These [washingtonexaminer.com] guys put it another way:
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.
So we should never vote for presidents that don't own a large private ranch, or that come from states that are popular vacation spots?
or that Obama has time for Letterman, The View, Beyonce and JayZ
You realize that he's campaigning, right? These public appearances are part of his campaign. It might be nice if a sitting president didn't have to spend much of his 4th year in a reelection campaign, but I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe longer terms with a single-term limit?
he and his wife flew out to NY on the taxpayer dime for dinner and a Broadway show
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
the fact that he's spending more time of the golf course than with his financial advisors and his national security team combined
In nearly 3-1/2 years (1200 days), he's played 100 rounds of golf. Once every 12 days. At 6 hours each, that's 600 hours. or 30 minutes/day. Sounds like a reasonable recreational activity. Many people think that recreation outside of work helps them stay more focused on their job, and I'd imagine that's true even for presidents. And much of his golf is played on military courses, which reduces the security expenses paid by taxpayers.
fact that a budget has not been passed since Obama has been in office
Congress has done a lot of things poorly since Obama has been in office, but that doesn't mean Obama is solely to blame.
or the fact that more people are on food stamps, are in poverty and/or can't find a job....
Maybe it takes more than 4 years to completely turn around a huge economic downturn that the entire world is still suffering from.
It was a perfectly sane response to the situation, and btw the generation is from hydro so really what added pollution was there?
Since the hydro plants are connected to the same power grid as dirty coal and other plants, every KWh of hydro power that's wasted is a KWh that has to be produced from other sources. If MS didn't use the power in their datacenter, the hydro utility would have sold that power on the grid and some other plant would have produced less.
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented.
So it sounds like what you're saying is that you'd support a plan where instead of a single-payer government run system, you'd like a system where people can continue to purchase insurance on their own (or where businesses could still offer plans if they wanted to). Where insurance companies could not deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. But above all, you want the government out of it, and you want private insurers to provide the coverage.
Well you're in luck! Let me introduce you to Obamacare!
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
It'd be nice, I'll grant. However, there's a question that never really gets answered, somehow: Who's going to pay for it? AIUI, if you can't pay, it's free, and right there's a big problem because the demand for a free good is infinite.
Obamacare is not "free" to most people -- most people will purchase private healthcare insurance. Those that can't afford private health insurance will have their costs covered by the government, much like the situation today.
But even if the government did provide "free" healthcare, it would be just as "free" as the other governmental services that most modern countries provide - fire protection services, police services, roads (taxes on cars pay only a fraction of road costs), military protection, etc.
Demand for healthcare is not infinite even if it's "free" because healthcare practitioners don't dole out unlimited amounts of healthcare - you matter how many times you beg for a head CT after you stub your toe, your doctor isn't going to prescribe one. I have practically unlimited healthcare through my employers plan, I pay only a $15 copay for each visit -- but whether my copay was $0 or $100, I don't think I would visit the doctor any more or less frequently than I do now. I don't *want* any non-neccessary drugs or medical procedures.
And you're missing the other half of the equation.... who is paying for healthcare now? We're not letting (usually) people die in the street because they can't afford healthcare, those that can't afford health insurance wait until they have an urgent situation and then they visit an ER where they know they will get care regardless of ability to pay. And when they can't pay and the ER has to absorb the cost, then the rest of us end up paying more in taxes and/or our healthcare costs to cover it. So you're paying for universal healthcare whether you want to or not, but you're probably paying more now than if you paid for more preventative care so people can have their ailments treated before it requires a trip to the ER.
A 52x cd-rom drive is faster than your internet connection. Go download a linux live cd. Imagine that your cd rom is actually a substitute for your internet connection, and the cd is "the cloud". Kinda sucks doesn't it?
So what can people do with a fatter pipe? My company has multiple gigabit connections to the internet, but we don't do anything significantly different with the internet than I do at home.
In relationship to your job, maybe they don't do anything that drastically different... But, if you ever hear of someone using something like... ohhhh remote desktop, so they can get into their work computer from home, then you just hit the whole point of my argument.
I use remote desktop to work from home because I don't want to (or am not allowed for licensing reasons) to install the programs I have on my work computer. I could install MS Office on my home computer and work on docs from home, but I find it much more convenient to rdp into the terminal server at work to work on them.
Remote desktop is a hack for a network problem. It's too slow to ship the actual programs running on the remote computer to your desktop. So instead, we duplicate unnecessary hardware (your computer), then ship over only the graphics, user input. The graphics try to only send the differences between screen transitions, and then do more hacks like limiting the amount of colors it'll actually represent on the other side.
The people at my workplace have a slightly better hack for that problem. They use laptops and then sneaker-net the programs they need back to their home. Then hope they have everything they need while they are "remote".
if they are going to drag their laptop home, why not just use the VPN to access the network share from home instead of taking the time to copy it to a flash drive? If they keep everything on the network share, then they know that they'll be able to access it from home or the office? Or why not just use the terminal server then they don't have to carry the laptop home, all of their software is on the terminal server.
My work has a better "hack" for this network problem as you describe it. Even though every desktop has a 1 gbit switched connection back to our core network, instead of doing network boot which would allow everyone to boot their desktops over the network, we've started rolling out VDI, which is really just remote desktop with some software to help virtualize desktops. Does any large company still use network boot for their desktop infrastructure? If netboot doesn't really work in a company with 1Gbit/second of bandwidth, why will it have more penetration at home when more and more services are moving to the cloud with a web browser interface?
Then the other huge point of my argument is that you don't do anything different, because hardly anyone is building things that take advantage of fatter pipes since they just don't exist here in the US.
I'd love to make wagers that after people finally get internet connections over 8gb/s up and download speed that they'll look at our current rates the same way we look at a 9600 baud modem, and that is that they'd rather shoot themselves than live in an era like that (again).
100Mbit/sec internet is common in South Korea, so what is it that they do differently with their high speed internet?
I'd say repealing Obamacare is a helluva good start.
Why? I've heard many (mostly republicans) say that we need to repeal Obamacare, but why?
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
Do you not understand why providing healthcare insurance for everyone means that everyone (healthy or not) needs to have coverage?
Do you think that forcing insurers to accept those with prexisting conditions is wrong? If so, how will people unlucky enough to have a chronic illness obtain coverage?
What should happen to those who are unable to obtain healthcare insurance on their own when they have a serious medical condition? Are you OK with paying for their urgent treatment in the ER? Should they be left to die? If so, are you ok with paying for their burial, or should they be left to rot wherever they happened to die?
Do you worry that it's too close to "socialist" healthcare coverage? How do you feel about Medicare?
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
The position sounds like a product development manager position, and will pay him $85k+ and all the moving expenses from the East Coast. He’s gone through 2 rounds of interview and seems like a frontrunner to land that position.
Is $85K a lot of money for a product development manager? I know some IT Helpdesk staff that make nearly that much in Silicon Valley.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
Just apply copious amounts of bleach and ammonia, that's guaranteed to take care of the real problem.
Disclaimer: anyone who thinks this is serious advice should do some research first.
I do not know. I do know the newer mainframes shut off cores and turn them on depending on load. This will save power while I imagine it would be difficult or impossible to do this with a server farm that easily.
VMware will do the same thing, but at a server level -- DRS can migrate virtual servers off of lightly used physical servers and then power off the physical server. Bringing them back online will take a few minutes since it needs to wait for the physical server to reboot after it's powered back on.
If network speeds were fast enough, then there'd be a way for us to store all of our information in "the cloud", and not have to worry about things like backups, or virus scanning on a at home basis. We could write operating systems that were designed to be run centrally, just like the good old mainframe era and dumb terminals. Then we wouldn't have as many grandma's out there running windows 95 in the year 2010.
My 15mbit connection speed is already fast enough to let me store my data in "the cloud", 100mbit or 1gig wouldn't make any difference. The cost of cloud storage, plus the question of how I can access my data when my high speed internet connection is down for a week is what keeps me from storing all of my data in the cloud.
Seriously. Everyone with a desk job (or student) doesn't need to drive into work. Get some good video conferencing solutions, a huge pipe to your office files, a cheap-as-dirt dumb terminal in your living room (or home-office), and now you actually have a fighting chance at staving off unimportant things like global warming (less gas for travel).
No need for schools to pay for buses, more money for teachers. Unfortunately, probably a lot less teachers). More stay-at-home professionals, everyone get's to gain an extra hour of their life back per day (less travel). An extra hour means later wake-up times, which would probably have a better impact than daylight savings time.
There are lots of good video conference systems that don't need 100mbit or more -- there were decent video conference systems 10 years ago that ran on 256kbit bonded ISDN lines. Bandwidth isn't the limiting factor that's preventing video conference systems from taking over from real life interactions.
So what could people do with a fatter pipe? Oh, man, I don't know. Let's go back to 64kb of main memory. Or how about something a little easier to think of, let's go back to pre-cellphone times. Everyone doesn't need a cell phone. What can people not do with their existing land-lines?
So what can people do with a fatter pipe? My company has multiple gigabit connections to the internet, but we don't do anything significantly different with the internet than I do at home.
As a consultant I do reliability and performance analysis and engineering for major manufacturers' production data centers. Right now, one of my biggest gating factors on how many clients I can handle, and how well I can handle them, is network bandwidth. In a 500 server data center, I can consume a billion data points (time-series data) in one day. I would prefer to host the analytics and database locally, but I have to host it on-site right now, and extract the data for post analysis (vs real-time analysis) which is very slow, hence the constraint on my ability to grow my business. With a 300-500Mbps connection I could easily fork the data stream so I can do better real-time analytics on server behavior and performance locally on my own machines. Making adjustments to the algorithms used to predict system failure and service levels would be much easier. If I make a mistake, then I only risk taking down one of my own servers, and not the customer's.
Why wouldn't you just rent a sever in a coloc somewhere to do the work? Then you get redundant internet connections with as much bandwidth as you're willing to pay for, redundant cooling, UPS power, generator backup, etc, which becomes awfully expensive in a home network. Maybe one of your customers with a 500 server datacenter would be willing to give you a few U for your server in return for a small discount on your services. They're apparently providing you with a server for you to run your analysis on, so they may as well give you some rack space and let you run your own server.
Running any business critical infrastructure at home sounds risky unless you're willing to build out a reliable datacenter at home.
that was the whole point of this article, you stupid twat.
Why are you worried about benchmark scores on servers that typically only run computations 12 percent of the time?
You people eat up artificial gimmicky numbers like nothing. It's amazing.
I think the problem is that while you can run 10,000 linux instances on a single mainframe and maybe it can keep them all chugging along at 12% load (though it seems like it would take a rather sizable mainframe to be equivalent to 12% of 10,000 or 1200 standalone servers), but when your peak load comes and those linux servers that are nearly idle all night long are suddenly 80% utilized, can the mainframe keep all 10,000 instances running along at 80% utilization?
And can it do it more cheaply than on VMWare and Intel? You'd need around 300 4 socket 8 core CPU Intel servers to handle 10,000 instances using up one core each of CPU power, figure around $10M for the cluster and 10 - 15 racks -- can you build the same mainframe for $10M in less space?
I used to read many a stories in which a young girl will get free drug from a neighbor. After she is hooked, he will only give if she takes off the shirt and then if she takes off her all clothes and so on. By this time, the girl is so much hooked to it, she will do anything. Facebook is just like it. You get it for free. Next you are asked to remove your shirt, next all your clothes and next.... I am happy, I don't have facebook account.
Sorry, that doesn't work with Facebook. When I gave the cute girl across the hall my Wifi password so she could check her Facebook, she refused to take off her shirt (or any other item of clothing) for me.
They should have used their influence to work out a good online books store, and paired it with sales. Make money from value add.
Free eBook copy with every book purchase. Maybe a kiosk. People who go to wal-mart do so regulae, have a eBook of the week deal.
Which one is short-sighted? Amazon and Walmart are increasingly becoming competitors, Walmart probably saw little upside in helping their competitor sell products.
iTunes sells music and movies, Walmart sells music and movies.
It's likely that Apple shares more of the revenue from a $499 iPad than Amazon does on a $199 Kindle.
Plus, while Apple and Walmart both sell music and movies, Amazon and Walmart both sell music, movies, books, TV's, toaster ovens, mouthwash, pet supplies, etc -- there's *much* more overlap, and Amazon continues to expand its presence with their warehouse build out.
So Walmart is 10x larger by revenue.. and 43x more profitable. Target is 1.5x larger by revenue.. and 7x more profitable.
Amazon has a long way to go.
While true, Amazon got a late start - the company didn't get off the ground until 1994, and didn't even have its first profitable quarter until 2001 when it had $1B in revenue -- Walmart hit $1B in revenue back in 1980.
Simulations will now be prohibited. Video cannot show a proposed product, action, etc. â" only a real product and what it does at the time.
Since Kickstarter won't let you raise funds to create a product, I'm starting kickstarterstarter.com to allow people to crowdfund being able to get onto Kickstarter.
How will kickstarterstarter.com weed out scammers with no intention of ever creating a product? I think Kickstarter is just trying to make sure that the project founder has put in enough time and money of his own to have created a prototype before he can accept more money. Anyone can set up a project to take money to pay for a "prototype", then in 6 months can say "Oh sorry, it's harder than I thought, I spent all of your money on the prototype but couldn't make it work". And there's really no way to know if they put any work into the project at all, or if they spent the money on drugs and hookers.
At least with a working prototype, potential funders can see that the project is fundamentally possible.
If all you have to show for your work is 3D renderings, then your hardware project isn't ready to solicit for donations or funding of any sort, Kickstarter or otherwise.
What if your concept is complex, and you need funding to produce the prototype? By your criteria, no one would ever create anything they cannot afford to create on their own. Care to try again?
Since you're "required" to return the funding if your project doesn't ultimately succeed, if you don't have the money to create your own prototype, Kickstarter might not be the right place to get funding -- if it turns out that the project is harder than you thought and after spending $100K on trying to get the prototype working, you just want to call it quits, how will you refund that $100K to your Kickstarter backers?
Nice try, but no cookie. A 15th birthday is celebrated 15 years after the birth day. The 0th birthday is usually called celebrating birth, which is an entirely different affair. The former celebrates survival over a period of time, the latter celebrates a beginning of existence. So my point still holds.
Exactly, celebrating the 0th birthday would be like having an array index start at 0 instead of 1. No real language does that. The first element in any array always starts at 1.
a recipie for miserable workers and substandard code.
Which is why non-spellers shouldn't spell. Or something
No, that's spelled correctly - it's recipie, shorthand for a recipe for a delicious pie. Which fits perfectly since miserable workers can't make a delicious pie, but if they had a delicious pie they wouldn't be so miserable.
When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down, or even your whole FB account if you've shown that you're not responsible enough to use it wisely. If the judge can put you in jail I don't see why it's worse if he tells you to stay off of FB.
Why are you surprised that there's no Smartphone interface to your hearing aid? There are few people that know enough about audiology to make effective and safe adjustments to their hearing aid, and there's little incentive for the hearing aid companies to provide such an interface, or to collaborate on an industry wide standard. Besides, adding something like Bluetooth would really eat into the power budget of the hearing aid, greatly limiting battery life, while the Bluetooth chipset would take up room that could be better used for more DSP hardware or better microphones/speakers in the unit.
That said, here's a link with resources for finding PC programming software for your hearing aid. You may need to choose your hearing aid based on which manufacturers are willing to provide the software to end users:
There is no reason to run hearing aids solely on batteries. At the price tag current hearing aids have, you could power them with the energy your body emits anyway, via a thermoelectric element or a generator that turns body movements into electricity. Said that I know there are probably no hearing aids out there actually featuring those, that are more than proof of concepts. But as a former poster already said: It looks like a worthwhile kickstarter project.
A thermo electric element needs a decent temperature differential to operate. Unless you're willing to tolerate a large heatsink hanging outside your ears (and are willing to accept that the hearing aid will be less and less effective as the ambient temperature approaches body temperature), then you're probably not going to have a thermocouple powered hearing aid. You'd probably be better off with a solar cell outside your ear to recharge the batteries.
Similarly, a generator that is powered by body movement requires body movement and unless you like to wiggle your ears all day long, you're not going to find much movement in your ears for powering the device. If you're willing to accept wires that connect the device to an area of your body that has more movement, then maybe you'd be better off with a bigger battery pack somewhere outside your ear.
If you're willing to accept an implanted power device, there are probably some biochemical reactions that can provide enough power to run the device.
Of all the complaints I hear from dad about his hearing aids, battery life is not one of them. He gets a little under a week of battery life, and given that he takes them out every night, replacing the batteries once a week is not a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
These [washingtonexaminer.com] guys put it another way:
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.
So we should never vote for presidents that don't own a large private ranch, or that come from states that are popular vacation spots?
or that Obama has time for Letterman, The View, Beyonce and JayZ
You realize that he's campaigning, right? These public appearances are part of his campaign. It might be nice if a sitting president didn't have to spend much of his 4th year in a reelection campaign, but I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe longer terms with a single-term limit?
he and his wife flew out to NY on the taxpayer dime for dinner and a Broadway show
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
the fact that he's spending more time of the golf course than with his financial advisors and his national security team combined
In nearly 3-1/2 years (1200 days), he's played 100 rounds of golf. Once every 12 days. At 6 hours each, that's 600 hours. or 30 minutes/day. Sounds like a reasonable recreational activity. Many people think that recreation outside of work helps them stay more focused on their job, and I'd imagine that's true even for presidents. And much of his golf is played on military courses, which reduces the security expenses paid by taxpayers.
fact that a budget has not been passed since Obama has been in office
Congress has done a lot of things poorly since Obama has been in office, but that doesn't mean Obama is solely to blame.
or the fact that more people are on food stamps, are in poverty and/or can't find a job....
Maybe it takes more than 4 years to completely turn around a huge economic downturn that the entire world is still suffering from.
It was a perfectly sane response to the situation, and btw the generation is from hydro so really what added pollution was there?
Since the hydro plants are connected to the same power grid as dirty coal and other plants, every KWh of hydro power that's wasted is a KWh that has to be produced from other sources. If MS didn't use the power in their datacenter, the hydro utility would have sold that power on the grid and some other plant would have produced less.
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented.
So it sounds like what you're saying is that you'd support a plan where instead of a single-payer government run system, you'd like a system where people can continue to purchase insurance on their own (or where businesses could still offer plans if they wanted to). Where insurance companies could not deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. But above all, you want the government out of it, and you want private insurers to provide the coverage.
Well you're in luck! Let me introduce you to Obamacare!
I believe that the system you describe was the failed US National Health Care Act which was never passed.
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
It'd be nice, I'll grant. However, there's a question that never really gets answered, somehow: Who's going to pay for it? AIUI, if you can't pay, it's free, and right there's a big problem because the demand for a free good is infinite.
Obamacare is not "free" to most people -- most people will purchase private healthcare insurance. Those that can't afford private health insurance will have their costs covered by the government, much like the situation today.
But even if the government did provide "free" healthcare, it would be just as "free" as the other governmental services that most modern countries provide - fire protection services, police services, roads (taxes on cars pay only a fraction of road costs), military protection, etc.
Demand for healthcare is not infinite even if it's "free" because healthcare practitioners don't dole out unlimited amounts of healthcare - you matter how many times you beg for a head CT after you stub your toe, your doctor isn't going to prescribe one. I have practically unlimited healthcare through my employers plan, I pay only a $15 copay for each visit -- but whether my copay was $0 or $100, I don't think I would visit the doctor any more or less frequently than I do now. I don't *want* any non-neccessary drugs or medical procedures.
And you're missing the other half of the equation.... who is paying for healthcare now? We're not letting (usually) people die in the street because they can't afford healthcare, those that can't afford health insurance wait until they have an urgent situation and then they visit an ER where they know they will get care regardless of ability to pay. And when they can't pay and the ER has to absorb the cost, then the rest of us end up paying more in taxes and/or our healthcare costs to cover it. So you're paying for universal healthcare whether you want to or not, but you're probably paying more now than if you paid for more preventative care so people can have their ailments treated before it requires a trip to the ER.
A 52x cd-rom drive is faster than your internet connection.
Go download a linux live cd.
Imagine that your cd rom is actually a substitute for your internet connection, and the cd is "the cloud". Kinda sucks doesn't it?
So what can people do with a fatter pipe? My company has multiple gigabit connections to the internet, but we don't do anything significantly different with the internet than I do at home.
In relationship to your job, maybe they don't do anything that drastically different...
But, if you ever hear of someone using something like... ohhhh remote desktop, so they can get into their work computer from home, then you just hit the whole point of my argument.
I use remote desktop to work from home because I don't want to (or am not allowed for licensing reasons) to install the programs I have on my work computer. I could install MS Office on my home computer and work on docs from home, but I find it much more convenient to rdp into the terminal server at work to work on them.
Remote desktop is a hack for a network problem. It's too slow to ship the actual programs running on the remote computer to your desktop. So instead, we duplicate unnecessary hardware (your computer), then ship over only the graphics, user input. The graphics try to only send the differences between screen transitions, and then do more hacks like limiting the amount of colors it'll actually represent on the other side.
The people at my workplace have a slightly better hack for that problem. They use laptops and then sneaker-net the programs they need back to their home. Then hope they have everything they need while they are "remote".
if they are going to drag their laptop home, why not just use the VPN to access the network share from home instead of taking the time to copy it to a flash drive? If they keep everything on the network share, then they know that they'll be able to access it from home or the office? Or why not just use the terminal server then they don't have to carry the laptop home, all of their software is on the terminal server.
My work has a better "hack" for this network problem as you describe it. Even though every desktop has a 1 gbit switched connection back to our core network, instead of doing network boot which would allow everyone to boot their desktops over the network, we've started rolling out VDI, which is really just remote desktop with some software to help virtualize desktops. Does any large company still use network boot for their desktop infrastructure? If netboot doesn't really work in a company with 1Gbit/second of bandwidth, why will it have more penetration at home when more and more services are moving to the cloud with a web browser interface?
Then the other huge point of my argument is that you don't do anything different, because hardly anyone is building things that take advantage of fatter pipes since they just don't exist here in the US.
I'd love to make wagers that after people finally get internet connections over 8gb/s up and download speed that they'll look at our current rates the same way we look at a 9600 baud modem, and that is that they'd rather shoot themselves than live in an era like that (again).
100Mbit/sec internet is common in South Korea, so what is it that they do differently with their high speed internet?
I'd say repealing Obamacare is a helluva good start.
Why? I've heard many (mostly republicans) say that we need to repeal Obamacare, but why?
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
Do you not understand why providing healthcare insurance for everyone means that everyone (healthy or not) needs to have coverage?
Do you think that forcing insurers to accept those with prexisting conditions is wrong? If so, how will people unlucky enough to have a chronic illness obtain coverage?
What should happen to those who are unable to obtain healthcare insurance on their own when they have a serious medical condition? Are you OK with paying for their urgent treatment in the ER? Should they be left to die? If so, are you ok with paying for their burial, or should they be left to rot wherever they happened to die?
Do you worry that it's too close to "socialist" healthcare coverage? How do you feel about Medicare?
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
The referenced article mentions:
The position sounds like a product development manager position, and will pay him $85k+ and all the moving expenses from the East Coast. He’s gone through 2 rounds of interview and seems like a frontrunner to land that position.
Is $85K a lot of money for a product development manager? I know some IT Helpdesk staff that make nearly that much in Silicon Valley.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
Just apply copious amounts of bleach and ammonia, that's guaranteed to take care of the real problem.
Disclaimer: anyone who thinks this is serious advice should do some research first.
I do not know. I do know the newer mainframes shut off cores and turn them on depending on load. This will save power while I imagine it would be difficult or impossible to do this with a server farm that easily.
VMware will do the same thing, but at a server level -- DRS can migrate virtual servers off of lightly used physical servers and then power off the physical server. Bringing them back online will take a few minutes since it needs to wait for the physical server to reboot after it's powered back on.
If network speeds were fast enough, then there'd be a way for us to store all of our information in "the cloud", and not have to worry about things like backups, or virus scanning on a at home basis. We could write operating systems that were designed to be run centrally, just like the good old mainframe era and dumb terminals. Then we wouldn't have as many grandma's out there running windows 95 in the year 2010.
My 15mbit connection speed is already fast enough to let me store my data in "the cloud", 100mbit or 1gig wouldn't make any difference. The cost of cloud storage, plus the question of how I can access my data when my high speed internet connection is down for a week is what keeps me from storing all of my data in the cloud.
Seriously. Everyone with a desk job (or student) doesn't need to drive into work. Get some good video conferencing solutions, a huge pipe to your office files, a cheap-as-dirt dumb terminal in your living room (or home-office), and now you actually have a fighting chance at staving off unimportant things like global warming (less gas for travel).
No need for schools to pay for buses, more money for teachers. Unfortunately, probably a lot less teachers). More stay-at-home professionals, everyone get's to gain an extra hour of their life back per day (less travel). An extra hour means later wake-up times, which would probably have a better impact than daylight savings time.
There are lots of good video conference systems that don't need 100mbit or more -- there were decent video conference systems 10 years ago that ran on 256kbit bonded ISDN lines. Bandwidth isn't the limiting factor that's preventing video conference systems from taking over from real life interactions.
So what could people do with a fatter pipe? Oh, man, I don't know. Let's go back to 64kb of main memory. Or how about something a little easier to think of, let's go back to pre-cellphone times. Everyone doesn't need a cell phone. What can people not do with their existing land-lines?
So what can people do with a fatter pipe? My company has multiple gigabit connections to the internet, but we don't do anything significantly different with the internet than I do at home.
As a consultant I do reliability and performance analysis and engineering for major manufacturers' production data centers. Right now, one of my biggest gating factors on how many clients I can handle, and how well I can handle them, is network bandwidth. In a 500 server data center, I can consume a billion data points (time-series data) in one day. I would prefer to host the analytics and database locally, but I have to host it on-site right now, and extract the data for post analysis (vs real-time analysis) which is very slow, hence the constraint on my ability to grow my business. With a 300-500Mbps connection I could easily fork the data stream so I can do better real-time analytics on server behavior and performance locally on my own machines. Making adjustments to the algorithms used to predict system failure and service levels would be much easier. If I make a mistake, then I only risk taking down one of my own servers, and not the customer's.
Why wouldn't you just rent a sever in a coloc somewhere to do the work? Then you get redundant internet connections with as much bandwidth as you're willing to pay for, redundant cooling, UPS power, generator backup, etc, which becomes awfully expensive in a home network. Maybe one of your customers with a 500 server datacenter would be willing to give you a few U for your server in return for a small discount on your services. They're apparently providing you with a server for you to run your analysis on, so they may as well give you some rack space and let you run your own server.
Running any business critical infrastructure at home sounds risky unless you're willing to build out a reliable datacenter at home.
that was the whole point of this article, you stupid twat.
Why are you worried about benchmark scores on servers that typically only run computations 12 percent of the time?
You people eat up artificial gimmicky numbers like nothing. It's amazing.
I think the problem is that while you can run 10,000 linux instances on a single mainframe and maybe it can keep them all chugging along at 12% load (though it seems like it would take a rather sizable mainframe to be equivalent to 12% of 10,000 or 1200 standalone servers), but when your peak load comes and those linux servers that are nearly idle all night long are suddenly 80% utilized, can the mainframe keep all 10,000 instances running along at 80% utilization?
And can it do it more cheaply than on VMWare and Intel? You'd need around 300 4 socket 8 core CPU Intel servers to handle 10,000 instances using up one core each of CPU power, figure around $10M for the cluster and 10 - 15 racks -- can you build the same mainframe for $10M in less space?
I really don't know the answer.
I used to read many a stories in which a young girl will get free drug from a neighbor. After she is hooked, he will only give if she takes off the shirt and then if she takes off her all clothes and so on. By this time, the girl is so much hooked to it, she will do anything. Facebook is just like it. You get it for free. Next you are asked to remove your shirt, next all your clothes and next.... I am happy, I don't have facebook account.
Sorry, that doesn't work with Facebook. When I gave the cute girl across the hall my Wifi password so she could check her Facebook, she refused to take off her shirt (or any other item of clothing) for me.
They should have used their influence to work out a good online books store, and paired it with sales. Make money from value add.
Free eBook copy with every book purchase. Maybe a kiosk. People who go to wal-mart do so regulae, have a eBook of the week deal.
Which one is short-sighted? Amazon and Walmart are increasingly becoming competitors, Walmart probably saw little upside in helping their competitor sell products.
iTunes sells music and movies, Walmart sells music and movies.
It's likely that Apple shares more of the revenue from a $499 iPad than Amazon does on a $199 Kindle.
Plus, while Apple and Walmart both sell music and movies, Amazon and Walmart both sell music, movies, books, TV's, toaster ovens, mouthwash, pet supplies, etc -- there's *much* more overlap, and Amazon continues to expand its presence with their warehouse build out.
So Walmart is 10x larger by revenue.. and 43x more profitable.
Target is 1.5x larger by revenue.. and 7x more profitable.
Amazon has a long way to go.
While true, Amazon got a late start - the company didn't get off the ground until 1994, and didn't even have its first profitable quarter until 2001 when it had $1B in revenue -- Walmart hit $1B in revenue back in 1980.
Since Kickstarter won't let you raise funds to create a product, I'm starting kickstarterstarter.com to allow people to crowdfund being able to get onto Kickstarter.
How will kickstarterstarter.com weed out scammers with no intention of ever creating a product? I think Kickstarter is just trying to make sure that the project founder has put in enough time and money of his own to have created a prototype before he can accept more money. Anyone can set up a project to take money to pay for a "prototype", then in 6 months can say "Oh sorry, it's harder than I thought, I spent all of your money on the prototype but couldn't make it work". And there's really no way to know if they put any work into the project at all, or if they spent the money on drugs and hookers.
At least with a working prototype, potential funders can see that the project is fundamentally possible.
If all you have to show for your work is 3D renderings, then your hardware project isn't ready to solicit for donations or funding of any sort, Kickstarter or otherwise.
What if your concept is complex, and you need funding to produce the prototype? By your criteria, no one would ever create anything they cannot afford to create on their own. Care to try again?
Since you're "required" to return the funding if your project doesn't ultimately succeed, if you don't have the money to create your own prototype, Kickstarter might not be the right place to get funding -- if it turns out that the project is harder than you thought and after spending $100K on trying to get the prototype working, you just want to call it quits, how will you refund that $100K to your Kickstarter backers?
Nice try, but no cookie. A 15th birthday is celebrated 15 years after the birth day. The 0th birthday is usually called celebrating birth, which is an entirely different affair. The former celebrates survival over a period of time, the latter celebrates a beginning of existence. So my point still holds.
Exactly, celebrating the 0th birthday would be like having an array index start at 0 instead of 1. No real language does that. The first element in any array always starts at 1.
Really? Can we get some pics from there? Who on Slashdot is from Nigeria?
I'm amazed that there's a Slashdot party anywhere.
a recipie for miserable workers and substandard code.
Which is why non-spellers shouldn't spell. Or something
No, that's spelled correctly - it's recipie, shorthand for a recipe for a delicious pie. Which fits perfectly since miserable workers can't make a delicious pie, but if they had a delicious pie they wouldn't be so miserable.
When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down, or even your whole FB account if you've shown that you're not responsible enough to use it wisely. If the judge can put you in jail I don't see why it's worse if he tells you to stay off of FB.
Why are you surprised that there's no Smartphone interface to your hearing aid? There are few people that know enough about audiology to make effective and safe adjustments to their hearing aid, and there's little incentive for the hearing aid companies to provide such an interface, or to collaborate on an industry wide standard. Besides, adding something like Bluetooth would really eat into the power budget of the hearing aid, greatly limiting battery life, while the Bluetooth chipset would take up room that could be better used for more DSP hardware or better microphones/speakers in the unit.
That said, here's a link with resources for finding PC programming software for your hearing aid. You may need to choose your hearing aid based on which manufacturers are willing to provide the software to end users:
http://www.amperordirect.com/pc/help-hearing-aid/z-hearing-aid-program-tools.html
There is no reason to run hearing aids solely on batteries. At the price tag current hearing aids have, you could power them with the energy your body emits anyway, via a thermoelectric element or a generator that turns body movements into electricity. Said that I know there are probably no hearing aids out there actually featuring those, that are more than proof of concepts. But as a former poster already said: It looks like a worthwhile kickstarter project.
A thermo electric element needs a decent temperature differential to operate. Unless you're willing to tolerate a large heatsink hanging outside your ears (and are willing to accept that the hearing aid will be less and less effective as the ambient temperature approaches body temperature), then you're probably not going to have a thermocouple powered hearing aid. You'd probably be better off with a solar cell outside your ear to recharge the batteries.
Similarly, a generator that is powered by body movement requires body movement and unless you like to wiggle your ears all day long, you're not going to find much movement in your ears for powering the device. If you're willing to accept wires that connect the device to an area of your body that has more movement, then maybe you'd be better off with a bigger battery pack somewhere outside your ear.
If you're willing to accept an implanted power device, there are probably some biochemical reactions that can provide enough power to run the device.
Of all the complaints I hear from dad about his hearing aids, battery life is not one of them. He gets a little under a week of battery life, and given that he takes them out every night, replacing the batteries once a week is not a big deal.