemes with the least system impact and best performance, which will end up being hardware decoders.
There's a lag between the development of a new coding scheme and its widespread availability as actual deployed silicon. The investment in silicon in dependent on encoder adoption and popularity, which may lag encoding development.
Suddenly it looks like a no-win situation where new codecs have a hard time gaining entry when there are many good-enough codecs with hardware support.
Ours does, choice of paper or plastic. I always choose paper because they're bigger and make transporting groceries faster and less of a mess than the plastic bags, which are smaller and tend to dump out their contents.
Occasionally they put stuff in a plastic bag (meats or frozen items) but I think this mostly an attempt to be sanitary (no meat leakage onto other items) or to prevent frozen stuff from getting the bags wet and making them rip.
We have a mish-mash of reusable grocery bags that we use at Costco, but I think we'd need to make more effort and need about 3x the number of bags so we always had a supply of them in the car for regular grocery use. It's too easy to not have them for spontaneous grocery stops or outright forget them on planned trips, so a bunch more bags kept staged in the car would make this possible.
But with free paper bags that are recyclable, it's kind of hard to get organized enough to achieve this.
No offense, but what rock have you been living under where "media companies" haven't become ISPs and often the only alternative ISPs to existing ILECs?
It makes more sense if the electric power is basically free and you have no other use for it and it would just go unused otherwise.
Sure, electrical batteries make more sense than generating heat if you have the batteries. I'm guessing there's some kind of spreadsheet analysis to be done to figure out where the cost/benefit curve is of megawatts of relatively expensive lithium batteries vs. relatively cheap vats of molten NaCl when the energy generation cost is essentially zero.
I'm always surprised when people get worked up about "wasting" otherwise unusable renewable-generated electricity. There are some use cases that are maintenance intensive, use a lot of external resources or provide so little return that they're essentially a net negative but there seem to be a number of useful uses that are merely energy inefficient. But when the power is free, their inefficiency shouldn't be judged by the efficiency standards of expensive power sources.
Why bother with a planner then at all? Just buy securities yourself through a brokerage account.
If you need the legal structure of a 401k or Roth IRA, you can probably get the paperwork done through the brokerage, an accountant or a lawyer, and at least the latter two are tied to significant regulation.
I just don't understand why the profession would exist at all if it has no value add and duplicates (badly) the counsel of an attorney or accountant and only really acts as a securities broker.
And then there's the idea of can't beat the market anyway, just buy Fortune 500 index funds making investment basically "goof proof". All you need to do is write checks to your brokerage account and keep adding index fund shares. So what value could a planner possibly provide unless you had some complex situation (in that case, see lawyer or accountant).
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wished there was a way to take an arbitrary area in Google maps and then overlay it over some other area on Google maps with a correction for the difference in projection so as to easily compare the sizes of areas.
I actually think that part of the effectiveness of some drugs, especially drugs aimed at pain, is enhanced by euphoria because it provides a mood elevation that counter-acts the mood depression of pain and the serious illness that often accompanies it.
I think that even if they create magic pills that block pain with zero euphoria they might find that in controlled testing the drugs are viewed as less effective because they don't treat the mood depression that accompanies pain-causing illness.
An interesting example is nitrous oxide at the dentist -- it doesn't really reduce pain, you just don't really mind it because of the psychoactive effects. I think a lot of the claims of pain reduction with marijuana are probably a similar phenomenon.
The key to magic new pain medication probably is figuring out how to provide some kind of mood elevation but in a way that's minimally habit forming and minimally impairing of cognitive and motor function, but doesn't completely reduce these effects.
The focus on removing all mood enhancing properties is probably a mistake and seems more driven by moral calculus around gaining rewards without sacrifice than it is about pain reduction.
Does the DEA still even care about marijuana?
While I'm sure individuals in the DEA are still subscribed to a marijuana-driven moral panic and opposed to anything other than jailing marijuana users and dealers, the broader culture has moved so far towards legalization and acceptance its hard to see how the DEA isn't affected by this, too.
Maybe they hold out some kind of hope that the next state to legalize marijuana has all kinds of provable problems related to it or the public loses interest, it seems like the tide is rising too fast for even the DEA to stop it.
I kind of expected the DEA to have some major show of force in Colorado, hundreds of agents raiding and seizing every dispensary and grow operation they could find within months of legalization. This might have made it seem futile to legalize it on the state level and dissuaded other states. But now that there's a half-dozen or more (it's so many you lose count) legal states showing big tax revenue and little problems even DEA-scale manpower and money can't really stop it.
I'd like to think the Obama's non-interference directive had something to do with it (and maybe it did), but I mostly think it was a combination of cultural attitude changes and the war on terror shifting domestic security priorities so much that it made the DEA kind of irrelevant.
There's also the idea that some cops worry that small-time pot dealers (mostly blacks) will turn to other, potentially more dangerous, types of criminal behavior if pot is legalized and undermines their income.
Just speaking as a parent of a 13 year old, I can say that controlling my kid's desire to play Fortnite scores about 7-8/10 on those questions. It probably hasn't devolved into a totally destructive addiction because he hasn't snuck out to other kids' houses to play or attempted to restore access to the PS4 when it has been taken away by mom and dad.
1) When he can't play, he will watch videos about Fortnite and often engages mom and dad in conversations about new Fortnite weapons, skins, etc.
2) Wants to spend money on skins, etc.
3) "5 more minutes"
4) "Why can't I play? There's nothing else to do." pouting, moping, etc.
5) Iffy here, although when we find out about bad grades/missing assignments (days/week later) it seems to correlate with high levels of desire to play
6) Definitely seems more motivated to keep playing if he gets killed early
7) Caught lying more than once about how long he has been playing/when he was supposed to stop (mom said 8, he tells dad 9..)
8) This hasn't happened.
9) High levels of game play correlated with missing homework & poor school performance, albeit cause/effect confusion
10) "If I can buy this in-game thing, I will pay you back, do extra chores, etc"
I agree on the switches for the most part, the problem I have is that switches require power and if you want to do any segmentation or VLANs, you have to buy more expensive switches to get that functionality. Switches are also kind of obtrusive if the use case doesn't allow them to be hidden or mounted out of the way.
There's also the nuisance factor in troubleshooting when you wind up with daisy chains. A bad cable, power or switch issue can lead to annoying failure modes that are difficult to track down. I've had wireless work in one part of the house and not another until I sorted out that mid-chain switch had a problem.
In some ideal world you would have some kind of in-wall switch, 2 or 4 gang, that could be powered via PoE from its upstream neighbor. I seem to remember 3Com or somebody briefly touting an in-wall small switch, but I don't remember much about it or if the idea has persisted. It kind of doesn't help to have it run off PoE if it has a downstream switch or device which turn needs PoE, but I'd guess something like this would have local power as an option.
I'm sure VLANs and mounting is kind of a minor thing 98% of the world wouldn't care about it.
I kind of figured XPoint DIMM would wind up in alternative form factors oriented around hyperconverged architectures, something (much) smaller than blade systems that would allow many (6+) nodes in a 2-4U space without losing storage density in the process. Blown XPoint DIMMs would just be replaced by pulling the whole blade and swapping out DIMMs. By having many nodes you don't worry about losing compute capacity or redundancy.
But I can never make hyperconverged work from a cost basis -- too many nodes required for redundancy and storage density is tough to get when you're chained to 2.5" disks without giant-ass servers. Then there's crappy licensing that is structured to recoup 95% (in actuality, more like 120%...) of the savings from not having a SAN. Plus there's too many new weird failure modes.
Why would you mix and match DRAM and Xpoint on the same bus anyway when Xpoint is so much slower than DRAM? Even without extra verification and writes its still much slower than DRAM and would seem to clog the channel.
I'll admit that maybe I don't know something about existing DRAM access paths/channels/buses, AFAIK the NUMA node was basically the smallest subdivision. Or is it possible to address individual DRAM modules/pages in parallel with others on the same NUMA node?
I guess I had figured that DRAM interfacing Xpoint was meant to be mostly a speed/simplicity thing, faster than PCI NVMe and meant to be on a distinct memory bus from DRAM.
The application that came to mind was just using it as superfast block storage in maybe hyperconverged systems or monolithic DB servers.
I've always been kind of skeptical about it on VMware. I've never seriously tested it beyond screwing around on pre-production systems, enabling and disabling it in BIOS and then doing pretty much the same setup operations with VMs. But it sure seemed like performance was generally more even and predictable with it disabled.
But to this day I'm kind of convinced that I need to double up on vCPUs with it enabled vs. disabled, mostly because it seems like VMware schedules workloads as if HT were real cores.
I leave it enabled, though, because I'm mostly convinced on production systems with large workloads it might actually be beneficial and I think that the code is biased towards it being an enabled and expected CPU feature.
Wireless is so much easier but I find it sucks for high bandwidth. 802.11ac can't really deliver without near line of sight and 5 ghz 802.11g isn't much better.
You can play games with bandwidth steering by running multiple APs with unique SSIDs, but that's a pain, too, and its just simpler from a family tech support perspective to run a single SSID and let the fucking radios sort it out.
And of course in 2001 I lacked the foresight to consider running dedicated drops for a smarter/better access point layout, so now I kind of have a compromise of AP placement. My house is only 2k square feet on 2 levels, so 3 APs covers the whole house but I feel like the locations are all kind of compromised by using half-assed locations that have wired access.
So where streaming bandwidth matters, wired is still better IMHO. I've occasionally considered going whole-hog and expanding the wired layout for both CCTV and improved access point locations but I have to admit my appetite for home IT has waned as I've aged and I don't know that I give a shit enough anymore to make the money and substantial labor feel worth it.
I've been in several new houses that were not wired for anything more complicated than cable/sat tv.
I think "housing shortage" is a common issue these days and that means margins are high enough and labor in demand enough that builders aren't tacking on $10k options like structured data wiring for most new houses. Most consumers will just use a shitty AP plugged into the cable modem because that's good enough for them.
My boss bought a "custom" house in a development. He ended up having a bunch of ethernet put in, but he had to pay for it and getting it done right was a major PITA because the monkeys they hire for electrical are paid to mow through the house stringing romex and don't know shit about data cabling or structured wiring. Their employer wants them in and out ASAP and residential electrical construction is bottom barrel work done as quickly as possible.
And part of it also means you need to have some idea of furniture layout and where actual equipment will be placed. I've certainly lived in places where even the electrical outlets were in bad locations, let alone cable jacks on wrong walls, etc. It's not hard to see the most flexible installation needing to add way more jacks than you'd use simply because the builder would have no idea what you'd use where. Like if I built new, I'd want 2x quad jacks in each room
I remodeled in 2003 and about half the house was open enough for stringing ethernet and I knew where stuff was going yet I still couldn't add enough jacks -- the goddamn entertainment center has 5 wired components and needed a switch because I only ran 2 jacks and there are two other places like this in the house.
I keep thinking that part of the reason Apple has been such a closed garden and kept such a stranglehold on i-device hardware and software is that opening up the platform is a late-stage, slowing-growth expansion strategy they plan to unleash once they have significant declines in iPhone sales volumes.
I can't help but think there's a world of potential uses for iPhones that get stymied because of Apple's restrictions on software functionality, I/O devices etc. It's a small computer with built-in display and camera -- if you had PC-like wide-open software and hardware integration, I think new and novel uses would explode.
I sort of agree, but as someone who owns a 95 pound pit-dane mix I think it's more complicated than that.
When we have a new person who will be in our house a lot, we have them give the dog a treat (including issuing the 'wait' command and then the release command to take the food) so that the dog sees them as being 'OK' and a food supplier.
That being said, a few of these people have a background fear of the dog due to his size and dominant personality and the dog simply doesn't let them be, he continues to challenge them. I think its because he senses their fear and it makes him skeptical of them.
When we've had unexpected people over (door-door types, etc) the dog is NUTS. Quite often the shadier the visitor, the MORE the dog is nuts. Call me crazy, but I think dogs can SMELL motivation/aggression. I think it's part of why cops have such trouble with dogs -- they simply project aggression and hostility and dogs react to that.
I think if someone broke into my house, it would take more than a handful of treats. I think the dog would be in full-on dominance mode and 95 pounds of dog is fucking scary no matter how bad-ass you are and most humans are going to have a fear response to that. Unless you can somehow overcome this and project a submission to the dog, at least at our house you're gonna have a bad time.
Maybe some kind of dog expert would defuse the situation easily, but your random hood thief isn't that. Shooting a dog will kind of work, but there's plenty of evidence that dogs don't fall over and die from wounding shots, they keep going until they can't. My neighbor is a cop and he says he has seen guys empty 9 mm pistols into dogs with limited effect. Part of it is an agitated dog is a tough target and results in superficial wounds, but part of it is that cornered animals don't quit. Plus if you are looking to steal laptops/tablets/jewlry and get in-and-out, you're not blazing away with a handgun at a dog.
That was my first thought, but upon closer(?) reading it sounds like "security researchers" aren't getting informed of these submissions because some of the scan engine owners are holding back the data.
I'm trying to decide if "security researchers" means actual people with that as some kind of job title or whether it's small fries who have lost their free data feed.
If this was somebody with, say, more than $25 million in Amazon shares it'd have more resonance, and if was someone or some group with in excess of $100 million in shares it would have even more.
My guess is that the big money isn't at all opposed to this, in fact, they probably love it, although they would probably prefer it be developed for more consumer-friendly purposes so that it seems benign (ala Alexa) rather than immediately being turned into a dystopian police state tool.
Most new ships already are diesel-electric with electric motors in azimuth thrust pods.
The problem for "electric" ships is that it takes megawatts of power to move them, I'm guessing even covering the top of a container ship with solar panels wouldn't provide sufficient power to make more than 1-2 knots, if that.
I've been in IT for 26 years, currently at a consulting outfit.
Most established companies are not happily moving themselves into the cloud "to save money", in fact I have worked on two large scale projects to return cloud-migrated services back on site because the costs associated with cloud are high, the pricing is opaque and the service and support is awful.
I deal with a lot of customers who *want* to go to the cloud, but in a wishful thinking way because they have zero idea of the cost and don't understand that their work processes are bound to complex interdependencies that require multiple complete systems to be moved to some kind of virtualization host at minimum, if not complete re-engineering of applications, migrations to other applications, etc.
Usually the motivation seems to be driven by short-sighted managers who merely look at potential cost reductions related to staff and/or capex -- they count those savings without understanding the costs they will no absorb, every month for every user, essentially forever and at the whim of their provider.
Email is the one service that seems to have the most cloud traction, despite the fact that it's generally cheaper over 50 users to run it on-premise given the now-standard assumptions of on-premise virtualization (ie, the marginal infrastructure cost is zero) and reasonably competent IT staff.
Cloud does make sense for organizations adopting a new application which is expansionary, with all of the usual cautions about cost stability, vendor stability and the extreme lock-in and difficulty in not using that platform in the future should a change become necessary.
It probably also makes some sense for entirely new businesses that are built around the web or mobile, where core infrastructure and processes are tied to the web anyway and the systems can be engineered for cloud and cloud limitations. It's a lot easier to start a business and ramp it up quickly when you can add demand-based infrastructure vs. on-premise infrastructure.
The fundamental problem with subway trains is that because they hold a large number of passengers they have to stop at every station
I don't claim to be a mass transit expert, and the proof is getting on a NYC 6 express when I should have paid more attention and gotten on a 6 local.
As it turns out, express trains don't stop at all the stations.
The real complication seems to be that adding an express line to a route means you need an extra set of tracks since the express is bound to pass the local at some point and this is a problem if you didn't dig the tunnel with this in mind.
Desperate Microsoft who sees Cortana being ignored and Azure not attracting cloud business in talks with Wal Mart who sees Amazon eroding their market and leaving them mostly as the butt of jokes as the place where the strange dregs of society shop.
I'd like to see the negotiation between them. Microsoft enforcing ridiculous licensing and Azure rates, Wal Mart tell them the new deal is half of whatever Microsoft wants to charge and half-off again next year.
We know they've got plenty of bandwidth since they'll cheerfully sell it to you for a premium.
It looks to me like the Mercedes dealerships have plenty of cars, too, does that mean they should give them away?
I don't want to defend Comcast, but you're making a bad argument. Just because there is more of good available at a higher price doesn't mean they need to increase the quantity they provide at a lower price.
I don't know if there was much if any "need" for Comcast's congestion management system. I have seen many businesses pay for top tier Comcast Business speeds and simply not be able to move bits at the speed they were paying for. Usually they were located in an area that was "residential" in terms of Comcast infrastructure and my guess was their neighborhood aggregation point was oversold In each case Comcast tried to wriggle out of it, but once the tickets got escalated high enough or we got a decent tech on site they'd mostly acknowledge there just wasn't enough backhaul out of that geographical area.
So my guess Comcast may have had a bonafide interest in discouraging some bandwidth hogs to deal with over-subscription problems *just* as their marketing department was rolling out a ton of ads for higher bandwidth. I'd guess the solution was over-applied and a lot of areas without any contention, though.
And of course Comcast is surely engaging in all kinds of pricing schemes that maximize revenues and treat bandwidth with artificial scarcity, but that doesn't mean they have some kind of obligation to provide you with more.
The dependence on hardware decoding is probably a major factor. Encoders want the largest possible audience and will always defer to the coding schemes with the least system impact and best performance, which will end up being hardware decoders.
There's a lag between the development of a new coding scheme and its widespread availability as actual deployed silicon. The investment in silicon in dependent on encoder adoption and popularity, which may lag encoding development.
Suddenly it looks like a no-win situation where new codecs have a hard time gaining entry when there are many good-enough codecs with hardware support.
Ours does, choice of paper or plastic. I always choose paper because they're bigger and make transporting groceries faster and less of a mess than the plastic bags, which are smaller and tend to dump out their contents.
Occasionally they put stuff in a plastic bag (meats or frozen items) but I think this mostly an attempt to be sanitary (no meat leakage onto other items) or to prevent frozen stuff from getting the bags wet and making them rip.
We have a mish-mash of reusable grocery bags that we use at Costco, but I think we'd need to make more effort and need about 3x the number of bags so we always had a supply of them in the car for regular grocery use. It's too easy to not have them for spontaneous grocery stops or outright forget them on planned trips, so a bunch more bags kept staged in the car would make this possible.
But with free paper bags that are recyclable, it's kind of hard to get organized enough to achieve this.
No offense, but what rock have you been living under where "media companies" haven't become ISPs and often the only alternative ISPs to existing ILECs?
It makes more sense if the electric power is basically free and you have no other use for it and it would just go unused otherwise.
Sure, electrical batteries make more sense than generating heat if you have the batteries. I'm guessing there's some kind of spreadsheet analysis to be done to figure out where the cost/benefit curve is of megawatts of relatively expensive lithium batteries vs. relatively cheap vats of molten NaCl when the energy generation cost is essentially zero.
I'm always surprised when people get worked up about "wasting" otherwise unusable renewable-generated electricity. There are some use cases that are maintenance intensive, use a lot of external resources or provide so little return that they're essentially a net negative but there seem to be a number of useful uses that are merely energy inefficient. But when the power is free, their inefficiency shouldn't be judged by the efficiency standards of expensive power sources.
Why bother with a planner then at all? Just buy securities yourself through a brokerage account.
If you need the legal structure of a 401k or Roth IRA, you can probably get the paperwork done through the brokerage, an accountant or a lawyer, and at least the latter two are tied to significant regulation.
I just don't understand why the profession would exist at all if it has no value add and duplicates (badly) the counsel of an attorney or accountant and only really acts as a securities broker.
And then there's the idea of can't beat the market anyway, just buy Fortune 500 index funds making investment basically "goof proof". All you need to do is write checks to your brokerage account and keep adding index fund shares. So what value could a planner possibly provide unless you had some complex situation (in that case, see lawyer or accountant).