It seems to me that when people ask why the universe exists they are using the word "why" in a unique and problematic way and that the reason we have so much trouble answering it is that it's not clear to the asker what he means when he asks the question.
I think you'll find that some companies are still buying vista. Chevron (for example) rolled out vista and are still using it as their SOE. Any new PC they buy will get an enterprise license of it.
the big problem is the bit of over subscribing your users. If you have say enough bandwidth to handle 1000 GB in connections then you should not sell 10,000 GB worth of connections and then pull all sorts of tricks to limit folks below what THEY HAVE PAID FOR.
What you should do is limit your connections to say 1500 GB (since you will have folks that do not use the full slot they have purchased) and have some way of asking your High Bandwidth Customers to back down a bit during "prime time" (maybe on your support website??).
You don't have FoodLion selling a dozen eggs and then grabbing 5 eggs at checkout do you??
Again, who promised you an unlimited data rate that will not slow down automatically when other users are on line in your area? All I hear is you whining that your wireless company should provide you a lot more service without you paying a lot more money. That's not how it works. That's not how it CAN work.
I strongly suspect the metals in this case have been chosen to minimize that risk. What are the odds that on one of two nuts, they had a really bad gallling problem?
'After doing all of the math, Ponemon found that the cost of FDE on laptop and desktop computers in the U.S. per year was $235, while the cost savings from reduced data breach exposure was $4,650.'
The average cost savings from data breach exposure is not $4650 generally. Since the vast majority of companies don't employ FDE, the average losses per year per computer used in business would be approximately $4000. So taking the approximately 100 million computers used in business in the USA (yes, that's a UWAG), that puts the losses to business at about $4 billion per year. I'm not buying it, nor am I buying that the most efficient way to prevent this is FDE. I think it may be valuable in certain industries, e.g. finance and banking where the bulk of your data is of high value to potential thieves, or in medicine or law, where the disclosure of your data may get you sued.
For the rest of us, it's sufficient to have locks, passwords, firewalls and security settings that keep people from hacking your computer.
The technology-related issues are easy to solve these days. Unless you're in the middle of the desert, 3G/4G cell phones and personal WiFi hotspots should work. If you are determined to live way, way out in the boonies, then look in to satellite-based Internet.
Phbbbt! Cityfolk!
You might be surprised at how much of the American west meets your definition of way out in the boonies, and I don't think you've considered the existence of forests and mountains.
Sprinkling borax on the ground is completely natural? I beg to differ. If there were borax all over the ground naturally, there would be no fire ants in the area. Also, if you don't live in Yellowstone, (where there are no fire ants), boiling water in the ground is pretty unlikely to be natural.
But those methods ARE effective. Perhaps not as effective as Amdro, but effective. Planting the wheels in water is an idea I hadn't heard before. I have friends who live in Fireantland and they might appreciate that suggestion.
Years ago I saw a guy who had built a hand-carryable boiler that shot pressurized steam down into anthills. Always wished I had one when I lived in Fireantland but never saw one for sale.
Yes they do, and this is part of what throttling is about. If there are multiple users on a network, there has to be some rule that determines who gets how much access. Building a network with unlimited capacity is not possible. Building a network with enough capacity for all of your customers to use their maximum theoretical bandwidth at the same time is not practical, not efficient and would drastically drive up the cost of service and in the case where there is a really high density of users it's not physically possible.. There needs to be some kind of arbitration that determines who gets what bandwidth at what time.
Some posters seem to think that service providers can put up unlimited numbers of transceivers and they will somehow share unlimited bandwidth. This tells me they don't have to foggiest clue how these systems physically work, nor the legal restrictions on use of spectrum. I do understand both those issues and I'm telling you it's not feasible. Not at the price you're willing to pay, anyway.
So we're back to throttling. You are being throttled on wireless networks. Have you noticed your ISP charges you more for 50 MBPS than they do for 10 or 20 MBSP? You're paying a premium for a wider throttle (or not paying it and accepting a narrower throttle.)
The most you can ask is that you get a fair service for a reasonable price. If you want a 40GBPS fiber channel all to yourself, you can get it for a price. But if you want 1 GBPS over the air in a fashion that moves around according to your location, you can't have it at any price.
So it's OK for you if your daughter can't call the police to come help her when she has an accident on the highway because 5 or 100 other users in the same cell are downloading porn right now?
Wireless providers *have* to throttle to protect the voice network for public-safety purposes.
It's not ok, but that wouldn't be the "porn downloaders" fault. It would be the fault of the network operators who oversold services they couldn't adequately provide. If they have too many customers in an area they need to build more towers. If you sell someone a service you need to provide what you sold them.
I'm sorry. Were you promised a certain data rate under all conditions regardless of what other users on the network are doing or did you just not understand what multi-user system is?
Slashdot Mirror
If the product contains nothing that should be patentable, it should be OK to copy it.
It seems to me that when people ask why the universe exists they are using the word "why" in a unique and problematic way and that the reason we have so much trouble answering it is that it's not clear to the asker what he means when he asks the question.
I think you'll find that some companies are still buying vista. Chevron (for example) rolled out vista and are still using it as their SOE. Any new PC they buy will get an enterprise license of it.
Impossible. Chevron is making money.
You have 3G and 4G service provided by satellites? It might help for you to read the whole context.
the big problem is the bit of over subscribing your users. If you have say enough bandwidth to handle 1000 GB in connections then you should not sell 10,000 GB worth of connections and then pull all sorts of tricks to limit folks below what THEY HAVE PAID FOR.
What you should do is limit your connections to say 1500 GB (since you will have folks that do not use the full slot they have purchased) and have some way of asking your High Bandwidth Customers to back down a bit during "prime time" (maybe on your support website??).
You don't have FoodLion selling a dozen eggs and then grabbing 5 eggs at checkout do you??
Again, who promised you an unlimited data rate that will not slow down automatically when other users are on line in your area? All I hear is you whining that your wireless company should provide you a lot more service without you paying a lot more money. That's not how it works. That's not how it CAN work.
What I mean to say is that Borax is a natural substance. Has to be better than insecticide.
Similarly poison ivy is a natural substance so it has to be better for you than Advil.
Where does Linux figure in that list? :)
"Other"
Microsoft is not selling Vista any more. Apple is not selling OS X 10.6.
I believe what they are referring to with the words "market share" is what normal people call "installed base."
I strongly suspect the metals in this case have been chosen to minimize that risk. What are the odds that on one of two nuts, they had a really bad gallling problem?
I think that the costs to the providers are more associated with peak usage than with average usage.
TFA said it was mostly lost time due to your computer running slower.
'After doing all of the math, Ponemon found that the cost of FDE on laptop and desktop computers in the U.S. per year was $235, while the cost savings from reduced data breach exposure was $4,650.'
The average cost savings from data breach exposure is not $4650 generally. Since the vast majority of companies don't employ FDE, the average losses per year per computer used in business would be approximately $4000. So taking the approximately 100 million computers used in business in the USA (yes, that's a UWAG), that puts the losses to business at about $4 billion per year. I'm not buying it, nor am I buying that the most efficient way to prevent this is FDE. I think it may be valuable in certain industries, e.g. finance and banking where the bulk of your data is of high value to potential thieves, or in medicine or law, where the disclosure of your data may get you sued.
For the rest of us, it's sufficient to have locks, passwords, firewalls and security settings that keep people from hacking your computer.
The technology-related issues are easy to solve these days. Unless you're in the middle of the desert, 3G/4G cell phones and personal WiFi hotspots should work. If you are determined to live way, way out in the boonies, then look in to satellite-based Internet.
Phbbbt! Cityfolk!
You might be surprised at how much of the American west meets your definition of way out in the boonies, and I don't think you've considered the existence of forests and mountains.
Minimum latency via GEO is over a quarter second and service is expensive.
Sprinkling borax on the ground is completely natural? I beg to differ. If there were borax all over the ground naturally, there would be no fire ants in the area. Also, if you don't live in Yellowstone, (where there are no fire ants), boiling water in the ground is pretty unlikely to be natural.
But those methods ARE effective. Perhaps not as effective as Amdro, but effective. Planting the wheels in water is an idea I hadn't heard before. I have friends who live in Fireantland and they might appreciate that suggestion.
Years ago I saw a guy who had built a hand-carryable boiler that shot pressurized steam down into anthills. Always wished I had one when I lived in Fireantland but never saw one for sale.
Not when you factor in insurance.
I don't know how much YOU pay for insurance, but at my rates, I don't think so.
Yes they do, and this is part of what throttling is about. If there are multiple users on a network, there has to be some rule that determines who gets how much access. Building a network with unlimited capacity is not possible. Building a network with enough capacity for all of your customers to use their maximum theoretical bandwidth at the same time is not practical, not efficient and would drastically drive up the cost of service and in the case where there is a really high density of users it's not physically possible.. There needs to be some kind of arbitration that determines who gets what bandwidth at what time.
Some posters seem to think that service providers can put up unlimited numbers of transceivers and they will somehow share unlimited bandwidth. This tells me they don't have to foggiest clue how these systems physically work, nor the legal restrictions on use of spectrum. I do understand both those issues and I'm telling you it's not feasible. Not at the price you're willing to pay, anyway.
So we're back to throttling. You are being throttled on wireless networks. Have you noticed your ISP charges you more for 50 MBPS than they do for 10 or 20 MBSP? You're paying a premium for a wider throttle (or not paying it and accepting a narrower throttle.)
The most you can ask is that you get a fair service for a reasonable price. If you want a 40GBPS fiber channel all to yourself, you can get it for a price. But if you want 1 GBPS over the air in a fashion that moves around according to your location, you can't have it at any price.
So it's OK for you if your daughter can't call the police to come help her when she has an accident on the highway because 5 or 100 other users in the same cell are downloading porn right now?
Wireless providers *have* to throttle to protect the voice network for public-safety purposes.
It's not ok, but that wouldn't be the "porn downloaders" fault. It would be the fault of the network operators who oversold services they couldn't adequately provide. If they have too many customers in an area they need to build more towers. If you sell someone a service you need to provide what you sold them.
I'm sorry. Were you promised a certain data rate under all conditions regardless of what other users on the network are doing or did you just not understand what multi-user system is?
I guess I'd settle for the author of TFA.
I bet Zuckerberg wishes he'd thought of that.
Terrestrial uses: cuts oil and grease. Remove many kinks of greasy stains. Liquifies adhesives. Prevents rust. Most not applicable to space.
It may have fit fine before 9 turns crossthreaded. Now it's probably space junk.
best bet would be an electric heater manufactured on site out of wire.
And mice got into those? Who would have imagined?
Sez the anonymous coward.