And reducing groundwater contamination from leaking landfills, and reducing methane gas production that escapes even from landfills that attempt to recover methane.
Look, I have no problem with doing this. I do it already and compost in my yard. But how does concentrating all the non-compostables in the landfill make it LESS toxic or likely to leak? Seems like it's just going to make landfills more toxic than they already are.
Because when you divert 75% of compostables and recyclables out of the landfill, not only do you need 75% less landfills, but you can afford to build them better.
It depends on where you are. My in-laws have to drive their trash to the dump themselves. There is no city pickup. You will notice that most posts here assume everyone in the United States lives in large cities like San Francisco and New York. In reality you will find that most of the US is composed of corn fields and cow pastures.
I think most people assume that Americans live in a reasonably populated town or urban area -- i.e. ones that have scheduled trash service and can actually implement the municipal composting referenced in the article.
And I think they assume that because it's pretty much true - around 70% of Americans live in an "urban" area of 50,000 or greater population. Only 20% live in a rural area.
No matter your experience, plain-text logs make more sense, especially in *nix operating systems. You have a vast array of tools to search log files with; my favorites being tail and grep. The minute you go to binary logging your options shrink or you end up having to use additional tools to reconvert it to text (ie. the Windows event log).
Except you already see binary log files on Unix. Log files are frequently compressed with gzip. I don't see a big difference between someone typing (for example) "zcat file.gz | grep somestring" and "redhat-log-cat | grep somestring" assuming that was the name of the tool they used to crap out a logfile from the binary db.
The difference is that one zcat tool can handle any gzipped file, it doesn't need to know a thing about the data in the file.
But if when developers start using binary data, yourredhat-log-cat parser will need to understand how each developer writes their data.
Some developers may just use ascii key-value pairs. Some may write out numbers as binary ints and floats. Some may serialize java objects and write those to the logs.
With ASCII readable files you can usually (but not always) decipher the data and write a parser for it. Once you've got a stream of binary data, this becomes much harder.
Which would you rather try to decode:
Perfdata: 0 100 123123123 20.1
or
Perfdata=00000000000000640756b5b35468a000
Of course, with proper discipline, this can be prevented from becoming an indecipherable mess, but the same could be said for the current syslog.
I'm just wondering whether it would actually make more sense to incinerate the garbage for energy (after extracting stuff like metals from it). It would seem simpler and more efficient for a city like NY.
I think it's very expensive to cleanly burn trash. The only place in the USA that I'm aware of that does it on a large scale is the HPower plant in Hawaii. And I think it's only cost effective there because landfill space is scarce and they use the waste heat to generate electricity (which would otherwise be generated from fuel brought in by ship).
I'm not sure why Japan finds it better to burn much of their trash, but it may be lack of available landfill space.
On a related note, I'm wondering whether it would actually be more efficient for there to be restaurants geared for volume (think Walmart versions of restaurants). Instead of having individuals travelling to hypermarkets, buying groceries and each doing the storage (and storage management), cooking, cleaning, and garbage sorting and disposal; why not have it done by specialists and get some efficiencies of scale from it?
I think they already have those large scale restaurants you speak of - they are called "food processors" and you can find their goods in the frozen food section of your supermarket.
I can already stop at literally dozens of restaurants on my way home from work (by transit, foot or bike depending on my mood and the weather) and pick up pre-cooked takeout food for home, but I don't do that (regularly) because I *like* home cooked food, and I have even less waste when I cook at home than when I bring pre-prepared food home. I wouldn't want to bring home several days of freshly cooked food - I don't like eating leftovers that much, and that's pretty much what this pre-prepared food would be after a day or two in the refrigerator. Plus
So recycling is mandatory, but people in the US go without healthcare? No offense intended guys and gals in the US, but the priorities of your lawmakers seem a little skewed.
So driving without a seatbelt is illegal, but people in the US go without healthcare?
So peeing in the street is illegal, but people in the US go without healthcare?
So gambling is legal (or illegal depending on where you live), but people in the US go without healthcare?
So smoking is legal (or illegal depending on where you are), but people in the US go without healthcare?
Hey, wait a second, it turns out there are *lots* of rules and laws unrelated to healthcare that people have to follow even people in the US go without healthcare! Let's roll back all laws until everyone in the US has healthcare! Since, as we all know, healthcare is the *only* thing that matters.
Unless Im mistaken, if nothing changes having healthcare is/will be mandatory as well. However I see no reason why those of us who are moderately healthy should be forced to carry health insurance if we don't want to. If every driver in the US is supposed to have instance why do all insurance companies make paying customers pay for "uninsured motorist" coverage?
Because some of those moderately healthy people will still suffer from disease or injury that will incur large healthcare costs. The whole point of insurance is that it spreads those costs around. While you may be lucky enough to not find that you have a congenital heart defect that costs $100,000 in surgery to correct, your premium helps pay for that one guy out of 100,000 that does. And it means that the public doesn't have to pay your healthcare costs if you do suffer from an illness that carries catastrophic healthcare costs.
The planet is not going to shrivel up and die if people don't compost. We're just talking about reducing the amount of land dedicated to landfills, or the cost of building more incinerators, both of which are substantially about money.
And reducing groundwater contamination from leaking landfills, and reducing methane gas production that escapes even from landfills that attempt to recover methane.
When I'm done with it...it is trash and I pay to have it hauled away. Once they have it...feel free to do with it as you please, but I don't have room around my place for sorting the shit out nor for creating and maintaining a compost heap for organic stuff.
That's the problem -- trash is not always "trash" - there are different types of trash, and not all of it should be sitting in a landfill for the next 1000 years because there are better ways to dispose of it.
No one is asking you to maintain a compost heap, just dump your compostables into a different bin. I live in a small urban apartment in the USA and have no problem finding a place to store my compostables, recyclables and landfill materials. I've been part of a municipal compost program for years, and it's just not that hard.
My girlfriend and I lived in a *tiny* apartment in Tokyo for 2 years and had no problem storing our burnable trash and two kinds of recyclable trash.
car battery cables are thick because they carry 500+ amps when you're starting your car. None of the other 12V cables in your car are nearly that thick; they're 18-20 gauge wires. Even the wires going to the headlights are pretty reasonable.
A 360 watt server needs 30 amps @ 12V. Put 30 of them in a rack and you need 900 amps @ 12VDC.
Divide by 10 for 120 Volts (AC or DC, doesn't matter): 3 amps for one server, 90 amps for 30 servers.
Divide by 2 for 240 Volts: 1.5 amps for one server, 45 amps for 30 servers.
No wai. I'm sure the peoples of California (myself included) would not want a boat of foreigners off their coast... for what, permanently? That would not fly with environmentalists, and we have lots of them.
Before you speak for everyone in California, stand in any Silicon Valley restaurant at lunch hour, look around and tell me how the "foreigners" off the coast differ from the people that surround you already?
in general, as long as your argument is based on an assumption of profitability, you're an idiot.
The whole scheme is based on an assumption of profitability. The foreign entrepreneurs would only participate if physical proximity to the USA would profit them. The VC firms and other companies they are here for would only work with them if they felt that they would earn a profit from these foreign entrepreneurs. The operator of this ship would only operate it if he could earn a profit.
So what part of my argument makes me an idiot? Without an assumption of profitability among all concerned, this ship will never float.
As someone currently working for a high-tech start-up in Vancouver, BC, I can assure you that, as nice as it is here in the Summer, it's no Silicon Valley -- and when you have to make a trip there it's like $800 in plane tickets and a whole day of travel.
But then, Valley is not exactly on the shore, so it's not just 12 miles boat ride, add another hour or so to get across the hills -- still beats air travel!
Paul B.
$800 every week or two is cheaper than whatever it would cost to live full-time in a cruise ship. A direct flight from YVR to SFO is only around 2.5 hours.
the people of california have the say over who they'll do business with. if it's destructive to do business with anyone doing business with anyone on the ship, then there won't be a ship. freedom of speech dictates that everyone has a say.
In general, money trumps all -- as long as it's profitable to work with the ship, people will do it. In general it's destructive to do business with drug cartels, yet they earn billions of dollars of income from users in the USA so apparently some organizations are willing to do business with them despite the legal, moral and practical issues with doing business with a powerful, ruthless, and illegal drug cartel.
Try to stage a violent takeover of the Google headquarters and taxpayer funded police will take care of it in short order. Standing behind all that is the taxpayer funded military.
I wasn't picturing a takeover - more of a suicide bomb type terrorist attack -- seeking destruction and notoriety, not a takeover. But I think Google and Apple are safe - there are many more targets that would garner even more publicity and notoriety than a tech company.
Apple has already demonstrated that the police are there to serve them.
Because it is in international waters, which means the US is not obligated to take care of them. Since they are hacking US immigration law, I can see the Coast Guard taking a dim view on rescuing such people.
They aren't hacking US immigration law, they are working within the law. The USA wouldn't care one way or another if 100 rich entrepreneurs want to take up residence in a cruise ship 15 miles off the coast as long as they follow their visa restrictions.
The USCG is going to rescue them no matter what. Do you really think that the USA will turn a blind eye while pirates attack a ship off our shores? The bad publicity alone would make that politically impossible. Can you imagine news helicopters circling around the sinking ship, filming passengers crying out for help, while a coast guard cutter floats nearby, only there to mop up any oil leaks and pick up debris before it hits the US coast?
It sounds like this would be an irresistible target for someone with a boat or a plane packed with explosives. Sadly, that's the type of world we live in. You would need anti-aircraft turrets and security boat patrols. Actually, that sounds kind of cool.
Why would this be a more attractive target than say, Apple or Google headquarters? A truck (or even motorcycle) filled with explosives driving into the corporate cafeteria at lunchtime would do much more economic damage and garner much more news coverage than taking out some unknown up-and-coming startup executives on a ship. It would take more than a cessna filled with explosives to take out a sturdy oceangoing vessel. Likewise, a small boat filled with explosives will only take out a watertight compartment or two on the large ship, presumably on the less desirable lower decks where you won't find the high valued targets doing deals up on the lido deck.
If the terrorists could procure a torpedo, then they might have a chance at sinking the vessel.
Some of the larger LaserJets supported two JetDirect cards. If you could make a JetDirect card run an OS, I can see a scenario like:
1) Go to company X as printer tech on fake service call 2) Install hacked JetDirect card as secondary device, connect to network 3) ???? 4) Profit!
If you can hack a Jetdirect card and gain physical access to the printer, why install a second one? Just upload your hacked firmware to the primary Jetdirect card and you're done. Just have it transparently pass print jobs to the printer while it does whatever nefarious activity you've programmed it to do. No need to hope that your target printer has a second Jetdirect slot, and no need to find a second network port to plug your hacked card into.
So will this make companies have second thoughts about setting up a Facebook page? Why would Coke spend hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining and promoting their Facebook presence if FB can "accidentally" give the page to "Joe's House of Coke" and then refuse to give it back to the Coca Cola company when the mistake is discovered, even after FB admits it was an administrative error on their part?
And the major cell carriers have continued that business model by getting most people to rent their cell phones. It's not like my cell phone bill is reduced after my 2 year contract term is up and my phone subsidy is supposedly paid off.
Except on T-Mobile where on their value plans, you actually do save money when the phone is paid off.
So if performance/watt is your first priority, we think the current Xeons are your best option.
Who, other than NASA (et al) has performance/watt a high priority, much less their first priority? And for NASA, the priority for performance/watt's only for space bound vehicles. I doubt they're sending supercomputers into space.
Bogus.
Anyone who pays for their own power?
Power is a significant portion of the operating cost of a server - a server that's 25% more energy efficient with the same performance is a sizable savings. You don't just pay for watts to the server, every watt that goes into the server has to be taken away by cooling, and has to be supplied by an expensive redundant power infrastructure.
How about authors refuse to publish their books until they have raised enough money? A well known author could publish a suspenseful preview or a first chapter, and then request $5 from each reader until some amount is raised, at which point the book will be published. There is no need for a publishing industry to even exist under such a system, the authors could just use the Internet and encourage, rather than attack, the copying of their books.
I think a better model is charging a reasonable price for ebooks and giving authors a bigger cut to reflect the nearly non-existent printing and distribution costs:
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
I'm sorry did you get lost on the way to foxnews.com?
This is the news for nerds site that puts the latest Linux kernel milestone up on the front page. See these tags on the left side of the screen - cloud, hardware, linux, management, mobile, science, security, storage? Well, I'll tell you, it's not about weather, wood shop, business, exercise, personal defense, or closets.
So you're telling me that the place that puts the latest linux kernel milestone on the front page and where Linux is one of the sidebar links is the place to find people that keep Windows servers around in colocs? Hey, maybe you can tell me why I can never get my Linux questions answered over at msdn.com?
This is (used to be) the place you go to FIND people who have servers in a colo somewhere, who might call you a pussy for finding difficulty in worse things than first party Windows software!
Of course, you know as well as I do that those days are long gone.
You didn't even read any of those linked pages did you? You just copied results from a microsoft+privacy query that sounded bad.
I mean Microsoft Passport? Well hi there 2001! We got ALL of this reeeeeeeeeel sceeeeery stuff from everyone ELSE.
Wow, you figured out that I just got those links from a quick google search even after I tried to hide it by saying "And that's just what I found in a quick google search." Admittedly the first one was old, but still shows a privacy breach, the other two were from 2010. So what is your point? Are you saying "Well sure, MS wasn't so concerned about privacy back in 2001. And maybe not 9 years later in 2010, but , they care about it now!"
OK no experience but how hard can it be to run your own Windows server? About as hard as running your own Linux server maybe?
But running a server well is not something that most non-techies can do. (and is even something that a lot of techies can't do well - I've cleaned up more than one mess left by a developer doing double duty as a sysadmin).
Considering the submitter wants to share contacts with his own computer directly I may assume he has some kind of server for that already, or at least has the competence to set it up.
I'm not sure why you'd assume that, I think lots of people want to see their contacts on their phone *and* their computer, but don't want to run a server to do it.
Whether that's OpenLDAP or Exchange or whatever is not the point here. Or maybe he's just looking to sync with his company's directory server - and in that case there will be a very good reason not to copy all those contacts into the cloud too.
Maybe so, but the post I was originally replying to suggested using "your own Exchnage server" to sync contacts and calendar to.
If you don't want to share your contacts in the cloud, Android indeed doesn't provide an easy way to sync them.
Or you could, you know, use Exchange which you already suggested if you don't trust Google. I sync my contacts with Exchange, but they don't end up in my Google account.
Now why Google doesn't provide support for a very standard directory service like LDAP is beyond me. I expected something like that to just work. It was a great disappointment and surprise when I found that out.
Maybe because you're one of 5 people that run their own personal LDAP directory server and want to sync it with their phone. There are a lot of industry standards that Google doesn't support because not enough people want them. That's what Apps are for - if you find something missing on your phone, write an app for it (or pay someone else to)
There are some apps available that allow you to sync to an LDAP server, I haven't tried them out yet. They look very much like a rough hack to me.
So there may be an app that does exactly what you want but you're not interested in even trying it?
And I'm serious. While not as versatile towards own-hosted solutions as the old Windows Mobiles, it's still light years beyond Android and iOS. You can easily use your own Exchange server to sync and share your contacts, calendar and other stuff, which gives you true privacy.
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
The reason for this is simple too. Microsoft may be many things, but they have always respected privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
And reducing groundwater contamination from leaking landfills, and reducing methane gas production that escapes even from landfills that attempt to recover methane.
Look, I have no problem with doing this. I do it already and compost in my yard. But how does concentrating all the non-compostables in the landfill make it LESS toxic or likely to leak? Seems like it's just going to make landfills more toxic than they already are.
Because when you divert 75% of compostables and recyclables out of the landfill, not only do you need 75% less landfills, but you can afford to build them better.
It depends on where you are. My in-laws have to drive their trash to the dump themselves. There is no city pickup. You will notice that most posts here assume everyone in the United States lives in large cities like San Francisco and New York. In reality you will find that most of the US is composed of corn fields and cow pastures.
I think most people assume that Americans live in a reasonably populated town or urban area -- i.e. ones that have scheduled trash service and can actually implement the municipal composting referenced in the article.
And I think they assume that because it's pretty much true - around 70% of Americans live in an "urban" area of 50,000 or greater population. Only 20% live in a rural area.
So it's true that most of the USA land area is rural, but most of the *people* are living in more urban areas.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm
No matter your experience, plain-text logs make more sense, especially in *nix operating systems. You have a vast array of tools to search log files with; my favorites being tail and grep. The minute you go to binary logging your options shrink or you end up having to use additional tools to reconvert it to text (ie. the Windows event log).
Except you already see binary log files on Unix. Log files are frequently compressed with gzip. I don't see a big difference between someone typing (for example) "zcat file.gz | grep somestring" and "redhat-log-cat | grep somestring" assuming that was the name of the tool they used to crap out a logfile from the binary db.
The difference is that one zcat tool can handle any gzipped file, it doesn't need to know a thing about the data in the file.
But if when developers start using binary data, yourredhat-log-cat parser will need to understand how each developer writes their data.
Some developers may just use ascii key-value pairs. Some may write out numbers as binary ints and floats. Some may serialize java objects and write those to the logs.
With ASCII readable files you can usually (but not always) decipher the data and write a parser for it. Once you've got a stream of binary data, this becomes much harder.
Which would you rather try to decode:
Perfdata: 0 100 123123123 20.1
or
Perfdata=00000000000000640756b5b35468a000
Of course, with proper discipline, this can be prevented from becoming an indecipherable mess, but the same could be said for the current syslog.
I'm just wondering whether it would actually make more sense to incinerate the garbage for energy (after extracting stuff like metals from it). It would seem simpler and more efficient for a city like NY.
I think it's very expensive to cleanly burn trash. The only place in the USA that I'm aware of that does it on a large scale is the HPower plant in Hawaii. And I think it's only cost effective there because landfill space is scarce and they use the waste heat to generate electricity (which would otherwise be generated from fuel brought in by ship).
I'm not sure why Japan finds it better to burn much of their trash, but it may be lack of available landfill space.
On a related note, I'm wondering whether it would actually be more efficient for there to be restaurants geared for volume (think Walmart versions of restaurants). Instead of having individuals travelling to hypermarkets, buying groceries and each doing the storage (and storage management), cooking, cleaning, and garbage sorting and disposal; why not have it done by specialists and get some efficiencies of scale from it?
I think they already have those large scale restaurants you speak of - they are called "food processors" and you can find their goods in the frozen food section of your supermarket.
I can already stop at literally dozens of restaurants on my way home from work (by transit, foot or bike depending on my mood and the weather) and pick up pre-cooked takeout food for home, but I don't do that (regularly) because I *like* home cooked food, and I have even less waste when I cook at home than when I bring pre-prepared food home. I wouldn't want to bring home several days of freshly cooked food - I don't like eating leftovers that much, and that's pretty much what this pre-prepared food would be after a day or two in the refrigerator. Plus
So recycling is mandatory, but people in the US go without healthcare? No offense intended guys and gals in the US, but the priorities of your lawmakers seem a little skewed.
So driving without a seatbelt is illegal, but people in the US go without healthcare?
So peeing in the street is illegal, but people in the US go without healthcare?
So gambling is legal (or illegal depending on where you live), but people in the US go without healthcare?
So smoking is legal (or illegal depending on where you are), but people in the US go without healthcare?
Hey, wait a second, it turns out there are *lots* of rules and laws unrelated to healthcare that people have to follow even people in the US go without healthcare! Let's roll back all laws until everyone in the US has healthcare! Since, as we all know, healthcare is the *only* thing that matters.
Unless Im mistaken, if nothing changes having healthcare is/will be mandatory as well. However I see no reason why those of us who are moderately healthy should be forced to carry health insurance if we don't want to. If every driver in the US is supposed to have instance why do all insurance companies make paying customers pay for "uninsured motorist" coverage?
Because some of those moderately healthy people will still suffer from disease or injury that will incur large healthcare costs. The whole point of insurance is that it spreads those costs around. While you may be lucky enough to not find that you have a congenital heart defect that costs $100,000 in surgery to correct, your premium helps pay for that one guy out of 100,000 that does. And it means that the public doesn't have to pay your healthcare costs if you do suffer from an illness that carries catastrophic healthcare costs.
The planet is not going to shrivel up and die if people don't compost. We're just talking about reducing the amount of land dedicated to landfills, or the cost of building more incinerators, both of which are substantially about money.
And reducing groundwater contamination from leaking landfills, and reducing methane gas production that escapes even from landfills that attempt to recover methane.
When I'm done with it...it is trash and I pay to have it hauled away. Once they have it...feel free to do with it as you please, but I don't have room around my place for sorting the shit out nor for creating and maintaining a compost heap for organic stuff.
That's the problem -- trash is not always "trash" - there are different types of trash, and not all of it should be sitting in a landfill for the next 1000 years because there are better ways to dispose of it.
No one is asking you to maintain a compost heap, just dump your compostables into a different bin. I live in a small urban apartment in the USA and have no problem finding a place to store my compostables, recyclables and landfill materials. I've been part of a municipal compost program for years, and it's just not that hard.
My girlfriend and I lived in a *tiny* apartment in Tokyo for 2 years and had no problem storing our burnable trash and two kinds of recyclable trash.
car battery cables are thick because they carry 500+ amps when you're starting your car. None of the other 12V cables in your car are nearly that thick; they're 18-20 gauge wires. Even the wires going to the headlights are pretty reasonable.
A 360 watt server needs 30 amps @ 12V. Put 30 of them in a rack and you need 900 amps @ 12VDC.
Divide by 10 for 120 Volts (AC or DC, doesn't matter): 3 amps for one server, 90 amps for 30 servers.
Divide by 2 for 240 Volts: 1.5 amps for one server, 45 amps for 30 servers.
No wai. I'm sure the peoples of California (myself included) would not want a boat of foreigners off their coast... for what, permanently? That would not fly with environmentalists, and we have lots of them.
Before you speak for everyone in California, stand in any Silicon Valley restaurant at lunch hour, look around and tell me how the "foreigners" off the coast differ from the people that surround you already?
in general, as long as your argument is based on an assumption of profitability, you're an idiot.
The whole scheme is based on an assumption of profitability. The foreign entrepreneurs would only participate if physical proximity to the USA would profit them. The VC firms and other companies they are here for would only work with them if they felt that they would earn a profit from these foreign entrepreneurs. The operator of this ship would only operate it if he could earn a profit.
So what part of my argument makes me an idiot? Without an assumption of profitability among all concerned, this ship will never float.
As someone currently working for a high-tech start-up in Vancouver, BC, I can assure you that, as nice as it is here in the Summer, it's no Silicon Valley -- and when you have to make a trip there it's like $800 in plane tickets and a whole day of travel.
But then, Valley is not exactly on the shore, so it's not just 12 miles boat ride, add another hour or so to get across the hills -- still beats air travel!
Paul B.
$800 every week or two is cheaper than whatever it would cost to live full-time in a cruise ship. A direct flight from YVR to SFO is only around 2.5 hours.
the people of california have the say over who they'll do business with. if it's destructive to do business with anyone doing business with anyone on the ship, then there won't be a ship.
freedom of speech dictates that everyone has a say.
In general, money trumps all -- as long as it's profitable to work with the ship, people will do it. In general it's destructive to do business with drug cartels, yet they earn billions of dollars of income from users in the USA so apparently some organizations are willing to do business with them despite the legal, moral and practical issues with doing business with a powerful, ruthless, and illegal drug cartel.
Try to stage a violent takeover of the Google headquarters and taxpayer funded police will take care of it in short order. Standing behind all that is the taxpayer funded military.
I wasn't picturing a takeover - more of a suicide bomb type terrorist attack -- seeking destruction and notoriety, not a takeover. But I think Google and Apple are safe - there are many more targets that would garner even more publicity and notoriety than a tech company.
Apple has already demonstrated that the police are there to serve them.
Because it is in international waters, which means the US is not obligated to take care of them. Since they are hacking US immigration law, I can see the Coast Guard taking a dim view on rescuing such people.
They aren't hacking US immigration law, they are working within the law. The USA wouldn't care one way or another if 100 rich entrepreneurs want to take up residence in a cruise ship 15 miles off the coast as long as they follow their visa restrictions.
The USCG is going to rescue them no matter what. Do you really think that the USA will turn a blind eye while pirates attack a ship off our shores? The bad publicity alone would make that politically impossible. Can you imagine news helicopters circling around the sinking ship, filming passengers crying out for help, while a coast guard cutter floats nearby, only there to mop up any oil leaks and pick up debris before it hits the US coast?
It sounds like this would be an irresistible target for someone with a boat or a plane packed with explosives. Sadly, that's the type of world we live in. You would need anti-aircraft turrets and security boat patrols. Actually, that sounds kind of cool.
Why would this be a more attractive target than say, Apple or Google headquarters? A truck (or even motorcycle) filled with explosives driving into the corporate cafeteria at lunchtime would do much more economic damage and garner much more news coverage than taking out some unknown up-and-coming startup executives on a ship. It would take more than a cessna filled with explosives to take out a sturdy oceangoing vessel. Likewise, a small boat filled with explosives will only take out a watertight compartment or two on the large ship, presumably on the less desirable lower decks where you won't find the high valued targets doing deals up on the lido deck.
If the terrorists could procure a torpedo, then they might have a chance at sinking the vessel.
Some of the larger LaserJets supported two JetDirect cards. If you could make a JetDirect card run an OS, I can see a scenario like:
1) Go to company X as printer tech on fake service call
2) Install hacked JetDirect card as secondary device, connect to network
3) ????
4) Profit!
If you can hack a Jetdirect card and gain physical access to the printer, why install a second one? Just upload your hacked firmware to the primary Jetdirect card and you're done. Just have it transparently pass print jobs to the printer while it does whatever nefarious activity you've programmed it to do. No need to hope that your target printer has a second Jetdirect slot, and no need to find a second network port to plug your hacked card into.
So will this make companies have second thoughts about setting up a Facebook page? Why would Coke spend hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining and promoting their Facebook presence if FB can "accidentally" give the page to "Joe's House of Coke" and then refuse to give it back to the Coca Cola company when the mistake is discovered, even after FB admits it was an administrative error on their part?
I cannot take them seriously anymore. Anyone to use them for business would be insane.
Because all companies should support all products forever, even if no one uses them? What company does that?
I mean, look at Itanium, at this point the only way to keep Itanium alive would be to *pay* Intel to keep making them. Oh wait....
you have to rent your home phone?
And the major cell carriers have continued that business model by getting most people to rent their cell phones. It's not like my cell phone bill is reduced after my 2 year contract term is up and my phone subsidy is supposedly paid off.
Except on T-Mobile where on their value plans, you actually do save money when the phone is paid off.
So if performance/watt is your first priority, we think the current Xeons are your best option.
Who, other than NASA (et al) has performance/watt a high priority, much less their first priority? And for NASA, the priority for performance/watt's only for space bound vehicles. I doubt they're sending supercomputers into space.
Bogus.
Anyone who pays for their own power?
Power is a significant portion of the operating cost of a server - a server that's 25% more energy efficient with the same performance is a sizable savings. You don't just pay for watts to the server, every watt that goes into the server has to be taken away by cooling, and has to be supplied by an expensive redundant power infrastructure.
How about authors refuse to publish their books until they have raised enough money? A well known author could publish a suspenseful preview or a first chapter, and then request $5 from each reader until some amount is raised, at which point the book will be published. There is no need for a publishing industry to even exist under such a system, the authors could just use the Internet and encourage, rather than attack, the copying of their books.
It's already been tried... and failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plant
I think a better model is charging a reasonable price for ebooks and giving authors a bigger cut to reflect the nearly non-existent printing and distribution costs:
http://www.smashwords.com/
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
I'm sorry did you get lost on the way to foxnews.com?
This is the news for nerds site that puts the latest Linux kernel milestone up on the front page.
See these tags on the left side of the screen - cloud, hardware, linux, management, mobile, science, security, storage? Well, I'll tell you, it's not about weather, wood shop, business, exercise, personal defense, or closets.
So you're telling me that the place that puts the latest linux kernel milestone on the front page and where Linux is one of the sidebar links is the place to find people that keep Windows servers around in colocs? Hey, maybe you can tell me why I can never get my Linux questions answered over at msdn.com?
This is (used to be) the place you go to FIND people who have servers in a colo somewhere, who might call you a pussy for finding difficulty in worse things than first party Windows software!
Of course, you know as well as I do that those days are long gone.
You didn't even read any of those linked pages did you? You just copied results from a microsoft+privacy query that sounded bad.
I mean Microsoft Passport? Well hi there 2001! We got ALL of this reeeeeeeeeel sceeeeery stuff from everyone ELSE.
Wow, you figured out that I just got those links from a quick google search even after I tried to hide it by saying "And that's just what I found in a quick google search." Admittedly the first one was old, but still shows a privacy breach, the other two were from 2010. So what is your point? Are you saying "Well sure, MS wasn't so concerned about privacy back in 2001. And maybe not 9 years later in 2010, but , they care about it now!"
OK no experience but how hard can it be to run your own Windows server? About as hard as running your own Linux server maybe?
But running a server well is not something that most non-techies can do. (and is even something that a lot of techies can't do well - I've cleaned up more than one mess left by a developer doing double duty as a sysadmin).
Considering the submitter wants to share contacts with his own computer directly I may assume he has some kind of server for that already, or at least has the competence to set it up.
I'm not sure why you'd assume that, I think lots of people want to see their contacts on their phone *and* their computer, but don't want to run a server to do it.
Whether that's OpenLDAP or Exchange or whatever is not the point here. Or maybe he's just looking to sync with his company's directory server - and in that case there will be a very good reason not to copy all those contacts into the cloud too.
Maybe so, but the post I was originally replying to suggested using "your own Exchnage server" to sync contacts and calendar to.
If you don't want to share your contacts in the cloud, Android indeed doesn't provide an easy way to sync them.
Or you could, you know, use Exchange which you already suggested if you don't trust Google. I sync my contacts with Exchange, but they don't end up in my Google account.
Now why Google doesn't provide support for a very standard directory service like LDAP is beyond me. I expected something like that to just work. It was a great disappointment and surprise when I found that out.
Maybe because you're one of 5 people that run their own personal LDAP directory server and want to sync it with their phone. There are a lot of industry standards that Google doesn't support because not enough people want them. That's what Apps are for - if you find something missing on your phone, write an app for it (or pay someone else to)
There are some apps available that allow you to sync to an LDAP server, I haven't tried them out yet. They look very much like a rough hack to me.
So there may be an app that does exactly what you want but you're not interested in even trying it?
And I'm serious. While not as versatile towards own-hosted solutions as the old Windows Mobiles, it's still light years beyond Android and iOS. You can easily use your own Exchange server to sync and share your contacts, calendar and other stuff, which gives you true privacy.
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
The reason for this is simple too. Microsoft may be many things, but they have always respected privacy.
Really? Always?
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/08/08/0923231.shtml
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/users-outraged-over-windows-live-privacy-violations
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/microsft-investigates-hotmail-privacy-breach.ars
And that's just what I found in a quick google search.