I disagree. I live in downtown Seattle, and with the fastest connection I can get locally, I still have a 190 ms ping to my ec2 servers at US West (Oregon). I've used remote desktop to a couple of Windows servers there. It is too slow to be usable.
You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies -- from the San Francisco Bay Area, from home, I have 105ms ping times to our East Coast AWS servers, and 58ms ping times to AWS Oregon. At the office, we have a better connection and I see around 85ms to the East Coast, and about 45ms to Oregon. I regularly use RDP to both sites and it works quite well. The 250ms to Sydney is more challenging.
Wow, it's like a slow-responding piece of crap. If my hand feels like it's in sand with a wireless mouse's 300ms delay, just wait until my entire desktop is offsite! It's like upgrading it carrier pigeons. And the one thing I love about remote desktop environments is the complete inability to manage them, stop users from doing stupid stuff, and a complete lack of control over everything.
How can you be a "head IT manager" and not know how to manage your desktops (whether remote or local) with AD policies? Why would a remote virtual desktop give you less control than one sitting on someone's desk?
Amazon WorkSpaces clients are available for both Windows and Mac computers as well as for the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Android tablets. When WorkSpaces are provisioned for users, they will get an email containing details on how they can download the clients. The WorkSpaces PC or Mac client provides users with full access to their desktop and includes support for multiple monitors, audio, and video.
Linux support would make this more interesting so I could retask some old desktops and laptops with a linux thin client to let them access their Amazon virtual desktop. Though $50/month for a virtual desktop that includes MS Office seems a little expensive when a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800 - 16 months worth of Amazon's pricing.
My sister went through 4 different drugs before she found one that made her condition better. One made her (much) worse.
Yet she likely wouldn't be alive today if none of those 4 drugs worked.
And some people die before they try the 4th drug, because the first 3 weren't tested properly. I understand you love your sister, but seriously, one data point is not a good way to understand statistics.
But if doctors weren't allowed to publish results where there's a relatively weak correlation to a positive outcome, how would her doctors have known "Hey, look, this other drug is effective for some people, lets give it a try"? They already tried the 2 drugs that were the most promising, the 3rd (the one that put her in ICU for a week) was a relative longshot, as was the 4th. Yet if the literature hadn't shown that all of those drugs were used with some moderate success, how would they know known to try them?
Since her condition is relatively rare and apparently different people respond differently to the drugs, I don't know that any of the treatments would show a P value of.005. But that doesn't mean a 75% chance of a good outcome (even if there's a 25% of a bad outcome) is worse than no treatment at all, which is almost always fatal within a few years.
If the author's assertion is true and that P value of 0.05 or less means that 17–25% of such findings are probably false, then what is the point of publishing the findings? Or at least come at the writting from a more sober perspective. Of course, any such change would need to come with an academia culture change from the 'publish or perish' mindset.
Because I'd rather use a drug found to be 75-83% effective at treating my disease than die while waiting for someone to come up with one that's 99.9% effective.
Attack: 1: to set upon or work against forcefully 2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words 3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously 4: to set to work on 5: to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
(emphasis mine)
Though I guess maybe they only used friendly and sweet words in the letter.
listens? Why not ask Roger Moore? How about the closet guy, the ex-Mr Nocole Kidman? The dude is an actor. And from the last Sci-Fi, Syfi?, movie of the day, not a very good one.
Because he spent 10 seasons of TNG wearing a more advanced (and less stylish) Google Glass.
'I think it's pretty clear that without the U.S. shale revolution, it never would have been possible to put this kind of embargo on Iran,'
Just because the summary says something doesn't make it true - is the world oil production so tight that using sanctions to cut off 1.7% of the global production would be impossible without US shale oil? Neither the summary nor the linked article explain why only US shale could have made up the difference. The opinion of a single analyst is hardly "proof".
Bookstores could downsize their physical presence, keep most of their inventory in inexpensive rural warehouses...
(emphasis added)
Oh, so only most of the books I want to buy are at the warehouse. I'll just stay at home and buy from amazon if the store is going to negate the only advantage they have by keeping most of the books I want to see and buy in their warehouse
The iPhone might not be any better (I don't know and don't care) but that's fucking pathetic.
As a Galaxy Nexus owner (who just bought a Nexus 5) I agree, an 18 month update window is pretty bad in an industry where 2 year contracts are common. There is a petition to get Google to release Kitkat for the Galaxy Nexus, but behind the scenes, Google is blaming it on TI:
The Wikipedia article is no help for someone that isn't familiar with Java appservers:
GlassFish is the reference implementation of Java EE and as such supports Enterprise JavaBeans, JPA, JavaServer Faces, JMS, RMI, JavaServer Pages, servlets, etc. This allows developers to create enterprise applications that are portable and scalable, and that integrate with legacy technologies. Optional components can also be installed for additional services.
Built on a modular kernel powered by OSGi, GlassFish runs straight on top of the Apache Felix implementation. It also runs with Equinox OSGi or Knopflerfish OSGi runtimes. HK2 abstracts the OSGi module system to provide components, which can also be viewed as services. Such services can be discovered and injected at runtime.
GlassFish is based on source code released by Sun and Oracle Corporation's TopLink persistence system. It uses a derivative of Apache Tomcat as the servlet container for serving Web content, with an added component called Grizzly which uses Java New I/O (NIO) for scalability and speed.
Why would someone choose Glassfish over Tomcat, JBoss, or one of the commercial alternatives? Can someone explain it in plain english without requiring links to a dozen different projects?
... something better than my old HTC 3G EVO that runs latest android for a decent price? I'm switching to Ting and don't mind buying behind the curve, but it's not easy to get something at the same budget I'm used to when I get the phone(s) mostly subsidized from Sprint. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong review sites to find a peppy cheap android.
Last I heard, Ting was waiting to see if Sprint would let them activate the Google Play Nexus 5's, or if they could only activate ones bought from Sprint or from Ting.
Qualcomm's latest Krait 400 quad-core along with the Adreno 330 GPU that comprise the Snapdragon 800, is a powerful beast.
If they had not focused much on the specs, but rather on battery life that can last a day of average use, I'd be happier. I ask my self: -
"Of what use is having the"latest and greatest if by mid-afternoon, I will be holding a brick in hand?
This is what I do to these good phones that are limited in the battery department. I underclock them with acceptable results.
By the way: Can one explain to me how Motorola was able to cram a 3000mAH into a phone smaller than this but Google and its LG partner cannot?
My N5 has been off the charger for 15 hours, I used it off and on today for Pandora streaming and web browsing, texting, and email, and the battery is down to 58%. What are you using the phone for that it won't last a day?
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages
Why do you think so? LI-Ion batteries experience significant mechanical deformation as they are charged/discharged. There is a lot of vibration that is transferred into the battery from the road. Old batteries require longer charging, at higher temperatures. The numbers will not be the same.
There is yet another issue. Batteries are essentially strips of plastic tape that have goo smeared onto them, and then the strips are rolled up to form an element. There is not much accuracy in this process, and not much repeatability. Some batteries may serve longer than expected, and some may fail prematurely. Some failures can cause fires. A gas tank is a precision instrument, compared to a battery. It can be inspected for leaks, but a battery cannot be inspected in a similar way - there are too many sealed elements, and each of them is manufactured by the lowest bidder. We haven't seen yet battery fires in Teslas that are caused by an intact battery. But as more cars are put onto the road, and as they accumulate more miles, this may become an issue.
Sure, it's possible that a completely different failure mode will cause fires, but that can't be extrapolated from fires caused by punctures.
Exactly. With a straight face, they cite statistics comparing a new $100,000 Tesla with an old beater that is held together with duct tape and probably worth a few hundred bucks.
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages, so a 10 year old Tesla shouldn't have any different fire risk than a brand new Tesla, so it doesn't seem unfair to compare across all cars.
The fate of paper books is not quite written in stone yet. eBooks have some significant advantages, but some real downsides too. I suspect long term we will just see a new equilibrium rather then a complete crushing.
Right, the music industry made such a big comeback and now you see music stores on every corner. CD's are still sold, but not many in independent shops.
4K has only 4X more pixels than 1080p. Netflix says that currently, you need a 5mbit connection for Hidef streaming, or 7mbit for super hidef.
Netflix is lying to you. Their hidef isn't blu-ray quality. Its 1080p with compression artifacts. The audio isn't as good either.
I don't think they ever said that it *is* Blu-ray quality, but the point is, it's "good enough". I own dozens of Blurays and while I can see a different because blu-ray and streaming content, it just isn't that important to me.
Its better than then the regular hd which is even more compressed, and even that is better than some of the so called hd channels on cable some of which are badly compressed.
Compared to bluray though its a complete joke.
It's good enough, and there are only a handful of titles I would even care enough to pay extra for bluray, never mind "4k" but at the same time what's the point drooling over a netflix compressed 4k stream if their superHD is still well beneath even mere bluray 1080p.
Because it has 4x more pixels, which I thought was the whole point of 4K? If I'm happy with my 60" TV when I sit 8 feet away, if I had a 4K TV, then either I can sit at half the distance (4 ft), or get a TV that's twice as large (120") and get a more immersive movie experience with the same perceived quality.
Slashdot Mirror
> not that much of a problem anymore.
I disagree. I live in downtown Seattle, and with the fastest connection I can get locally, I still have a 190 ms ping to my ec2 servers at US West (Oregon). I've used remote desktop to a couple of Windows servers there. It is too slow to be usable.
You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies -- from the San Francisco Bay Area, from home, I have 105ms ping times to our East Coast AWS servers, and 58ms ping times to AWS Oregon. At the office, we have a better connection and I see around 85ms to the East Coast, and about 45ms to Oregon. I regularly use RDP to both sites and it works quite well. The 250ms to Sydney is more challenging.
I'm a head IT manager. Here's my take on it:
Wow, it's like a slow-responding piece of crap. If my hand feels like it's in sand with a wireless mouse's 300ms delay, just wait until my entire desktop is offsite! It's like upgrading it carrier pigeons. And the one thing I love about remote desktop environments is the complete inability to manage them, stop users from doing stupid stuff, and a complete lack of control over everything.
How can you be a "head IT manager" and not know how to manage your desktops (whether remote or local) with AD policies? Why would a remote virtual desktop give you less control than one sitting on someone's desk?
| a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800
Curious, for this model, is the price with or without monitor, keyboard, etc...?
http://www.dell.com/
Their devices page says:
Amazon WorkSpaces clients are available for both Windows and Mac computers as well as for the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Android tablets. When WorkSpaces are provisioned for users, they will get an email containing details on how they can download the clients. The WorkSpaces PC or Mac client provides users with full access to their desktop and includes support for multiple monitors, audio, and video.
Linux support would make this more interesting so I could retask some old desktops and laptops with a linux thin client to let them access their Amazon virtual desktop. Though $50/month for a virtual desktop that includes MS Office seems a little expensive when a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800 - 16 months worth of Amazon's pricing.
My sister went through 4 different drugs before she found one that made her condition better. One made her (much) worse.
Yet she likely wouldn't be alive today if none of those 4 drugs worked.
And some people die before they try the 4th drug, because the first 3 weren't tested properly. I understand you love your sister, but seriously, one data point is not a good way to understand statistics.
But if doctors weren't allowed to publish results where there's a relatively weak correlation to a positive outcome, how would her doctors have known "Hey, look, this other drug is effective for some people, lets give it a try"? They already tried the 2 drugs that were the most promising, the 3rd (the one that put her in ICU for a week) was a relative longshot, as was the 4th. Yet if the literature hadn't shown that all of those drugs were used with some moderate success, how would they know known to try them?
Since her condition is relatively rare and apparently different people respond differently to the drugs, I don't know that any of the treatments would show a P value of .005. But that doesn't mean a 75% chance of a good outcome (even if there's a 25% of a bad outcome) is worse than no treatment at all, which is almost always fatal within a few years.
And more importantly, a 17-25% chance that it's completely ineffective, no better than a placebo.
My sister went through 4 different drugs before she found one that made her condition better. One made her (much) worse.
Yet she likely wouldn't be alive today if none of those 4 drugs worked.
If the author's assertion is true and that P value of 0.05 or less means that 17–25% of such findings are probably false, then what is the point of publishing the findings? Or at least come at the writting from a more sober perspective. Of course, any such change would need to come with an academia culture change from the 'publish or perish' mindset.
Because I'd rather use a drug found to be 75-83% effective at treating my disease than die while waiting for someone to come up with one that's 99.9% effective.
Let's start using words of specific meaning as they were meant to be used, shall we?
Sometimes words have more than one meaning.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack
Attack:
1: to set upon or work against forcefully
2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4: to set to work on
5: to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
(emphasis mine)
Though I guess maybe they only used friendly and sweet words in the letter.
listens? Why not ask Roger Moore? How about the closet guy, the ex-Mr Nocole Kidman? The dude is an actor. And from the last Sci-Fi, Syfi?, movie of the day, not a very good one.
Because he spent 10 seasons of TNG wearing a more advanced (and less stylish) Google Glass.
'I think it's pretty clear that without the U.S. shale revolution, it never would have been possible to put this kind of embargo on Iran,'
Just because the summary says something doesn't make it true - is the world oil production so tight that using sanctions to cut off 1.7% of the global production would be impossible without US shale oil? Neither the summary nor the linked article explain why only US shale could have made up the difference. The opinion of a single analyst is hardly "proof".
(emphasis added)
Oh, so only most of the books I want to buy are at the warehouse. I'll just stay at home and buy from amazon if the store is going to negate the only advantage they have by keeping most of the books I want to see and buy in their warehouse
They rape you on call costs for the duration of your contract.
Naaa, that can't be it. Anyone that can do simple arithmetic would quickly see through that scheme!
The iPhone might not be any better (I don't know and don't care) but that's fucking pathetic.
As a Galaxy Nexus owner (who just bought a Nexus 5) I agree, an 18 month update window is pretty bad in an industry where 2 year contracts are common. There is a petition to get Google to release Kitkat for the Galaxy Nexus, but behind the scenes, Google is blaming it on TI:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57610844-94/galaxy-nexus-owners-petition-for-taste-of-kitkat/
I figure it might be this little guy:
http://www.theamazingpics.com/transparent-fish/
Ahh, thanks, it's very clear now!
The Wikipedia article is no help for someone that isn't familiar with Java appservers:
GlassFish is the reference implementation of Java EE and as such supports Enterprise JavaBeans, JPA, JavaServer Faces, JMS, RMI, JavaServer Pages, servlets, etc. This allows developers to create enterprise applications that are portable and scalable, and that integrate with legacy technologies. Optional components can also be installed for additional services.
Built on a modular kernel powered by OSGi, GlassFish runs straight on top of the Apache Felix implementation. It also runs with Equinox OSGi or Knopflerfish OSGi runtimes. HK2 abstracts the OSGi module system to provide components, which can also be viewed as services. Such services can be discovered and injected at runtime.
GlassFish is based on source code released by Sun and Oracle Corporation's TopLink persistence system. It uses a derivative of Apache Tomcat as the servlet container for serving Web content, with an added component called Grizzly which uses Java New I/O (NIO) for scalability and speed.
Why would someone choose Glassfish over Tomcat, JBoss, or one of the commercial alternatives? Can someone explain it in plain english without requiring links to a dozen different projects?
How popular is it?
Because it has 4x more pixels, which I thought was the whole point of 4K?
But if they aren't streaming uncompressed 1080p adding more pixels for them to extrapolate into isn't going to make a difference.
netflix hd is like playing a game designed for 1024x768 on 1920x1080 screen. Buying a screen that's 4k isn't going to make it look any better.
Where are you getting uncompressed 1080p content? An uncompressed 1080p 60Hz stream would be about 3Gbit/sec
You do know that even Bluray video is compressed, right?
Why would a 4K stream compressed to 20mbit/second not be better quality than a 1080p stream compressed to 5mbit/second?
... something better than my old HTC 3G EVO that runs latest android for a decent price? I'm switching to Ting and don't mind buying behind the curve, but it's not easy to get something at the same budget I'm used to when I get the phone(s) mostly subsidized from Sprint. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong review sites to find a peppy cheap android.
Last I heard, Ting was waiting to see if Sprint would let them activate the Google Play Nexus 5's, or if they could only activate ones bought from Sprint or from Ting.
So can get a supported version of Kit Kat on all past versions of my Nexus Phones?
Google said there's an 18 month update window, and anything Nexus than the Nexus 4 (like the Galaxy Nexus) won't get Kitkat:
https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3468085
Is Google releasing Android 4.4 as a system update for Galaxy Nexus?
No, Galaxy Nexus phones won’t be receiving the update for Android 4.4 (KitKat).
Why isn’t Galaxy Nexus receiving the update to Android 4.4?
Galaxy Nexus, which first launched two years ago, falls outside of the 18-month update window when Google and others traditionally update devices.
Qualcomm's latest Krait 400 quad-core along with the Adreno 330 GPU that comprise the Snapdragon 800, is a powerful beast.
If they had not focused much on the specs, but rather on battery life that can last a day of average use, I'd be happier. I ask my self: -
"Of what use is having the"latest and greatest if by mid-afternoon, I will be holding a brick in hand?
This is what I do to these good phones that are limited in the battery department. I underclock them with acceptable results.
By the way: Can one explain to me how Motorola was able to cram a 3000mAH into a phone smaller than this but Google and its LG partner cannot?
My N5 has been off the charger for 15 hours, I used it off and on today for Pandora streaming and web browsing, texting, and email, and the battery is down to 58%. What are you using the phone for that it won't last a day?
Most people in the US buy an iPhone on contract at the $99 or $199 subsidized price.
I wonder how the carriers can sell the phone for $500 off list price, there must be some catch somewhere. I wonder what it could be.
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages
Why do you think so? LI-Ion batteries experience significant mechanical deformation as they are charged/discharged. There is a lot of vibration that is transferred into the battery from the road. Old batteries require longer charging, at higher temperatures. The numbers will not be the same.
There is yet another issue. Batteries are essentially strips of plastic tape that have goo smeared onto them, and then the strips are rolled up to form an element. There is not much accuracy in this process, and not much repeatability. Some batteries may serve longer than expected, and some may fail prematurely. Some failures can cause fires. A gas tank is a precision instrument, compared to a battery. It can be inspected for leaks, but a battery cannot be inspected in a similar way - there are too many sealed elements, and each of them is manufactured by the lowest bidder. We haven't seen yet battery fires in Teslas that are caused by an intact battery. But as more cars are put onto the road, and as they accumulate more miles, this may become an issue.
Sure, it's possible that a completely different failure mode will cause fires, but that can't be extrapolated from fires caused by punctures.
Exactly. With a straight face, they cite statistics comparing a new $100,000 Tesla with an old beater that is held together with duct tape and probably worth a few hundred bucks.
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages, so a 10 year old Tesla shouldn't have any different fire risk than a brand new Tesla, so it doesn't seem unfair to compare across all cars.
How many ordinary cars would catch fire if they contained no gasoline? That would be the better comparison.
Isn't that like asking how many Teslas would catch fire if they had no battery?
The fate of paper books is not quite written in stone yet. eBooks have some significant advantages, but some real downsides too. I suspect long term we will just see a new equilibrium rather then a complete crushing.
Right, the music industry made such a big comeback and now you see music stores on every corner. CD's are still sold, but not many in independent shops.
4K has only 4X more pixels than 1080p. Netflix says that currently, you need a 5mbit connection for Hidef streaming, or 7mbit for super hidef.
Netflix is lying to you. Their hidef isn't blu-ray quality. Its 1080p with compression artifacts. The audio isn't as good either.
I don't think they ever said that it *is* Blu-ray quality, but the point is, it's "good enough". I own dozens of Blurays and while I can see a different because blu-ray and streaming content, it just isn't that important to me.
Its better than then the regular hd which is even more compressed, and even that is better than some of the so called hd channels on cable some of which are badly compressed.
Compared to bluray though its a complete joke.
It's good enough, and there are only a handful of titles I would even care enough to pay extra for bluray, never mind "4k" but at the same time what's the point drooling over a netflix compressed 4k stream if their superHD is still well beneath even mere bluray 1080p.
Because it has 4x more pixels, which I thought was the whole point of 4K? If I'm happy with my 60" TV when I sit 8 feet away, if I had a 4K TV, then either I can sit at half the distance (4 ft), or get a TV that's twice as large (120") and get a more immersive movie experience with the same perceived quality.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html