... to be developed for them in 3 months. I estimated 10 months. So they decided to look around for another developer. A couple years later they came back and asked if I could do it in 6 months. I told them it would take 12 months, now.
If people that don't wear ties and don't take Thursdays off to play golf did this, they would be put in jail for 10 years. These guys got to stay out of jail.
... because they allowed the market to shift away from Windows. If this had not been allowed to happen, Microsoft could see sales of over 25,000,000,006 copies of Windows by 2018 (and that's not counting the 14,751,292,051 copies pirated in China).
Mrs Kemp said she could not afford legal representation, and feared the law suit might ruin her financially.
More than half the population in the United States cannot afford an attorney to go as far as representing them in a civil suit. I suspect it's even worse in Britain. The court systems are thus fundamentally unfair just because of that aspect alone. I don't know what the best fix is, but a number of ideas have been suggested. One of them is to treat all suits between corporations and people under procedural rules that simplify the process and allows the judge to block sneaky things that corporations usually do. Another is to prohibit use of an attorney by the corporation if the person is not represented.
... there was some flame visible on the left edge of the image. I would not call this a reflection since the main fire (as seen in that video) had not exploded, yet. Some kind of trigger?
Lots of people are shifting from PCs to tablets and even phones for their web surfing. Some are moving everything there. So PCs are declining. New PC sales have been declining since most people can't tell that they are faster for most things, anymore (who cares if a spreadsheet loads in 1/5 second vs 1/10 second... doubling the speed mattered back when it took half a minute). So of course Windows sales are down (a few users jumping ship over to Linux isn't even a dent, so don't bother with that).
This doesn't mean PCs are dead. They are just right-sizing. Windows will be there.
But these choices MUST also have an Energy Star rating if the genuine specifications are met. That is essential for people to know they are saving money and being green with their choices. CSPC needs to UNbog it if it is bogged down. Not doing so is a disservice to the public. They need to start NOW (well, Monday, April 15, 2013) for the very reason that these tests do take a long time. Later is not good enough. If they delay when the tests start, that's delaying when the results will be available. And that is the wrong thing to be doing.
I'm not sure what you describes matches what I ask for, yet. Let's see. What happens if you leave out the virtual router with a public IP. Now you should have a LAN (VPC in AWS terms) but NO WAY OUT (a good thing if you want security). Each instance can still talk to each other. None cal talk to the internet. NOW add that "floating IP address" to some of the instances. THOSE can now talk to the internet, whether it is by NAT or direct. If the "get to the internet" address is NAT, then there should be a gateway which is NOT one of your instances.
I'd rather have a NO-NAT access to the internet. That means my interface would have the actual internet address bound on its interface, or in the system (in addition to the LAN addresses). But the current model of using routers doesn't make that easy (I have a different model design that would do this, but it would mean replacing the firmware on routers and I don't know how OpenStack would handle it).
Companies going their own way can be a problem. But less flexible standards, open or not, can be just as bad. The best standards define ways to do things with greater flexibility to innovate.
No one wants to force people to use a 60 degree light for an application needing a 170-degree light. What I do want is for CPSC to just stop being stupid and allow the Energy-Star rating for ALL angles of lighting that are market viable... as long as the worthy technical issues are met. It would be acceptable to require the bulb assembly to actually perform correctly at the stated and marketed illumination angles. If it is marketed as a 100 degree pattern, then it should be pretty damned close to that.
This rating is for Type A bulbs. That's a bulb SHAPE (and implies an Edison socket). A wide range of fixtures are made for THIS type of bulb. Incandescent bulbs do exist with integrated reflectors to confine the normally very wide pattern to narrower beams that do improve the efficiency. LEDs should not be disallowed an Energy-Star rating because they try to meet the same markets (downlights being the biggest part, I believe).
The reflectors for incandescent lights are not 100%. They are pretty good. But there do exist lights in the Type A form factor that have reflectors built in. They do have some light coming out even wider than 180 degrees, but most of the light is within 60 degrees. These are not PARs. They have exactly the same glass shape and size as a Type A, but with a narrower beam (mostly).
Since LED "pieces" already favor the narrow beam, it would be natural and efficient to make LEDs in various bulb form factors with exactly that narrow beam, efficiently. Making the beam wider reduces the efficiency if the wider angles are not needed (except when installed in a quality reflector base).
Downlights are an excellent example. I have 2 of them. They fix a standard A-bulb, but have a lousy reflector (all the wrong angles). They waste light, and would do so with 170-degree LEDs, too. 60-degree LEDs would be about right.
The whole stupidity is that they are trying to compare what could be a good design, to what is typically a bad design, and give it a rating if it achieves the bad design. Sure, LEDs and CFLs will be more efficient at producing the same light pattern as an incandescent. But this is only encouraging inefficient methods of usage to continue, rather than allow the naturally more efficient usage of LEDs to be done where they work (probably near half the cases).
The light pattern should be a consumer choice. Consumers may use them stupidly for a long time. But consumers should have the option to use the correct pattern with an Energy-Start rating.
It's not about form factor. It's about lighting pattern. If you think that a form factor can only have one lighting pattern, then you are part of the problem.
... probably going to be rather hard to implement right now. But maybe it can happen in a decade or so when they figure out the "hardware" for this. I want seamless elasticity. That is, the phone should be able to stretch and shrink (not fold or slide parts) in either or both directions, and hold the size (e.g. NOT snap back like a rubber band). And of course it should notify apps what size the phone is now.
OTOH, it could mean success in another idea. The problem is you will never know unless you try everything, and resources usually limit that. You have to decide.
You may be able to do proof of concept with a couple cheap servers. But if it succeeds, time will be extremely short to go to full scale. So you need to think scale up front, but in a way that works downscaled as well. Do everything agile so every component can work all on one server, or separated on many. Use a distinct hostname for everything and let DNS figure where you put it. Use a distinct IP address for every service component, even if on the same machine, so you can separate them tomorrow without having to renumber. Use highly scalable front ends even if the fronts and backs share the same machine for now. Yes, a single interface can have many IP addresses on BSD or Linux.
Consider a no-SQL option for you data, if it can fit that.
But cable technology can only go so far with that. As they replaced analog TV channels with 10 digital TV channels in the same bandwidth, the available bandwidth on the wire can be shifted over to internet services. However, that bandwidth is finite, and TV has pretty much been squeezed about as tight as it can get. More internet at some point means less TV. At the extreme, eliminate all TV and that leaves a hard limit on cable, which is not as much as fiber because you can actually run an entire coaxial system over a single wavelength on fiber, which can handle several wavelengths at the same time.
Of course it is good that Comcast is increasing the bandwidth. They did here where I live, in a rural area (town of 1000 6 miles away, and a town of 20,000 12 miles away), too. And this happened right after all our TV went digital, too.
Probably because their home town just assumed they would and didn't let Google have everything Google wanted. Google took their ball to play elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
... to be developed for them in 3 months. I estimated 10 months. So they decided to look around for another developer. A couple years later they came back and asked if I could do it in 6 months. I told them it would take 12 months, now.
... since even Verizon is involved in the scam operations of TTI National (they own this company that does false billing of fake accounts).
If people that don't wear ties and don't take Thursdays off to play golf did this, they would be put in jail for 10 years. These guys got to stay out of jail.
It happens as the result of some genes that get misplaced when their parents were cranking out babies.
... because they allowed the market to shift away from Windows. If this had not been allowed to happen, Microsoft could see sales of over 25,000,000,006 copies of Windows by 2018 (and that's not counting the 14,751,292,051 copies pirated in China).
... is that this is supporting a group of people that are unable to distinguish between real crimes and abuses by governments.
Mrs Kemp said she could not afford legal representation, and feared the law suit might ruin her financially.
More than half the population in the United States cannot afford an attorney to go as far as representing them in a civil suit. I suspect it's even worse in Britain. The court systems are thus fundamentally unfair just because of that aspect alone. I don't know what the best fix is, but a number of ideas have been suggested. One of them is to treat all suits between corporations and people under procedural rules that simplify the process and allows the judge to block sneaky things that corporations usually do. Another is to prohibit use of an attorney by the corporation if the person is not represented.
... there was some flame visible on the left edge of the image. I would not call this a reflection since the main fire (as seen in that video) had not exploded, yet. Some kind of trigger?
... last decade's processes. It's just a different environment to make ever more use of computers.
We already know Republicans are totally out of touch. Nothing new here. Move along.
Republicans are totally out of touch with people. Rogers is a Republican. So he has an excuse for being totally out of touch with people.
What should be added is to allow H-1B holders to be free agents in the market.
Lots of people are shifting from PCs to tablets and even phones for their web surfing. Some are moving everything there. So PCs are declining. New PC sales have been declining since most people can't tell that they are faster for most things, anymore (who cares if a spreadsheet loads in 1/5 second vs 1/10 second ... doubling the speed mattered back when it took half a minute). So of course Windows sales are down (a few users jumping ship over to Linux isn't even a dent, so don't bother with that).
This doesn't mean PCs are dead. They are just right-sizing. Windows will be there.
It's not common sense he needs. It's a big cluebat across the side of his head that he needs.
But these choices MUST also have an Energy Star rating if the genuine specifications are met. That is essential for people to know they are saving money and being green with their choices. CSPC needs to UNbog it if it is bogged down. Not doing so is a disservice to the public. They need to start NOW (well, Monday, April 15, 2013) for the very reason that these tests do take a long time. Later is not good enough. If they delay when the tests start, that's delaying when the results will be available. And that is the wrong thing to be doing.
I'm not sure what you describes matches what I ask for, yet. Let's see. What happens if you leave out the virtual router with a public IP. Now you should have a LAN (VPC in AWS terms) but NO WAY OUT (a good thing if you want security). Each instance can still talk to each other. None cal talk to the internet. NOW add that "floating IP address" to some of the instances. THOSE can now talk to the internet, whether it is by NAT or direct. If the "get to the internet" address is NAT, then there should be a gateway which is NOT one of your instances.
I'd rather have a NO-NAT access to the internet. That means my interface would have the actual internet address bound on its interface, or in the system (in addition to the LAN addresses). But the current model of using routers doesn't make that easy (I have a different model design that would do this, but it would mean replacing the firmware on routers and I don't know how OpenStack would handle it).
Companies going their own way can be a problem. But less flexible standards, open or not, can be just as bad. The best standards define ways to do things with greater flexibility to innovate.
No one wants to force people to use a 60 degree light for an application needing a 170-degree light. What I do want is for CPSC to just stop being stupid and allow the Energy-Star rating for ALL angles of lighting that are market viable ... as long as the worthy technical issues are met. It would be acceptable to require the bulb assembly to actually perform correctly at the stated and marketed illumination angles. If it is marketed as a 100 degree pattern, then it should be pretty damned close to that.
This rating is for Type A bulbs. That's a bulb SHAPE (and implies an Edison socket). A wide range of fixtures are made for THIS type of bulb. Incandescent bulbs do exist with integrated reflectors to confine the normally very wide pattern to narrower beams that do improve the efficiency. LEDs should not be disallowed an Energy-Star rating because they try to meet the same markets (downlights being the biggest part, I believe).
The reflectors for incandescent lights are not 100%. They are pretty good. But there do exist lights in the Type A form factor that have reflectors built in. They do have some light coming out even wider than 180 degrees, but most of the light is within 60 degrees. These are not PARs. They have exactly the same glass shape and size as a Type A, but with a narrower beam (mostly).
Since LED "pieces" already favor the narrow beam, it would be natural and efficient to make LEDs in various bulb form factors with exactly that narrow beam, efficiently. Making the beam wider reduces the efficiency if the wider angles are not needed (except when installed in a quality reflector base).
Downlights are an excellent example. I have 2 of them. They fix a standard A-bulb, but have a lousy reflector (all the wrong angles). They waste light, and would do so with 170-degree LEDs, too. 60-degree LEDs would be about right.
The whole stupidity is that they are trying to compare what could be a good design, to what is typically a bad design, and give it a rating if it achieves the bad design. Sure, LEDs and CFLs will be more efficient at producing the same light pattern as an incandescent. But this is only encouraging inefficient methods of usage to continue, rather than allow the naturally more efficient usage of LEDs to be done where they work (probably near half the cases).
The light pattern should be a consumer choice. Consumers may use them stupidly for a long time. But consumers should have the option to use the correct pattern with an Energy-Start rating.
It's not about form factor. It's about lighting pattern. If you think that a form factor can only have one lighting pattern, then you are part of the problem.
They said "quality"??? I think they meant to say "quantity".
... and provide it to all your contacts.
... probably going to be rather hard to implement right now. But maybe it can happen in a decade or so when they figure out the "hardware" for this. I want seamless elasticity. That is, the phone should be able to stretch and shrink (not fold or slide parts) in either or both directions, and hold the size (e.g. NOT snap back like a rubber band). And of course it should notify apps what size the phone is now.
OTOH, it could mean success in another idea. The problem is you will never know unless you try everything, and resources usually limit that. You have to decide.
You may be able to do proof of concept with a couple cheap servers. But if it succeeds, time will be extremely short to go to full scale. So you need to think scale up front, but in a way that works downscaled as well. Do everything agile so every component can work all on one server, or separated on many. Use a distinct hostname for everything and let DNS figure where you put it. Use a distinct IP address for every service component, even if on the same machine, so you can separate them tomorrow without having to renumber. Use highly scalable front ends even if the fronts and backs share the same machine for now. Yes, a single interface can have many IP addresses on BSD or Linux.
Consider a no-SQL option for you data, if it can fit that.
But cable technology can only go so far with that. As they replaced analog TV channels with 10 digital TV channels in the same bandwidth, the available bandwidth on the wire can be shifted over to internet services. However, that bandwidth is finite, and TV has pretty much been squeezed about as tight as it can get. More internet at some point means less TV. At the extreme, eliminate all TV and that leaves a hard limit on cable, which is not as much as fiber because you can actually run an entire coaxial system over a single wavelength on fiber, which can handle several wavelengths at the same time.
Of course it is good that Comcast is increasing the bandwidth. They did here where I live, in a rural area (town of 1000 6 miles away, and a town of 20,000 12 miles away), too. And this happened right after all our TV went digital, too.
Probably because their home town just assumed they would and didn't let Google have everything Google wanted. Google took their ball to play elsewhere.