Overclocking stopped having a real impact once clock speeds took a back seat to cores. I guess it's still fun for certain people to see how much they can squeeze out, but real-world performance just doesn't seem to justify the trouble.
Pricing really needs to come down on these things. A single drive can easily cost as much as a server, and when you're talking about RAID setups, forget it. It's still much more effective to use magnetic drives and use aggressive memory caching for performance, if you really need that.
Another 3 to 5 years this idea might have more traction for companies that aren't Facebook or Google, but right now, SSD costs too much.
I'm pretty sure there is no hardware-level mechanism in place for restricting used/traded games on the xbox one. It's just firmware. Sony could very easily update the firmware in a year or so, adding in the checks and restrictions, and provide publishers with the right API for implementing it into their games. Or it could just be a blanket PS Network check, where your console firmware is updated and only lets you play games if it's checked in recently, etc.
Regardless, they wouldn't have to physically change the hardware, or release new versions or anything. Just send out an update, most of which are required for various new games and movies anyway, and suddenly the console is restricted.
4GB is probably fine for anything you'll be doing on the air. I'm more disappointed that they didn't give it a retina screen upgrade. That's one lost sale for Apple I guess.
HBO could easily solve this problem by offering their shows for sale/rent online the same day or the day after it's aired on cable. They have no one to blame but themselves when they only provide a single means to watch their programs, and people resort to pirating or sharing credentials. I know I'd be more than happy to pay 2 or 3 bucks for a one-time pass per episode.
The world is moving forward, and it's up to the entrenched media industries to move with it if they want a piece of the action.
Just like in almost every job market, not having a high school diploma doesn't mean a whole lot when you have other specialized or connected degrees and experiences. In his case, even being trained for special forces would have been enough to open doors for him, especially doors that are interested in security clearance.
Who you know, is a hell of a lot more important than what you know. I see it all the time in all kinds of fields.
I'm more interested in the other 37 slides that he gave to reporters, but didn't get published. It seems they spoke with the Whitehouse before writing the report, and agreed to only publish 4 of the slides. What's on the other 37 that's so damning? And what happened to open journalism? With this state-controlled/influenced news situation we now have, how would you release information like this without it just getting censored anyway?
I was honestly intrigued, but quickly disappointed. It seems to be running on a 3d engine, with the textures "drawn by hand." Interesting style, but claiming the game is drawn by hand isn't really selling the truth. At least add some hand-drawn animations or something. Right now it looks like a cross between Wolfenstein 3d and a random flash game, with textures that are "drawn by hand."
"The short of it is: NEVER trust a consultant trying to predict the future for you. Particularly if they're extrapolating on "new" tech."
I think it's a good idea to never trust ANYONE trying to predict the future for you. It doesn't matter if they're paid consultants or in-house IT monkeys or Miss Cleo herself.
I think we'll actually move close to the past here in another 5 years. I see a lot of this love affair with cloud services dropping off after it finally sinks in just how expensive it can be for the companies. Everything is a cycle, and IT is no different. Our technologies change (or sometimes just the names), but the need is always there. Until SkyNet anyway.
I can't speak for all of the consulting firms out there, but most don't just send new people in to make major changes. I worked with a few and they all start people out slowly, and with less critical client setups, like small offices and stuff. From speaking with others in the industry, it seems normal for the newer techs to basically do spend the first month updating the documentation, and doing basic server and network maintenance. They don't change anything, or setup new stuff, until the rest of the crew thinks their ready. Often, if they just seem to be catching on too slowly, or lack in people skills, they have to be let go. Basically, if they send in someone new to handle a corporate network, then the consulting firm isn't doing it right. The vetting process for new employees is too important for exactly the reason you mention, which is why they don't just let them loose on day one. Start them slow, get them familiar with the networks first (through updating documentation), and go from there.
I know it would vary greatly on the actual consulting firm, as well as the clients they specialize in. Some are very much just targeting small and medium sized local businesses that maybe have an SBServer in place with 5 or 6 workstations. Others may be random construction or real estate companies. Certainly, if the consulting firm goes for government contracts or has a lot of high-value clients who, for whatever reason, don't want to pay for in-house IT, then the employees they hire would be better experience (and paid).
That's exactly my point. Those companies aren't looking to hire industry vets who demand 70k plus benefits. They want people just starting out who have the basic skills and education, but need experience. $20 to $25 an hour isn't bad for someone just out of college, looking for exposure to the widest range of networks and systems possible. Spend 2 or 3 years at a place like that (you'll probably get regular raises as well), and you'll most likely have everything you need to land interviews at an "enterprise" environment."
He's better off just getting a Technet subscription, which is exactly what it's for. They are great values anyway, if you work with Microsoft products at all.
It doesn't matter if Exchange is crap or not. Your personal opinion is pointless if the companies he's applying for use it. Having said that, I personally don't see many issues with the Exchange servers I've maintained over the years, if they're setup properly.
Anyway, back on topic. Going into an interview for a position that requires experience with certain software, only to tell them that not only do you not have that experience, but that they shouldn't even be using the software in the first place, isn't likely to make for a good first impression.
There is a lot of overhead to running a business like that. Stuff like office space, equipment, contracts, and other normal business expenses aren't cheap. Plus, a lot of those places offer financial incentives for furthering your training. like paying for cert tests and stuff. They aren't that great for long-term employment, but they are a great option to pick up 2 or 3 years of experience to pick up experience working with a wide range of setups.
You'll be knowledgeable in everything from SQL Server and Exchange, to Kerio, Lexis Nexus, Practice Advantage, and hundreds of other unique systems and programs. You'll also gain experience working with a wide variety of people and clients, which hiring managers really love to see (it indirectly shows during the interview).
IBM survived, but I wouldn't say they really survived as the same company they were in the 70's and 80's. If Microsoft were to "fail" for some reason, of course it would still be around and making large profits. Like IBM, they'd just cut off the dead flesh and focus on what's working for them. They'd be "smaller" in the public eye, even if their workforce, revenue, and contributions could likely stay the same.
Or, they ran focus groups and realized that the profits gained through their changing of the used-game market outweigh the profits lost from the minority of people are both pissed off at the change, and follow through with threats to not buy the next system. Most just get pissed off and continue to buy more stuff. And if you think Sony is going to be some kind of savior here, you are wrong again.
Both companies will play off their DRM/always-on features as being purely optional for the developers. You know, tools for creating better game experiences, but still up to the developers to use or not use. Microsoft and Sony will provide the infrastructure for the technology baked into the consoles, but they'll still be able to shift the backlash over to the big studios that implement it. The studios are fine with this because it gives them more accessible methods for DRM, gives them a piece of the used market pie that they've always wanted (even if they pass some of that on to MS and Sony), and couldn't care less about consumer backlash because they already have it. Their used to it.
No company is going to design a market a product with the intention of failing it, so try and drop the hyperbole a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Overclocking stopped having a real impact once clock speeds took a back seat to cores. I guess it's still fun for certain people to see how much they can squeeze out, but real-world performance just doesn't seem to justify the trouble.
Pricing really needs to come down on these things. A single drive can easily cost as much as a server, and when you're talking about RAID setups, forget it. It's still much more effective to use magnetic drives and use aggressive memory caching for performance, if you really need that.
Another 3 to 5 years this idea might have more traction for companies that aren't Facebook or Google, but right now, SSD costs too much.
Without knowing what the other 37 slides show, it's hard to say.
I'm pretty sure there is no hardware-level mechanism in place for restricting used/traded games on the xbox one. It's just firmware. Sony could very easily update the firmware in a year or so, adding in the checks and restrictions, and provide publishers with the right API for implementing it into their games. Or it could just be a blanket PS Network check, where your console firmware is updated and only lets you play games if it's checked in recently, etc.
Regardless, they wouldn't have to physically change the hardware, or release new versions or anything. Just send out an update, most of which are required for various new games and movies anyway, and suddenly the console is restricted.
I can see Sony changing it in a year or so, but I can't see Microsoft relaxing.
More important news, however, is that Sony will now require a PS Plus subscription to use multiplayer features.
4GB is probably fine for anything you'll be doing on the air. I'm more disappointed that they didn't give it a retina screen upgrade. That's one lost sale for Apple I guess.
HBO could easily solve this problem by offering their shows for sale/rent online the same day or the day after it's aired on cable. They have no one to blame but themselves when they only provide a single means to watch their programs, and people resort to pirating or sharing credentials. I know I'd be more than happy to pay 2 or 3 bucks for a one-time pass per episode.
The world is moving forward, and it's up to the entrenched media industries to move with it if they want a piece of the action.
As long as they respect my right to record what they are doing, whenever they are doing it.
It's still a little bit creepy.
I envy the rest of the world then. The best upload speed we get here is about 2Mb/s meaning about 3 months to complete.
Is it very common for people to have ISP's offer high upload speeds like that?
Just uploading that must have been a real bitch.
Just like in almost every job market, not having a high school diploma doesn't mean a whole lot when you have other specialized or connected degrees and experiences. In his case, even being trained for special forces would have been enough to open doors for him, especially doors that are interested in security clearance.
Who you know, is a hell of a lot more important than what you know. I see it all the time in all kinds of fields.
I'm more interested in the other 37 slides that he gave to reporters, but didn't get published. It seems they spoke with the Whitehouse before writing the report, and agreed to only publish 4 of the slides. What's on the other 37 that's so damning? And what happened to open journalism? With this state-controlled/influenced news situation we now have, how would you release information like this without it just getting censored anyway?
My thought exactly. This is such a basic network admin function...
I was honestly intrigued, but quickly disappointed. It seems to be running on a 3d engine, with the textures "drawn by hand." Interesting style, but claiming the game is drawn by hand isn't really selling the truth. At least add some hand-drawn animations or something. Right now it looks like a cross between Wolfenstein 3d and a random flash game, with textures that are "drawn by hand."
"The short of it is: NEVER trust a consultant trying to predict the future for you. Particularly if they're extrapolating on "new" tech."
I think it's a good idea to never trust ANYONE trying to predict the future for you. It doesn't matter if they're paid consultants or in-house IT monkeys or Miss Cleo herself.
I think we'll actually move close to the past here in another 5 years. I see a lot of this love affair with cloud services dropping off after it finally sinks in just how expensive it can be for the companies. Everything is a cycle, and IT is no different. Our technologies change (or sometimes just the names), but the need is always there. Until SkyNet anyway.
I can't speak for all of the consulting firms out there, but most don't just send new people in to make major changes. I worked with a few and they all start people out slowly, and with less critical client setups, like small offices and stuff. From speaking with others in the industry, it seems normal for the newer techs to basically do spend the first month updating the documentation, and doing basic server and network maintenance. They don't change anything, or setup new stuff, until the rest of the crew thinks their ready. Often, if they just seem to be catching on too slowly, or lack in people skills, they have to be let go. Basically, if they send in someone new to handle a corporate network, then the consulting firm isn't doing it right. The vetting process for new employees is too important for exactly the reason you mention, which is why they don't just let them loose on day one. Start them slow, get them familiar with the networks first (through updating documentation), and go from there.
I know it would vary greatly on the actual consulting firm, as well as the clients they specialize in. Some are very much just targeting small and medium sized local businesses that maybe have an SBServer in place with 5 or 6 workstations. Others may be random construction or real estate companies. Certainly, if the consulting firm goes for government contracts or has a lot of high-value clients who, for whatever reason, don't want to pay for in-house IT, then the employees they hire would be better experience (and paid).
That's exactly my point. Those companies aren't looking to hire industry vets who demand 70k plus benefits. They want people just starting out who have the basic skills and education, but need experience. $20 to $25 an hour isn't bad for someone just out of college, looking for exposure to the widest range of networks and systems possible. Spend 2 or 3 years at a place like that (you'll probably get regular raises as well), and you'll most likely have everything you need to land interviews at an "enterprise" environment."
He's better off just getting a Technet subscription, which is exactly what it's for. They are great values anyway, if you work with Microsoft products at all.
It doesn't matter if Exchange is crap or not. Your personal opinion is pointless if the companies he's applying for use it. Having said that, I personally don't see many issues with the Exchange servers I've maintained over the years, if they're setup properly.
Anyway, back on topic. Going into an interview for a position that requires experience with certain software, only to tell them that not only do you not have that experience, but that they shouldn't even be using the software in the first place, isn't likely to make for a good first impression.
There is a lot of overhead to running a business like that. Stuff like office space, equipment, contracts, and other normal business expenses aren't cheap. Plus, a lot of those places offer financial incentives for furthering your training. like paying for cert tests and stuff. They aren't that great for long-term employment, but they are a great option to pick up 2 or 3 years of experience to pick up experience working with a wide range of setups.
You'll be knowledgeable in everything from SQL Server and Exchange, to Kerio, Lexis Nexus, Practice Advantage, and hundreds of other unique systems and programs. You'll also gain experience working with a wide variety of people and clients, which hiring managers really love to see (it indirectly shows during the interview).
I'd rather have $50 worth of pizza than a $5 rebate check, which is about all I'd get as case. Class action rewards are laughable.
IBM survived, but I wouldn't say they really survived as the same company they were in the 70's and 80's. If Microsoft were to "fail" for some reason, of course it would still be around and making large profits. Like IBM, they'd just cut off the dead flesh and focus on what's working for them. They'd be "smaller" in the public eye, even if their workforce, revenue, and contributions could likely stay the same.
Or, they ran focus groups and realized that the profits gained through their changing of the used-game market outweigh the profits lost from the minority of people are both pissed off at the change, and follow through with threats to not buy the next system. Most just get pissed off and continue to buy more stuff. And if you think Sony is going to be some kind of savior here, you are wrong again.
Both companies will play off their DRM/always-on features as being purely optional for the developers. You know, tools for creating better game experiences, but still up to the developers to use or not use. Microsoft and Sony will provide the infrastructure for the technology baked into the consoles, but they'll still be able to shift the backlash over to the big studios that implement it. The studios are fine with this because it gives them more accessible methods for DRM, gives them a piece of the used market pie that they've always wanted (even if they pass some of that on to MS and Sony), and couldn't care less about consumer backlash because they already have it. Their used to it.
No company is going to design a market a product with the intention of failing it, so try and drop the hyperbole a bit.