I can't imagine trying to perform network management with a few mac minis so I'm assuming you're referring to a very small facility? Our new data center was built on 10-gig infrastructure and our NM is appropriately scaled--NetScout Infinistreams connected to Gigamon matrix switches. While the Gigamons were quite expensive they allowed us to utilize fewer Infinistreams while also providing some very cool functionality.
It look a long time for our upper management (those with the dollars) to come around to the notion that, in order to realize the full investment made in the data center, true network management needed to be baked in from the start.
1) Sputnik 1 (first satellite): 1957 2) Yuri Gagarin (first man in space, first orbit): 1961 3) Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space): 1963 4) Luna 2 (first [successful] moon probe): 1959 5) According to Wikipedia, every Soviet Mars mission prior to Mariner 4 (first Mars fly-by [US]) failed. 6) According to Wikipedia, every Soviet Venus mission prior to Mariner 2 (first Venus fly-by [US]) failed. 7) Salyut 1 (first space station): 1971
So other than their currently operating Soyuz craft, the most recent entry on your list is over 40 years old. I understand the point you were trying to make, but you have to keep in mind that things change, and the current Soviet space program is not nearly as noteworthy as the space program you described.
Beyond the storage requirement (which I believe you're seriously underestimating), no AMI system in the US has the bandwidth to handle that kind of traffic. Most of them use unlicensed spectrum in the 902-928MHz band (FCC Part 15 rules) going peer to peer until they get to a bigger pipe for the back haul. The networks simply aren't designed to handle that much data. Remember, you're talking about 1,800 data points per hour per meter. I know for a fact we can't ramp up for that, and I know for a fact that the three technologies used by most of the utilities in the US (Landis+Gyr Gridstream, Itron Openway, and SilverSpring Networks) can't handle it, either.
I work for a large utility that is currently implementing an AMI system. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that no utility gets (or wants) usage data from its customers every 2 seconds. At my utility we collect usage in 1 hour bins for residential customers and 15 minute bins for commercial and industrial customers. The amount of database storage we would need to collect 2 second interval data from all of our customers would be staggering. As it is we've had to invest in a large server farm to handle the data we are getting.
If I had to guess I'd say that the 2 second intervals are for in-home monitoring using a ZigBee HAN, or something similar (the EasyMeter website is in German and does not appear to have much technical info).
As someone who has worked on distribution automation for a large electric utility for the past 13 years, I've never understood the fascination with the cyber aspect of securing the grid. It would be far easier to cause a major outage with a 4x4 truck and a few pounds of high explosive, yet I don't recall a single attack of any type against a transmission tower anywhere in the U.S.. As for intercepting and deciphering meter data (a truly non-trivial task), it would be far easier for thieves to simply watch the houses in a given neighborhood, a la Home Alone.
The residential meters do have disconnect capability, but by design this functionality ignores broadcasts. Therefore a hacker could only affect a single residence at a time, and even then only if they knew the encrypted disconnect command. An insider attack is the only real threat, and that is not addressed here.
Not to mention mass. The more mass the more expensive it is to put in space, and that mass also has to come at the expense of other equipment, supplies, fuel, etc.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science."
To second your post, my best friend is a Major in the Marine Corps (F-18 pilot). He has an engineering degree from Penn and is one of the smartest, most dedicated people I know. His roommate (also a Major and F-18 pilot) has a bachelors and masters degree in electrical engineering from Stanford. Sure, some dumbass people manage to climb up the ladder, but most of the people at that rank and above are pretty darn sharp.
The sudden outrage is because they're finally selling a device that might actually use that much. I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. The Blackberry is far too painful to use on any kind of media that I'll never come anywhere near the limit. The iPhone, on the other hand, has tremendous internet uses and I could easily see users coming close to the limit.
I hate to sound like I'm defending the studios here, but when any movie with a budget of less than $10 million is considered indie, every movie is a sizable investment. If I were in charge of investing $50 million in a project, I think I'd be less interested in the aesthetics and more interested in the probability of turning a profit, too. But that just covers the green lighting process.
The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game. With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work. Yes, there are certain exceptions like hard drive requirements, etc., but for the most part it is true. The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.
There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.
Slashdot Mirror
After further analysis it appears that Riper gamed the simulation and in some cases flat out cheated to get the results he wanted.
The professor went on to say: "Now get off my lawn!"
You forgot: "...on a computer."
Ironic that this was announced earlier today:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/retailer-circuit-citys-website-17726152
I can't imagine trying to perform network management with a few mac minis so I'm assuming you're referring to a very small facility? Our new data center was built on 10-gig infrastructure and our NM is appropriately scaled--NetScout Infinistreams connected to Gigamon matrix switches. While the Gigamons were quite expensive they allowed us to utilize fewer Infinistreams while also providing some very cool functionality.
It look a long time for our upper management (those with the dollars) to come around to the notion that, in order to realize the full investment made in the data center, true network management needed to be baked in from the start.
Let's take a closer look at this list:
1) Sputnik 1 (first satellite): 1957
2) Yuri Gagarin (first man in space, first orbit): 1961
3) Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space): 1963
4) Luna 2 (first [successful] moon probe): 1959
5) According to Wikipedia, every Soviet Mars mission prior to Mariner 4 (first Mars fly-by [US]) failed.
6) According to Wikipedia, every Soviet Venus mission prior to Mariner 2 (first Venus fly-by [US]) failed.
7) Salyut 1 (first space station): 1971
So other than their currently operating Soyuz craft, the most recent entry on your list is over 40 years old. I understand the point you were trying to make, but you have to keep in mind that things change, and the current Soviet space program is not nearly as noteworthy as the space program you described.
So send along a Lasik specialist. Do I have to think of everything?
Beyond the storage requirement (which I believe you're seriously underestimating), no AMI system in the US has the bandwidth to handle that kind of traffic. Most of them use unlicensed spectrum in the 902-928MHz band (FCC Part 15 rules) going peer to peer until they get to a bigger pipe for the back haul. The networks simply aren't designed to handle that much data. Remember, you're talking about 1,800 data points per hour per meter. I know for a fact we can't ramp up for that, and I know for a fact that the three technologies used by most of the utilities in the US (Landis+Gyr Gridstream, Itron Openway, and SilverSpring Networks) can't handle it, either.
I work for a large utility that is currently implementing an AMI system. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that no utility gets (or wants) usage data from its customers every 2 seconds. At my utility we collect usage in 1 hour bins for residential customers and 15 minute bins for commercial and industrial customers. The amount of database storage we would need to collect 2 second interval data from all of our customers would be staggering. As it is we've had to invest in a large server farm to handle the data we are getting.
If I had to guess I'd say that the 2 second intervals are for in-home monitoring using a ZigBee HAN, or something similar (the EasyMeter website is in German and does not appear to have much technical info).
And still just as fresh as the day it was first memed.
I have a feeling that his shit list is about to get a lot bigger.
As someone who has worked on distribution automation for a large electric utility for the past 13 years, I've never understood the fascination with the cyber aspect of securing the grid. It would be far easier to cause a major outage with a 4x4 truck and a few pounds of high explosive, yet I don't recall a single attack of any type against a transmission tower anywhere in the U.S.. As for intercepting and deciphering meter data (a truly non-trivial task), it would be far easier for thieves to simply watch the houses in a given neighborhood, a la Home Alone.
The residential meters do have disconnect capability, but by design this functionality ignores broadcasts. Therefore a hacker could only affect a single residence at a time, and even then only if they knew the encrypted disconnect command. An insider attack is the only real threat, and that is not addressed here.
Apparently you were incorrect.
Not to mention mass. The more mass the more expensive it is to put in space, and that mass also has to come at the expense of other equipment, supplies, fuel, etc.
Are they getting the power to charge the battery for free?
Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks "can I get you a beer?" Descartes replies "I think not!" and he disappears.
Thanks, I'm here all week!
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science."
Finally, we have proof Ron Burgundy was right!
And somewhere Roland Piquepaille is smiling.
To second your post, my best friend is a Major in the Marine Corps (F-18 pilot). He has an engineering degree from Penn and is one of the smartest, most dedicated people I know. His roommate (also a Major and F-18 pilot) has a bachelors and masters degree in electrical engineering from Stanford. Sure, some dumbass people manage to climb up the ladder, but most of the people at that rank and above are pretty darn sharp.
The sudden outrage is because they're finally selling a device that might actually use that much. I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. The Blackberry is far too painful to use on any kind of media that I'll never come anywhere near the limit. The iPhone, on the other hand, has tremendous internet uses and I could easily see users coming close to the limit.
I felt like Ron Burgundy reading that post.
I hate to sound like I'm defending the studios here, but when any movie with a budget of less than $10 million is considered indie, every movie is a sizable investment. If I were in charge of investing $50 million in a project, I think I'd be less interested in the aesthetics and more interested in the probability of turning a profit, too. But that just covers the green lighting process.
Ralph, I'd like you to meet Barbara...
The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game. With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work. Yes, there are certain exceptions like hard drive requirements, etc., but for the most part it is true. The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.
There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.
Or maybe that's one fucking badass planet. The lesson to be learned here is do not fuck with Wasp-18b.