They use different terminology; but yes, macOS does provide for different power-consumption profiles.
After looking for a while, I'm quite certain you're wrong; there's nothing that lets you control the use of active cooling vs thermal throttling. I suspect you know you're wrong as well, which is why you haven't responded.
People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.
Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.
Well, markets don't care what drives the demand. I think that's kind of the OP's point.
Wow. Are there really that many folks out there who touch-type with their function keys? I mean, I honestly don't know -- maybe there are, but I certainly haven't seen them.
What's "many"? I have no idea what the numbers might be, but among power users, like programmers, graphic artists and others who make heavy use of keyboard shortcuts to make their work efficient, it's indeed very common. In other words, among the sort of people who are likely to buy a Pro laptop.
They still should not be returning coordinates if the location is unknown.
But the location is known. The known location may not be sufficiently precise for some applications, but that's something only the application developer knows. For some applications, knowing the location is in the US, as opposed to Belgium, or China, or Tahiti, is good and useful information. These applications would be shortchanged if the API just said "no location found" when in fact the database *has* a location, an accurate one, just not a very precise one.
So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?
Did you skip your civics class in high school?
States are sovereign governments, which (ignoring some bits I'm going to get to in a moment) give them unlimited power within their borders to do what they like, and the cities within them are completely subject to their will. The states entered into an agreement with the federal government when they joined the union (or when they ratified the constitution), which explicitly gives the federal government specific, limited powers over the states. Within the scope of those enumerated powers, federal law overrules any state law, up to and including state constitutions. Outside of those enumerated powers (which were greatly broadened by the 14th amendment), the federal government has no authority to tell the state what to do.
So, to directly answer your question: It's bad when the federal government tells a state to do something it doesn't have the authority to tell it to do. There is no such limit on the authority of states over cities (unless it's written into state law... which actually does happen in some cases).
Doesn't Mac OS have cooling profiles like Windows does? On Windows 7 and later you can configure the cooling profile in the advanced power management settings to be either "active" or "passive". Active ramps the fan up, passive throttles the CPU to keep the temperature down. I used to use it when I was downloading stuff overnight to keep the fan on silent.
They use different terminology; but yes, macOS does provide for different power-consumption profiles.
How do you configure them? It's not in the "Energy Saver" section of the preferences app.
That makes sense. However, it doesn't really affect the point. If you have to disassemble the lock to discover that there was a break-in, then you'll never know there was a break-in. I suppose if you have some *other* reason to believe there might have been a break-in the lock could provide evidence, but that seems like a pretty rare situation, one which wouldn't justify putting locks everywhere.
The point here being that the new media are actually gatekeepers, something that doesn't occur to a fair few
And the old media were also actually gatekeepers, something that didn't occur to a fair few.
It's possible that the new ones are worse than the old ones, but merely pointing out that there's a change from old to new doesn't imply anything about which is better or worse.
education system is insufficiently preparing Americans for tech fields
I know right?
After busting there ass for 4 or 5 years and spending 100 grand on tuition, graduating Americans were totally unprepared for the insultingly low salary they were offered.
Students who spend $100K they don't have on school are foolish, or misled, or both. A perfectly adequate university education can be had for less than $20K, and there's no need to take on any debt for it. Live at home, or live cheaply, go to a local community college or low-cost state school. With a little focus it's not hard to get scholarships or tuition waivers that cover at least a significant part of the cost. There are also grants (assuming your income is low enough), the GI Bill and other options.
My own experience was that between GI Bill payments for being in the Air Force Reserve, an on-campus job and a GPA-based tuition waiver, I was able to live a decent life and even put some money away while going to school full time. My parents were poor enough I could have gotten some grants, but I never needed them. I have two kids in college now and the situation isn't dramatically different. They haven't opted for military service so they don't have the GI Bill, and they haven't gotten the tuition waivers I did (though I expect they will next year) but they're also living at home, which saves some money. On balance, a part time job pays well enough to cover their education and transportation costs (the university is far enough that they need cars), plus a little extra, so they have disposable income and are building up some savings.
I should note that while my parents couldn't afford to help me with school, I can help my kids, and I've made that clear to them. So far, they haven't opted to take me up on it, because they don't need it.
why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?
Why should there be? What makes you or me more deserving of opportunity for our accident of birthplace than someone who was born elsewhere?
I'll readily admit that I'm biased on this question, and I can even identify what specific life experience produced my bias. It was my time as a missionary in southeastern Mexico, where I met and became friends with lots of great, hardworking people who, based on ability and effort, should have far better lives than the majority of my countrymen. They don't because outcomes depend on opportunity at least as much as on ability or effort. That's reality. But that doesn't make it right, and while I'm not saying that its our job to correct all of the world's unfairnesses, it is clearly immoral to work to preserve and enhance them.
Plus, in the case of very high-skilled labor, even if you take a purely selfish, nationalistic perspective it's to our advantage to suck the biggest brains from the rest of the world, to bring them here and keep them. It'd be better to do that with green cards than H1B visas, because we really want them to stay -- and our wealth and freedom makes the US a very attractive place for them to call home. The last thing we want is to send all of those high-skill jobs overseas because we're unwilling to let the people come here.
Perhaps then google you will take note of your own study and stop bundling shit in with lots of other product installs that nobody wants. hint if I wanted your fucking browser I would have gone and installed it.
What software is Chrome bundled with? Are you talking about the licensing of the Google Android apps as a group, or something else?
Okay, if we're going to be pedantic - by definition, malware would be just a subset of "unwanted software", wouldn't it?
Per the literal meaning of "unwanted software", sure. But clearly this term was coined here to identify a category that isn't malware, but yet isn't wanted.
I can't imagine anyone wants malware, after all...
I work with a bunch of people who avidly seek out all the malware they can find, actually. To analyze, not to run, but they definitely want malware, the more the better:-)
Any software which takes surreptitious action in the interests of some third party and contrary to what the end user would reasonably expect to happen qualifies as malware, in my opinion.
And you're welcome to your opinion, but don't be surprised if the industry doesn't redefine long-established terms just because you think they should.
"Types of unwanted software fall into five categories: ad injectors, browser settings hijackers, system utilities, anti-virus, and major brands."
How are the first two items not classified as malware?
They're not classified as malware because maintaining clear and firm definitions is a good thing. Malware is software that actively tries to harm the user (steal from them, hold their data for ransom, etc., take over their machine for arbitrary future badness, etc.). Showing ads or directing the user to a different -- but still effective -- search engine, etc., are bad, but they're a lesser form of badness, and it makes sense to me to give them a different name.
But, maybe I'm just pedantic. Well, no maybe about it. I also dislike it when people mix up trojans, viruses and worms. They're different things and have distinct names for a reason, damnit!
If you have lower priority processes that can tolerate being offline for the duration of a planned outage, you only really need something more like "n + 1.5." The.5 only has to be able to handle the critical work for long enough to get your full backup system back online.
Absolutely. "n + 2" is a rule of thumb for critical systems... and it's also just a starting point. Thinking hard about your system may point out that you need even more, or maybe that you can get away with a little less. The rule in Google is that n + 2 is the default and then you can make arguments about why you need more or less.
Scaling out is easy if you're Facebook or Google and nobody cares about a perfectly consistent truth.
Actually, outside of web search, basically all of Google's systems also require perfectly consistent truth. Gmail can perhaps allow a bit of latency between when an email arrives and when it shows in your inbox, but once it's there it always has to be there. Google Docs can't occasionally not find your doc or show you an outdated version. And, of course, Google also runs a massive transactional payment system, used to collect all of those tens of billions of dollars and pay all of the suppliers, app developers, etc.
That usually leads to mainframes and 99.99999% uptime systems with redundant power, network links etc. not clusters and distribution.
It can also be done with clusters and distribution, actually, including ACID compliance. Google's usual database solution for that sort of application, actually, is sharded, replicated MySQL. The data is sharded into separate database instances based on some key and then each shard is replicated. For example, suppose you sharded your database by the first letter of each customer's last name. Assuming the latin alphabet (not a workable assumption; this is a trivial example), you end up with 26 databases and when you want to find "Gates, Bill", you know you have to look in the "G" database, which itself is replicated (writes must reach all replicas to succeed, requiring two-phase commits, reads can come from whatever physical shard is nearest/first). "Virtual sharding", where you shard your primary key into a very large number of data sets, and then map the virtual shards onto a smaller number of physical databases makes this more flexible, so you can reallocate your physical shards as needed, and even incorporate replication into the sharding.
What about when you need to do a lookup based on something other than your primary key? Well, it's the same indexing problem faced by all databases, except moved to a higher layer, and amenable to the same sort of sharding.
Such systems are more complicated to build and run than the mainframe approach, but they can also scale to much larger sizes without losing their integrity.
Or they ran the numbers and calculated that even if they have an outage like this, the cost of that outage would be less than the cost of preventing it. If all you care about is the bottom line, you might not care if you inconvenience a bunch of customers for a few days.
Such a calculation is a perfectly rational and even correct approach to the question. However, the computation of the expected cost of the outage must also take into account the present value of all of the future lost business resulting from the customers who had a terrible day *and* all of the rest of the world who read about it in on CNN. I think it's vanishingly unlikely that an accurate accounting of those costs would be less than the cost of sufficient redundancy to prevent the outage.
"Where are the damn synergies? I was told there would be synergies!"
Johnson: "Sir, the synergies are configured, just as you ordered. When one part of the system goes down, the whole system goes down. They work together that way, just like you asked."
Clearly we need a new buzzword for this, er, feature. How about "fully-synergistic non-performance"?
Even IF one of your data centers has a power outage (which should not happen as you should have backup generators and batteries that give power until the generators are spun up), you should always have at least ONE other backup data center to take over if something really fails for you.
FWIW, Google's standard -- a mantra which Google SREs have pounded into my head -- is "n + 2". You don't have a reliable system unless you have enough capacity to operate it when you lose two of your components (the definition of "component" here is context-dependent; they're whatever your points of failure are). Why do you need two extras, rather than just one? Because inevitably there will be some time you have to take one of them down for maintenance or upgrade or something. If you only have "n + 1", then during that window of time you're down to "n", meaning exactly the capacity you need to handle the load... and if something goes wrong you then have "<n", i.e. not enough to operate. OTOH, if you have more than "n + 2", and the individual systems are reasonably reliable, then you're probably wasting resources.
I suppose at the DC level "n + 1" is probably adequate if your other processes are structured so that you never take an entire DC offline intentionally.
I think this is a good philosophy for anyone who is operating a piece of critical computing, bet-your-business, computing infrastructure. Like, say, the database that allows one of the two or three largest airlines in the world to fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't buy an iPhone.
Or any other phone, starting next year.
I don't think the industry is going to move that fast.
That said, my current phone has a headphone jack that just collects dust. I use bluetooth everywhere.
They use different terminology; but yes, macOS does provide for different power-consumption profiles.
After looking for a while, I'm quite certain you're wrong; there's nothing that lets you control the use of active cooling vs thermal throttling. I suspect you know you're wrong as well, which is why you haven't responded.
All I can find is the pmset command, available from a terminal. See man page But i could not find something like "active" or "passive"
Yeah, I've never found anything like that, GUI or command line.
People on various sides of various issues try not to believe it, would like not to believe it, but Markets Work. You can't stop them just by making rules against them, not without insanely powerful enforcement mechanisms..., and usually not even then.
Well, that's certainly one creative way to describe the demand driven by physical and psychological addiction.
Well, markets don't care what drives the demand. I think that's kind of the OP's point.
Wow. Are there really that many folks out there who touch-type with their function keys? I mean, I honestly don't know -- maybe there are, but I certainly haven't seen them.
What's "many"? I have no idea what the numbers might be, but among power users, like programmers, graphic artists and others who make heavy use of keyboard shortcuts to make their work efficient, it's indeed very common. In other words, among the sort of people who are likely to buy a Pro laptop.
They still should not be returning coordinates if the location is unknown.
But the location is known. The known location may not be sufficiently precise for some applications, but that's something only the application developer knows. For some applications, knowing the location is in the US, as opposed to Belgium, or China, or Tahiti, is good and useful information. These applications would be shortchanged if the API just said "no location found" when in fact the database *has* a location, an accurate one, just not a very precise one.
So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?
Did you skip your civics class in high school?
States are sovereign governments, which (ignoring some bits I'm going to get to in a moment) give them unlimited power within their borders to do what they like, and the cities within them are completely subject to their will. The states entered into an agreement with the federal government when they joined the union (or when they ratified the constitution), which explicitly gives the federal government specific, limited powers over the states. Within the scope of those enumerated powers, federal law overrules any state law, up to and including state constitutions. Outside of those enumerated powers (which were greatly broadened by the 14th amendment), the federal government has no authority to tell the state what to do.
So, to directly answer your question: It's bad when the federal government tells a state to do something it doesn't have the authority to tell it to do. There is no such limit on the authority of states over cities (unless it's written into state law... which actually does happen in some cases).
The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job. They were trying to override the state laws without the authority to do so.
But does Congress have the authority?
Doesn't Mac OS have cooling profiles like Windows does? On Windows 7 and later you can configure the cooling profile in the advanced power management settings to be either "active" or "passive". Active ramps the fan up, passive throttles the CPU to keep the temperature down. I used to use it when I was downloading stuff overnight to keep the fan on silent.
They use different terminology; but yes, macOS does provide for different power-consumption profiles.
How do you configure them? It's not in the "Energy Saver" section of the preferences app.
That makes sense. However, it doesn't really affect the point. If you have to disassemble the lock to discover that there was a break-in, then you'll never know there was a break-in. I suppose if you have some *other* reason to believe there might have been a break-in the lock could provide evidence, but that seems like a pretty rare situation, one which wouldn't justify putting locks everywhere.
The point here being that the new media are actually gatekeepers, something that doesn't occur to a fair few
And the old media were also actually gatekeepers, something that didn't occur to a fair few.
It's possible that the new ones are worse than the old ones, but merely pointing out that there's a change from old to new doesn't imply anything about which is better or worse.
The AC's poor grammar and word choice aside, he seems to be saying that Adobe bundles Chromium, not Chrome. Are you sure it's Chrome?
I don't have access to a Windows machine or I'd check myself.
I know right? After busting there ass for 4 or 5 years and spending 100 grand on tuition, graduating Americans were totally unprepared for the insultingly low salary they were offered.
Students who spend $100K they don't have on school are foolish, or misled, or both. A perfectly adequate university education can be had for less than $20K, and there's no need to take on any debt for it. Live at home, or live cheaply, go to a local community college or low-cost state school. With a little focus it's not hard to get scholarships or tuition waivers that cover at least a significant part of the cost. There are also grants (assuming your income is low enough), the GI Bill and other options.
My own experience was that between GI Bill payments for being in the Air Force Reserve, an on-campus job and a GPA-based tuition waiver, I was able to live a decent life and even put some money away while going to school full time. My parents were poor enough I could have gotten some grants, but I never needed them. I have two kids in college now and the situation isn't dramatically different. They haven't opted for military service so they don't have the GI Bill, and they haven't gotten the tuition waivers I did (though I expect they will next year) but they're also living at home, which saves some money. On balance, a part time job pays well enough to cover their education and transportation costs (the university is far enough that they need cars), plus a little extra, so they have disposable income and are building up some savings.
I should note that while my parents couldn't afford to help me with school, I can help my kids, and I've made that clear to them. So far, they haven't opted to take me up on it, because they don't need it.
why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?
Why should there be? What makes you or me more deserving of opportunity for our accident of birthplace than someone who was born elsewhere?
I'll readily admit that I'm biased on this question, and I can even identify what specific life experience produced my bias. It was my time as a missionary in southeastern Mexico, where I met and became friends with lots of great, hardworking people who, based on ability and effort, should have far better lives than the majority of my countrymen. They don't because outcomes depend on opportunity at least as much as on ability or effort. That's reality. But that doesn't make it right, and while I'm not saying that its our job to correct all of the world's unfairnesses, it is clearly immoral to work to preserve and enhance them.
Plus, in the case of very high-skilled labor, even if you take a purely selfish, nationalistic perspective it's to our advantage to suck the biggest brains from the rest of the world, to bring them here and keep them. It'd be better to do that with green cards than H1B visas, because we really want them to stay -- and our wealth and freedom makes the US a very attractive place for them to call home. The last thing we want is to send all of those high-skill jobs overseas because we're unwilling to let the people come here.
Perhaps then google you will take note of your own study and stop bundling shit in with lots of other product installs that nobody wants. hint if I wanted your fucking browser I would have gone and installed it.
What software is Chrome bundled with? Are you talking about the licensing of the Google Android apps as a group, or something else?
Okay, if we're going to be pedantic - by definition, malware would be just a subset of "unwanted software", wouldn't it?
Per the literal meaning of "unwanted software", sure. But clearly this term was coined here to identify a category that isn't malware, but yet isn't wanted.
I can't imagine anyone wants malware, after all...
I work with a bunch of people who avidly seek out all the malware they can find, actually. To analyze, not to run, but they definitely want malware, the more the better :-)
Any software which takes surreptitious action in the interests of some third party and contrary to what the end user would reasonably expect to happen qualifies as malware, in my opinion.
And you're welcome to your opinion, but don't be surprised if the industry doesn't redefine long-established terms just because you think they should.
This is very true, but even then the lock accomplishes something else: it creates evidence of a break-in.
A bump key or a properly-handled tensioner and rake don't leave any evidence.
"Types of unwanted software fall into five categories: ad injectors, browser settings hijackers, system utilities, anti-virus, and major brands."
How are the first two items not classified as malware?
They're not classified as malware because maintaining clear and firm definitions is a good thing. Malware is software that actively tries to harm the user (steal from them, hold their data for ransom, etc., take over their machine for arbitrary future badness, etc.). Showing ads or directing the user to a different -- but still effective -- search engine, etc., are bad, but they're a lesser form of badness, and it makes sense to me to give them a different name.
But, maybe I'm just pedantic. Well, no maybe about it. I also dislike it when people mix up trojans, viruses and worms. They're different things and have distinct names for a reason, damnit!
Asymmetric performance.
I like how effectively that obscures the truth (something all good buzzwords should do).
If you have lower priority processes that can tolerate being offline for the duration of a planned outage, you only really need something more like "n + 1.5." The .5 only has to be able to handle the critical work for long enough to get your full backup system back online.
Absolutely. "n + 2" is a rule of thumb for critical systems... and it's also just a starting point. Thinking hard about your system may point out that you need even more, or maybe that you can get away with a little less. The rule in Google is that n + 2 is the default and then you can make arguments about why you need more or less.
Scaling out is easy if you're Facebook or Google and nobody cares about a perfectly consistent truth.
Actually, outside of web search, basically all of Google's systems also require perfectly consistent truth. Gmail can perhaps allow a bit of latency between when an email arrives and when it shows in your inbox, but once it's there it always has to be there. Google Docs can't occasionally not find your doc or show you an outdated version. And, of course, Google also runs a massive transactional payment system, used to collect all of those tens of billions of dollars and pay all of the suppliers, app developers, etc.
That usually leads to mainframes and 99.99999% uptime systems with redundant power, network links etc. not clusters and distribution.
It can also be done with clusters and distribution, actually, including ACID compliance. Google's usual database solution for that sort of application, actually, is sharded, replicated MySQL. The data is sharded into separate database instances based on some key and then each shard is replicated. For example, suppose you sharded your database by the first letter of each customer's last name. Assuming the latin alphabet (not a workable assumption; this is a trivial example), you end up with 26 databases and when you want to find "Gates, Bill", you know you have to look in the "G" database, which itself is replicated (writes must reach all replicas to succeed, requiring two-phase commits, reads can come from whatever physical shard is nearest/first). "Virtual sharding", where you shard your primary key into a very large number of data sets, and then map the virtual shards onto a smaller number of physical databases makes this more flexible, so you can reallocate your physical shards as needed, and even incorporate replication into the sharding.
What about when you need to do a lookup based on something other than your primary key? Well, it's the same indexing problem faced by all databases, except moved to a higher layer, and amenable to the same sort of sharding.
Such systems are more complicated to build and run than the mainframe approach, but they can also scale to much larger sizes without losing their integrity.
Or they ran the numbers and calculated that even if they have an outage like this, the cost of that outage would be less than the cost of preventing it. If all you care about is the bottom line, you might not care if you inconvenience a bunch of customers for a few days.
Such a calculation is a perfectly rational and even correct approach to the question. However, the computation of the expected cost of the outage must also take into account the present value of all of the future lost business resulting from the customers who had a terrible day *and* all of the rest of the world who read about it in on CNN. I think it's vanishingly unlikely that an accurate accounting of those costs would be less than the cost of sufficient redundancy to prevent the outage.
"Where are the damn synergies? I was told there would be synergies!"
Johnson: "Sir, the synergies are configured, just as you ordered. When one part of the system goes down, the whole system goes down. They work together that way, just like you asked."
Clearly we need a new buzzword for this, er, feature. How about "fully-synergistic non-performance"?
Even IF one of your data centers has a power outage (which should not happen as you should have backup generators and batteries that give power until the generators are spun up), you should always have at least ONE other backup data center to take over if something really fails for you.
FWIW, Google's standard -- a mantra which Google SREs have pounded into my head -- is "n + 2". You don't have a reliable system unless you have enough capacity to operate it when you lose two of your components (the definition of "component" here is context-dependent; they're whatever your points of failure are). Why do you need two extras, rather than just one? Because inevitably there will be some time you have to take one of them down for maintenance or upgrade or something. If you only have "n + 1", then during that window of time you're down to "n", meaning exactly the capacity you need to handle the load... and if something goes wrong you then have "<n", i.e. not enough to operate. OTOH, if you have more than "n + 2", and the individual systems are reasonably reliable, then you're probably wasting resources.
I suppose at the DC level "n + 1" is probably adequate if your other processes are structured so that you never take an entire DC offline intentionally.
I think this is a good philosophy for anyone who is operating a piece of critical computing, bet-your-business, computing infrastructure. Like, say, the database that allows one of the two or three largest airlines in the world to fly.
you should already be doing like installing apps only from trusted sourced and running a malware scanner
You don't need a third party malware scanner. Just turn on the built in Verify Apps.