The Federal Government isn't taxing you for the items, they are considering giving the states authority to do so. As the article explains, currently in states with a sales tax, you theoretically are supposed to pay sales tax on goods ordered from out of state. (There is usually a form for this that you are supposed to file w/ your State income tax.) Almost nobody actually does so. Court rulings mandate that one state cannot collect, or require to be collected, tax on behalf of another state without Federal law giving them that power.
This law isn't really an "e-commerce" law like the article title would have you believe. It would apply to old-fashioned mail-order also. It is just that mail-order has really become MUCH bigger with e-commerce, so it is a bigger problem that it was before.
The justification behind the law makes sense. There is no reason that customers of say, Amazon.com, should be mostly exempted from paying sales tax while customers of bestbuy.com or compusa.com have to do so for the exact same items.
I expect if this law gets passed, there will be: 1) Be cheap software available to help retailers work this out. The software already exists, since web sites like target.com already have to deal with it. 2) A single form you file with your own state taxing authority that you would then list how much tax was supposed to go to each state. I don't think they would require you to register with each state individually.
Errr... While I work in an unrelated part of IBM, (In support, but not with PC's), I have accurately relayed my experience with IBM support. I'm not sure what else to say here.
First, a disclosure: I am an IBM employee, and get a small discount on IBM (Lenovo) systems.
While I do get a small discount on my PC's, I would buy an IBM box even without it. The reason for this is that I get a guarantee that the hardware in the system will work together. While every OEM provides this (although Dell only provides the guarantee for 90 days), IBM's is actually worth something.
If I experience a HW failure with my IBM system, I give them my model number, serial number, and then simply tell them which part I think is broken, reading off the Part Number if I have it handy. Not once have I been forced to torture myself with diagnostics, or told to simply re-build the system image before doing anything else. I receive the part the next day with no hassles. And oh yes, when I do call, my call goes to somebody that is speaking in an accent I can understand. Dell only provides that service to Business customers, and only then after there were a large number of complaints.
IBM also makes the system maintenance manuals and full part number lists available on-line to the public. (This is also true for the laptops, which can be very handy once the warranty runs out.)
Even though I have been using Intel-based PC's now for... damn... am I that old?... for 17 years (which doesn't count my years with TI99/4A's and Trash-80's) and worked PC/Network support for four of those years, I still buy pre-built systems instead of rolling my own. Why? Because I have known too many people to simply end up in blame-game hell when their new system doesn't work properly, or isn't stable. Even when running into obviously defective parts, obtaining an RMA seems to be a difficult thing to do in many instances. If you shop carefully, you can get the same hardware from an OEM for the same price as rolling your own, which should properly insulate you from outright hardware failures.
Of course, under some circumstances, if you just need a "disposable" system, you can even get a complete CPU + printer + KVM for $300. That is hard to beat on your own.
Dell is Legendary in the PC/Low-end server industry for their almost complete lack of a product development staff. Indeed, they even pride themselves on not doing much actual design work themselves, and even boast about it in articles and press releases.
Dell is a company of Marketing folks that somehow managed to hire some of the finest Manufacturing Engineeers and procurement managers on Earth. However, since they seem to make a $hit-load of dough doing exactly what they have been doing, the prospect of actually doing system development and testing, which would have caught most of those bugs in about five minutes, is completely anathema to their corporate culture.
At Dell, OEM's do virtually all the product development. I suspect that with this system, they relied on the Motherboard OEM to certify that the hardware worked together, but they neglected to tell their (tiny) software staff to run additional testing on this software image. Dell likely just loaded the standard "Home" image on this system, which is likely identical to every other consumer desktop that Dell ships out the door.
Bloatware is a regrettable reality for many Consumer PC's. However, to charge extra for a system market towards gamers and then not perform even the most perfunctory testing is pretty damn stupid.
Software Firewalls are useless! I can configure my cheap-ass 5 year old netgear router/hub to deny outgoing connections on specific ports just as I can control incomming.
Err... what do you do about software sending outbound connection requests on port 80? I certainly hope you aren't going to plan on blocking that one.
Yes, stopping unsolicited external connections cold is a "side-effect" of a NAPT box, but that does not make it any less useful or effective.
As far as the DMZ goes... Anybody that sets up the DMZ on a router better know exactly what they are doing, and the two routers I have dealt with have thrown up warning boxes that setting up a DMZ was a bad idea. Personally, I think that any protocol designer for the last couple of years that can't decide on a single inbound port, knowing how common home routers are, needs his head examined.
For the software firewalls... yep they all certainly were designed to block inbound connections, but a NAPT box does a much better job. I believe that ZoneAlarm has ALWAYS done outbound monitoring.
Um...not sure what's going on here...but I think software firewalls have to be one of the silliest 'security products' out there. I still can't believe cable companies don't distribute modem/routers to users and remotely configure them to block the commonly exploited ports and protocols.
Errr... because quality software firewalls (like ZoneAlarm) and home hardware firewalls/routers protect against two entirely different problems?
Home Routers/Firewalls protect your machine against INBOUND, unsolicited connection requests. This makes you immune to attemts to exploit server-type services, like file-sharing, IIS holes, etc. This lets me run VNC, Apache, whatever on my home machine and not have to worry about keeping patches up to date (or even setting a password, for that matter.)
Software firewalls protect you against OUTBOUND connections you did not authorize. Port-blocking does nothing to stop this because a nefarious software vendor can't be stopped from sending an outbound request on port 80 by an external firewall.
I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)
The misdemenor/felony barrier is based on dollar value in most municipalities. Putting a newspaper barcode on a magazine is going to be a misdemenor, while trying to pay $4.99 for an iPod is a felony.
This guy must have looked really nervous for the security guy to spot him that easily.
What a pathetic loser... "I wouldn't have done it if I knew the punishment was that bad!"
Translation: "I knew it was wrong, but I thought I would just have to pay for it and then get to go home!"
I don't think the laws reguarding the use of the title "Engineer" are at all stupid; they were first enacted because people had died because of a greedy businessman (with no training, etc) decided that he could design a million gallon storage tank just as well, as one of them college boys, and for less money too. He was wrong (on both counts), people died, and the government decided that the licensing engineers was necessary for the safety of the public.
You mis-interpret my post. I have no issue with the requirements that many engineeers be licensed, and in fact, I think that MORE engineering disciplines should require licensing software and computer engineering are excellent candidates for doing so. The problem I have with the laws is that they regulate the term "Engineer", as opposed to the title "Professional Engineer". The term "Engineer" has referred to a certain type of technical professional for decades. To say that only one certified may call themselves "Engineer" is like saying somebody with a doctorate in Chemistry is not allowed to be referred to as "Doctor".
"P.E." is a title, and indeed one that should only be held by a select few, who have shown themselves to be qualified to do so. "Engineering" is a process, not a job. One who performs it is, by definition, an Engineer.
SirWired
As a side note, the operator of a train has been called the "Engineer" since the dawn of railroads... I believe that this usage pre-dates Engineering licensure.
The laws regarding the use of the title "Engineer" are both stupid and universally ignored. The way the title is actually used "Engineer" is pretty much the same as "Doctor". Anybody can call themselves a "Doctor" (and in reality "Engineer"), but only those properly licensed can call themselves "M.D." (or "P.E.") It is the height of stupidity to say that people who are in fact engineers cannot call themselves an engineer simply because nobody has developed a licensing exam for their discipline yet.
I am a Computer Engineer, and have been for six years. I have taken a 4-year program in Computer Engineering at a University program accredited by the Accrediation Board for Engineering and Technology (THE U.S. engineering acccrediting organization), and I have received a well-rounded program of instruction by well-qualified professors. Nevertheless, the program as designed would not leave me with even a chance of passing the FE exam. (It's missing thermo, fluids, and power engineering) If an ABET-accredited engineering curriculum is structured to leave out topics necessary to pass the FE exam, then perhaps not even ABET belives that an "Engineer" needs to take one of those exams.
One of the requirements of a P.E. license is to work underneath a licensed engineer/mentor. I work for a gigantic technology company and I don't know of a single engineer I could work under if I had bothered to take the FE exam in college.
I believe that licensing for Professional Engineers should be expanded, as many of the things that Software or Computer Engineers do are things that have consequences drastic enough (loss of life, bankruptcy of companies, misdirection of funds, etc.) that licensing seems sensible. However, until relevant exams can be developed, any such efforts are silly.
Actually, power below and signal above is not a terrible idea, I will admit. I have never seen this deployment in the field as most of the shops I visit are ex-mainframe shops (or current mainframe shops), and none of them use overhead cabling (at least for the Computing part of IT. Telco is comething different.) Now-obsolete Bus and Tag (mainframe) cables make hi-amp copper wire look compact, hence the lack of overhead cable runs.
The "average" shop I visit uses power run through conduits bolted to the concrete floor, and then data cables are bundled together and run point-to-point on top of that. Yeah, I know, makes power upgrades real interesting with live fiber cabling nearby.
You're right, I am unfamiliar with superflex cable. My bad. And yes, I know that all real equipment has an A and B side.
I must mention that a mere thousand amps isn't very much. If a single rack requires two L6-30 connections of 208V AC, your 1000A 24" power rack starts to run dry awful quick, especially if you start using lower-voltage DC.
Beyond that, overhead power runs also require a minor re-design of some equipment, most of which expect the power to come in from the bottom.
I think you meant 13.8kva, not 13.8 megavolt-amps.
Whoops... yeah, not 13.8 mVA. (imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!:-)
13.8kva at 48VDC is only 288 amps.
What about the 100A of inrush @ 208 three-phase? What would that take with DC? I never did take a power engineering class in college.
The conductor size needed to handle this load is no larger than that feeding most newer homes, and is certainly flexible enough for installation.
Yeah, but that is the current load for a single system. You put in half-a-dozen of these things, and you are talking serious quantities of copper. A quick check of a googled wire chart shows that 300A takes a conductor just shy of half an inch thick. Two of those together x 6 systems (by no means an unusal setup) starts to give me the heebie-jeebies, cable-routing wise. (Do we need a nastily thick conductor for earth ground also?)
SirWired
This article and the raised-floor article both bad
on
Data Centers And DC Power
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The article on raised flooring was an interesting question, but stupid solutions.
That article talked just like some "Intelligent-Design" moron. Just because HE can't figure out how to properly model raised-floor airflow, it must not be possible to do it at all. Wrong. There are any number of companies that will do this for you.
The solution to raised floor airflow is proper modeling of the equipment, vent tiles, and blowers, and relatively unobstructed floor plenum. The solution is NOT air-cooled equipment on bare floor and overhead cable runs. If cooling is still a problem, then use liquid-cooled racks and equipment. (This is where things seem to be going right now.) While overhead cable runs may work fine for some dinky test lab, "real" equipment requires power cables of a size that would quickly fill most overhead runs.
This article proposing DC power is equally stupid.
An enterprise storage box, fully configured that I looked at requires 13,800 kVA of 208V three-phase power (100A inrush current). My mind can barely fathom the completely unbendable copper "wire" that supplying that much juice at 40-ish volts would require.
Telco's switches have a far lower power density than modern servers, and the DC power was made to correct for different problems.
If this guy's ideal data center is overhead cable runs, ceiling blowers, bare floor, and DC power, I'd run away fast.
Nobody is claiming that their uplink to a tier 1 is free or government subsidized. However, with my $X / month, I AM paying for it. I am not just paying for the connection between my house and the central office, I am paying for the backbone uplink too. Who the heck else am I going to talk to if my monthly doesn't include a backbone uplink? If they can't make money now, then they need to raise MY price, not start filtering among those that will and will not pay their tolls.
This guy is still stuck in a telco mindset, where the local service is separated from LD. If they want to charge separate for a backbone, that is their perogative. However, along with that, they will then need to let me choose among backbone providers. Just as I can choose my LD provider, they better let me choose the backbone that makes the most sense for me, and charge me less for my "local" connection that won't let me do jack-squat anymore. Otherwise, I'll just bail for cable, satellite, Wireless, whatever...
SMI-S is a merely a protocol. This effort looks like it is a proposed platform. Actual, running, useful, code, not just a spec for code that may or may not be written at some time in the future.
What keeps people away from 'white' flourescents is how they buzz, flicker, and also spike in the green range (giving a sickly green hue to many surfaces).
You should try a modern quality compact flouresecent. (i.e. NOT your $1.50 Wal-Mart special) I have put CFLs in every fixture in the house where it makes sense (not in fixtures where the bulb is visible), and they are great. The problems of a few years ago of requiring "warm-up" time, the flickering, the buzz, and the greenish cast have all been fixed. While the green tint is probably still there, it has been mitigated to the point that your eye will adjust automatically.
Oh, I wasn't saying that it was actually a good idea to run a garage sale, just that dollar-for-dollar, the garage sale will most certainly put you on top, if you run it properly. Personally, I DO donate my surplus items to charity. I think the poster I was replying to was inferring that the cash value of the tax deduction could be equivalent to the cash you would receive from a sale. This is obviously not true.
How can geeks be so smart and know nothinga about tax law?
I don't know the answer to that question, but your post shows that you don't know anything about tax law either.
The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.
1) "Dropping into a lower tax bracket" alone does not magically save you money. If you donate cash to a real charity, you will ALWAYS pay out more money than you will get back in tax deductions. The term "tax bracket" refers to your "marginal" rate. If you are in the 28% "bracket", it does not mean that you owe 28% on all of your AGI. The U.S uses what is called a "progressive" tax system. That means that you owe X% on the first $Y of your income, A% on the NEXT $B of your income, C% on the NEXT $D, etc. If you drop from $1 over the 28% line to one dollar under the 28% line (into the 15% range), you will have donated two dollars, and you will owe $.43 less in taxes, for a net cash payout (read money out of your pocket) of $1.57. Your charity dollars acutally go LESS far towards reducing your tax bill, the lower bracket you are in.
2) Tsunami relief did NOT give you special tax CREDITS. Instead, it shifted the deduction date deadline, which let folks take a DEDUCTION on their 2004 taxes for donations made in 2005. A credit is dollar-for-dollar reduction in the check you must cut to the IRS. A deduction merely reduces the amount that tax is calculated from.
A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).
The "reasonable value" you are allowed to deduct for used household goods is supposed to be what the items would sell for at an establishment such as a thrift shop. Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale (depending on your marginal rate), you aren't going to end up on top by doing this.
Please actually READ tax law (or at least IRS publications) before giving out wacky advice like this...
Why don't they just enable OBEX file transfer, syncing and basically give you all features of a phone with bluetooth?? Why should they have to hack the replacement phone either?? Good question. However, the rest of this post demonstrates zero understanding of basic business or economics.
Verizion is just screwed up on a great many things. Why must I pay 79 bucks or even 59 for 1XRTT or even EVDO?? Can't they have a unlimited plan that's a little more economical?
Verizon currently has almost a monopoly on high-speed long-range wireless data transfer. (Nextel's high-speed network is very tiny.) This service costs them a fortune in capital to build, and they are still spending a fortune building it. They won't lower the price just yet because apparently they are getting plenty of customers on this "uneconomical" plan. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean the price doesn't make sense. Your argument is like saying: "If only a Ferrari didn't cost over $100K, they would sell a lot more!". Well, sure, they would, but what would be the point? They make plenty of money selling at the price they do.
How come I can get a GPRS connection via T-Mobile for HALF of Verizon's 1XRTT?? If they would just look at the POTENTIAL market, they could definitely lower thier price.
Apparently they have some reason for keeping the price where it is, possibly including, but not limited to, the following: 1) They already have as many customers as they can handle. (demand) 2) There is no alternative wireless data service available in the area. (supply) 3) Folks seem to be willing to pay the price. (demand)
If you think T-Mobile's service is so much better, why are you complaining about Verizon? You could be gloating about the great deal you got with T-Mobile instead...
Also,with regards to EVDO, they SHOULD allow you to plug the card into that switch unit(forget the name of it). IF Verizon did this, then some people just might use this as thier ONLY connection to the web. When at home, plug it into the switch, when on the road, take another switch or just plug it into the laptop. Verizon could make TONS of cash if they were to do this, however they want to FORCE you to do things their way because they are afraid the network may not be able to handle it or some other stupid reason.
Gasp! They want to avoid overloading their network! The horror! How dare they! No further comment on that paragraph is necessary. You answer your own question.
It's a good thing that Verizon has budding business tyccoons like yourself to tell them how stupid they are...
Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
what makes a non-discriminatory policy (obviously hiring is one)? Do people of certain genetic "deficiencies" have the same health benefits? At the same cost? what happens if IBM becomes the only company that commits to this, and a stampede of genetic malware knocks at their door only? Do they modify their policies? (it could become VERY expensive for them should they remain the only corporation committed to this policy.) what and how are "defectives" (God! I hate this topic... very loaded) detected? Are they tested?, Is it mandatory?
If IBM is going to do this voluntarily, I would see no reason for them to pre-insert weasely crap into it.
Of COURSE they will have the same health benefits as everybody else. (If they don't do testing, and don't base hiring decisions on genetics, how would they know, anyway?) All employer-provided insurance is group insurance, which means if the company chooses to hire you, the health-insurance company has no choice but to cover you. All the insurance can do to avoid it would be to drop that company as a customer.
If IBM is the only company that does this, then that will make an excellent pool of qualified workers. What could be better!
Who cares how genetic defects could be tested for? If IBM won't discriminate, why would they even perform any tests?
They don't need RFID to collect anymore information than they already.
I've seen the amount of information they collect at these POS systems. You use a credit/debit card, your card encodes your zip code, first name, last name. Your purchase is collected already by scanning the item into the register.
Your info is then sent to the 3 credit bueraus and your infor is merged with those large databasese. If you give your email to the retailer, your email is attached to your credit report. Through those credit reports the credit bueraus then sends back your address to the retailer and all other information the retailer can afford.
Your information is already available in catalog dealers, your internet info is available at experian online (yup experian started an internet division). How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.
The retailer already got the information they need, RFID is just a way to track inventory, really no joke. RFID does not add any additional information that the retail/catalog industry does not already have. Oh yea, they used to be able to get large amount of info through the DMV before 9/11.
Experian will sell your info to ANYBODY at the right price, private detective already have this ability, without license. Now the funny thing is the only person that has a hard time getting your info, is yourself! Oh yea don't get me started on the 2 files they keep, one public one that you see, and one that is hidden, that keeps every single transactions you've made in your life. the law says some items fall off the report, but the hiden one is available to anybody with money and can make your life horrible. There are no laws saying that your bank need to tell you they based their decision on this second file. So you think your report is clean, but the hidden one says otherwise. Oh yea that second one contains all your purchase habbits too.
God where's my hat? I can't see an after market of people scanning garbage from a particular locale/district etc. The marketing drones already have this information. Retailers routinely sell their lists to each other. Catelogs company give them to each other as "gifts". Or worse TRADED like comodity. You people are not paranoid enough!
You can take this "two-file" theory and flush it down the toilet.
1) Do you have any idea what kind of database would be required to keep track of EVERY purchase you ever made, everywhere, and attach item data? Do you have any clue how long it would take to search such a database? Most credit card companies keep statements on file for a year, and that only covers where you purchased, and the amount. 2) No, the banks cannot deny you credit based a file that you cannot get a hold of. This is pretty plain in the law, if you chose to actually read it, instead of spreading rumors. (See the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681) 3) Yes, your credit card company (and maybe Experian) will happily tell whoever pays them exactly where you shop. Of course, you can write them and tell them not to, but that isn't nearly newsworthy enough. They still won't know what you bought, they would have to pay the retailer themselves for that. 4) Exactly how would Experian know how much you own? They can't possibly know what you have and what you have gotten rid of, outside of what is already available in public records. (Any schmuck can find out where you live, what real estate you own, which elections you voted in, all campaign contributions, etc. That all comes from your local government.) 5) Considering my credit report never can even get my employer right, I doubt they have any idea how much I make.
Yes, our privacy is pretty bad, but spreading paranoid, ignorant crap like this doesn't make things any better.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Government isn't taxing you for the items, they are considering giving the states authority to do so. As the article explains, currently in states with a sales tax, you theoretically are supposed to pay sales tax on goods ordered from out of state. (There is usually a form for this that you are supposed to file w/ your State income tax.) Almost nobody actually does so. Court rulings mandate that one state cannot collect, or require to be collected, tax on behalf of another state without Federal law giving them that power.
This law isn't really an "e-commerce" law like the article title would have you believe. It would apply to old-fashioned mail-order also. It is just that mail-order has really become MUCH bigger with e-commerce, so it is a bigger problem that it was before.
The justification behind the law makes sense. There is no reason that customers of say, Amazon.com, should be mostly exempted from paying sales tax while customers of bestbuy.com or compusa.com have to do so for the exact same items.
I expect if this law gets passed, there will be:
1) Be cheap software available to help retailers work this out. The software already exists, since web sites like target.com already have to deal with it.
2) A single form you file with your own state taxing authority that you would then list how much tax was supposed to go to each state. I don't think they would require you to register with each state individually.
SirWired
Errr... While I work in an unrelated part of IBM, (In support, but not with PC's), I have accurately relayed my experience with IBM support. I'm not sure what else to say here.
SirWired
First, a disclosure: I am an IBM employee, and get a small discount on IBM (Lenovo) systems.
While I do get a small discount on my PC's, I would buy an IBM box even without it. The reason for this is that I get a guarantee that the hardware in the system will work together. While every OEM provides this (although Dell only provides the guarantee for 90 days), IBM's is actually worth something.
If I experience a HW failure with my IBM system, I give them my model number, serial number, and then simply tell them which part I think is broken, reading off the Part Number if I have it handy. Not once have I been forced to torture myself with diagnostics, or told to simply re-build the system image before doing anything else. I receive the part the next day with no hassles. And oh yes, when I do call, my call goes to somebody that is speaking in an accent I can understand. Dell only provides that service to Business customers, and only then after there were a large number of complaints.
IBM also makes the system maintenance manuals and full part number lists available on-line to the public. (This is also true for the laptops, which can be very handy once the warranty runs out.)
Even though I have been using Intel-based PC's now for... damn... am I that old?... for 17 years (which doesn't count my years with TI99/4A's and Trash-80's) and worked PC/Network support for four of those years, I still buy pre-built systems instead of rolling my own. Why? Because I have known too many people to simply end up in blame-game hell when their new system doesn't work properly, or isn't stable. Even when running into obviously defective parts, obtaining an RMA seems to be a difficult thing to do in many instances. If you shop carefully, you can get the same hardware from an OEM for the same price as rolling your own, which should properly insulate you from outright hardware failures.
Of course, under some circumstances, if you just need a "disposable" system, you can even get a complete CPU + printer + KVM for $300. That is hard to beat on your own.
SirWired
Dell is Legendary in the PC/Low-end server industry for their almost complete lack of a product development staff. Indeed, they even pride themselves on not doing much actual design work themselves, and even boast about it in articles and press releases.
Dell is a company of Marketing folks that somehow managed to hire some of the finest Manufacturing Engineeers and procurement managers on Earth. However, since they seem to make a $hit-load of dough doing exactly what they have been doing, the prospect of actually doing system development and testing, which would have caught most of those bugs in about five minutes, is completely anathema to their corporate culture.
At Dell, OEM's do virtually all the product development. I suspect that with this system, they relied on the Motherboard OEM to certify that the hardware worked together, but they neglected to tell their (tiny) software staff to run additional testing on this software image. Dell likely just loaded the standard "Home" image on this system, which is likely identical to every other consumer desktop that Dell ships out the door.
Bloatware is a regrettable reality for many Consumer PC's. However, to charge extra for a system market towards gamers and then not perform even the most perfunctory testing is pretty damn stupid.
SirWired
Software Firewalls are useless! I can configure my cheap-ass 5 year old netgear router/hub to deny outgoing connections on specific ports just as I can control incomming.
Err... what do you do about software sending outbound connection requests on port 80? I certainly hope you aren't going to plan on blocking that one.
SirWired
Yes, stopping unsolicited external connections cold is a "side-effect" of a NAPT box, but that does not make it any less useful or effective.
As far as the DMZ goes... Anybody that sets up the DMZ on a router better know exactly what they are doing, and the two routers I have dealt with have thrown up warning boxes that setting up a DMZ was a bad idea. Personally, I think that any protocol designer for the last couple of years that can't decide on a single inbound port, knowing how common home routers are, needs his head examined.
For the software firewalls... yep they all certainly were designed to block inbound connections, but a NAPT box does a much better job. I believe that ZoneAlarm has ALWAYS done outbound monitoring.
SirWired
Um...not sure what's going on here...but I think software firewalls have to be one of the silliest 'security products' out there. I still can't believe cable companies don't distribute modem/routers to users and remotely configure them to block the commonly exploited ports and protocols.
Errr... because quality software firewalls (like ZoneAlarm) and home hardware firewalls/routers protect against two entirely different problems?
Home Routers/Firewalls protect your machine against INBOUND, unsolicited connection requests. This makes you immune to attemts to exploit server-type services, like file-sharing, IIS holes, etc. This lets me run VNC, Apache, whatever on my home machine and not have to worry about keeping patches up to date (or even setting a password, for that matter.)
Software firewalls protect you against OUTBOUND connections you did not authorize. Port-blocking does nothing to stop this because a nefarious software vendor can't be stopped from sending an outbound request on port 80 by an external firewall.
I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)
SirWired
The misdemenor/felony barrier is based on dollar value in most municipalities. Putting a newspaper barcode on a magazine is going to be a misdemenor, while trying to pay $4.99 for an iPod is a felony.
This guy must have looked really nervous for the security guy to spot him that easily.
What a pathetic loser... "I wouldn't have done it if I knew the punishment was that bad!"
Translation: "I knew it was wrong, but I thought I would just have to pay for it and then get to go home!"
SirWired
I don't think the laws reguarding the use of the title "Engineer" are at all stupid; they were first enacted because people had died because of a greedy businessman (with no training, etc) decided that he could design a million gallon storage tank just as well, as one of them college boys, and for less money too. He was wrong (on both counts), people died, and the government decided that the licensing engineers was necessary for the safety of the public.
You mis-interpret my post. I have no issue with the requirements that many engineeers be licensed, and in fact, I think that MORE engineering disciplines should require licensing software and computer engineering are excellent candidates for doing so. The problem I have with the laws is that they regulate the term "Engineer", as opposed to the title "Professional Engineer". The term "Engineer" has referred to a certain type of technical professional for decades. To say that only one certified may call themselves "Engineer" is like saying somebody with a doctorate in Chemistry is not allowed to be referred to as "Doctor".
"P.E." is a title, and indeed one that should only be held by a select few, who have shown themselves to be qualified to do so. "Engineering" is a process, not a job. One who performs it is, by definition, an Engineer.
SirWired
As a side note, the operator of a train has been called the "Engineer" since the dawn of railroads... I believe that this usage pre-dates Engineering licensure.
The laws regarding the use of the title "Engineer" are both stupid and universally ignored. The way the title is actually used "Engineer" is pretty much the same as "Doctor". Anybody can call themselves a "Doctor" (and in reality "Engineer"), but only those properly licensed can call themselves "M.D." (or "P.E.") It is the height of stupidity to say that people who are in fact engineers cannot call themselves an engineer simply because nobody has developed a licensing exam for their discipline yet.
I am a Computer Engineer, and have been for six years. I have taken a 4-year program in Computer Engineering at a University program accredited by the Accrediation Board for Engineering and Technology (THE U.S. engineering acccrediting organization), and I have received a well-rounded program of instruction by well-qualified professors. Nevertheless, the program as designed would not leave me with even a chance of passing the FE exam. (It's missing thermo, fluids, and power engineering) If an ABET-accredited engineering curriculum is structured to leave out topics necessary to pass the FE exam, then perhaps not even ABET belives that an "Engineer" needs to take one of those exams.
One of the requirements of a P.E. license is to work underneath a licensed engineer/mentor. I work for a gigantic technology company and I don't know of a single engineer I could work under if I had bothered to take the FE exam in college.
I believe that licensing for Professional Engineers should be expanded, as many of the things that Software or Computer Engineers do are things that have consequences drastic enough (loss of life, bankruptcy of companies, misdirection of funds, etc.) that licensing seems sensible. However, until relevant exams can be developed, any such efforts are silly.
SirWired
Yes, IBM also has a chassis version that will take DC, if that is your thing.
SirWired
Actually, power below and signal above is not a terrible idea, I will admit. I have never seen this deployment in the field as most of the shops I visit are ex-mainframe shops (or current mainframe shops), and none of them use overhead cabling (at least for the Computing part of IT. Telco is comething different.) Now-obsolete Bus and Tag (mainframe) cables make hi-amp copper wire look compact, hence the lack of overhead cable runs.
The "average" shop I visit uses power run through conduits bolted to the concrete floor, and then data cables are bundled together and run point-to-point on top of that. Yeah, I know, makes power upgrades real interesting with live fiber cabling nearby.
You're right, I am unfamiliar with superflex cable. My bad. And yes, I know that all real equipment has an A and B side.
I must mention that a mere thousand amps isn't very much. If a single rack requires two L6-30 connections of 208V AC, your 1000A 24" power rack starts to run dry awful quick, especially if you start using lower-voltage DC.
Beyond that, overhead power runs also require a minor re-design of some equipment, most of which expect the power to come in from the bottom.
SirWired
I think you meant 13.8kva, not 13.8 megavolt-amps.
:-)
Whoops... yeah, not 13.8 mVA. (imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
13.8kva at 48VDC is only 288 amps.
What about the 100A of inrush @ 208 three-phase? What would that take with DC? I never did take a power engineering class in college.
The conductor size needed to handle this load is no larger than that feeding most newer homes, and is certainly flexible enough for installation.
Yeah, but that is the current load for a single system. You put in half-a-dozen of these things, and you are talking serious quantities of copper. A quick check of a googled wire chart shows that 300A takes a conductor just shy of half an inch thick. Two of those together x 6 systems (by no means an unusal setup) starts to give me the heebie-jeebies, cable-routing wise. (Do we need a nastily thick conductor for earth ground also?)
SirWired
The article on raised flooring was an interesting question, but stupid solutions.
That article talked just like some "Intelligent-Design" moron. Just because HE can't figure out how to properly model raised-floor airflow, it must not be possible to do it at all. Wrong. There are any number of companies that will do this for you.
The solution to raised floor airflow is proper modeling of the equipment, vent tiles, and blowers, and relatively unobstructed floor plenum. The solution is NOT air-cooled equipment on bare floor and overhead cable runs. If cooling is still a problem, then use liquid-cooled racks and equipment. (This is where things seem to be going right now.) While overhead cable runs may work fine for some dinky test lab, "real" equipment requires power cables of a size that would quickly fill most overhead runs.
This article proposing DC power is equally stupid.
An enterprise storage box, fully configured that I looked at requires 13,800 kVA of 208V three-phase power (100A inrush current). My mind can barely fathom the completely unbendable copper "wire" that supplying that much juice at 40-ish volts would require.
Telco's switches have a far lower power density than modern servers, and the DC power was made to correct for different problems.
If this guy's ideal data center is overhead cable runs, ceiling blowers, bare floor, and DC power, I'd run away fast.
SirWired
Does big iron still use 3-phase power?
Yes. Mainframes, large UNIX systems, and the storage boxes that connect to them still require three-phase. (I am a storage specialist.)
SirWired
With DC distribution, you have AC->DC in the central UPS, and no conversion in the computers.
That's a neat trick. Exactly how do you plan to take the telco-standard 40V and run 3.5V, 5V, and 12V devices without DC->DC conversion?
SirWired
Convection isn't going to cut the mustard. That doesn't even work with most PC's much less power-sucking, super-dense servers.
SirWired
Nobody is claiming that their uplink to a tier 1 is free or government subsidized. However, with my $X / month, I AM paying for it. I am not just paying for the connection between my house and the central office, I am paying for the backbone uplink too. Who the heck else am I going to talk to if my monthly doesn't include a backbone uplink? If they can't make money now, then they need to raise MY price, not start filtering among those that will and will not pay their tolls.
This guy is still stuck in a telco mindset, where the local service is separated from LD. If they want to charge separate for a backbone, that is their perogative. However, along with that, they will then need to let me choose among backbone providers. Just as I can choose my LD provider, they better let me choose the backbone that makes the most sense for me, and charge me less for my "local" connection that won't let me do jack-squat anymore. Otherwise, I'll just bail for cable, satellite, Wireless, whatever...
SirWired
SMI-S is a merely a protocol. This effort looks like it is a proposed platform. Actual, running, useful, code, not just a spec for code that may or may not be written at some time in the future.
SirWired
What keeps people away from 'white' flourescents is how they buzz, flicker, and also spike in the green range (giving a sickly green hue to many surfaces).
You should try a modern quality compact flouresecent. (i.e. NOT your $1.50 Wal-Mart special) I have put CFLs in every fixture in the house where it makes sense (not in fixtures where the bulb is visible), and they are great. The problems of a few years ago of requiring "warm-up" time, the flickering, the buzz, and the greenish cast have all been fixed. While the green tint is probably still there, it has been mitigated to the point that your eye will adjust automatically.
SirWired
Oh, I wasn't saying that it was actually a good idea to run a garage sale, just that dollar-for-dollar, the garage sale will most certainly put you on top, if you run it properly. Personally, I DO donate my surplus items to charity. I think the poster I was replying to was inferring that the cash value of the tax deduction could be equivalent to the cash you would receive from a sale. This is obviously not true.
SirWired
How can geeks be so smart and know nothinga about tax law?
I don't know the answer to that question, but your post shows that you don't know anything about tax law either.
The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.
1) "Dropping into a lower tax bracket" alone does not magically save you money. If you donate cash to a real charity, you will ALWAYS pay out more money than you will get back in tax deductions. The term "tax bracket" refers to your "marginal" rate. If you are in the 28% "bracket", it does not mean that you owe 28% on all of your AGI. The U.S uses what is called a "progressive" tax system. That means that you owe X% on the first $Y of your income, A% on the NEXT $B of your income, C% on the NEXT $D, etc. If you drop from $1 over the 28% line to one dollar under the 28% line (into the 15% range), you will have donated two dollars, and you will owe $.43 less in taxes, for a net cash payout (read money out of your pocket) of $1.57. Your charity dollars acutally go LESS far towards reducing your tax bill, the lower bracket you are in.
2) Tsunami relief did NOT give you special tax CREDITS. Instead, it shifted the deduction date deadline, which let folks take a DEDUCTION on their 2004 taxes for donations made in 2005. A credit is dollar-for-dollar reduction in the check you must cut to the IRS. A deduction merely reduces the amount that tax is calculated from.
A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).
The "reasonable value" you are allowed to deduct for used household goods is supposed to be what the items would sell for at an establishment such as a thrift shop. Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale (depending on your marginal rate), you aren't going to end up on top by doing this.
Please actually READ tax law (or at least IRS publications) before giving out wacky advice like this...
SirWired
Why don't they just enable OBEX file transfer, syncing and basically give you all features of a phone with bluetooth?? Why should they have to hack the replacement phone either??
Good question. However, the rest of this post demonstrates zero understanding of basic business or economics.
Verizion is just screwed up on a great many things. Why must I pay 79 bucks or even 59 for 1XRTT or even EVDO?? Can't they have a unlimited plan that's a little more economical?
Verizon currently has almost a monopoly on high-speed long-range wireless data transfer. (Nextel's high-speed network is very tiny.) This service costs them a fortune in capital to build, and they are still spending a fortune building it. They won't lower the price just yet because apparently they are getting plenty of customers on this "uneconomical" plan. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean the price doesn't make sense. Your argument is like saying: "If only a Ferrari didn't cost over $100K, they would sell a lot more!". Well, sure, they would, but what would be the point? They make plenty of money selling at the price they do.
How come I can get a GPRS connection via T-Mobile for HALF of Verizon's 1XRTT?? If they would just look at the POTENTIAL market, they could definitely lower thier price.
Apparently they have some reason for keeping the price where it is, possibly including, but not limited to, the following:
1) They already have as many customers as they can handle. (demand)
2) There is no alternative wireless data service available in the area. (supply)
3) Folks seem to be willing to pay the price. (demand)
If you think T-Mobile's service is so much better, why are you complaining about Verizon? You could be gloating about the great deal you got with T-Mobile instead...
Also,with regards to EVDO, they SHOULD allow you to plug the card into that switch unit(forget the name of it). IF Verizon did this, then some people just might use this as thier ONLY connection to the web. When at home, plug it into the switch, when on the road, take another switch or just plug it into the laptop. Verizon could make TONS of cash if they were to do this, however they want to FORCE you to do things their way because they are afraid the network may not be able to handle it or some other stupid reason.
Gasp! They want to avoid overloading their network! The horror! How dare they! No further comment on that paragraph is necessary. You answer your own question.
It's a good thing that Verizon has budding business tyccoons like yourself to tell them how stupid they are...
SirWired
Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
what makes a non-discriminatory policy (obviously hiring is one)? Do people of certain genetic "deficiencies" have the same health benefits? At the same cost?
what happens if IBM becomes the only company that commits to this, and a stampede of genetic malware knocks at their door only? Do they modify their policies? (it could become VERY expensive for them should they remain the only corporation committed to this policy.)
what and how are "defectives" (God! I hate this topic... very loaded) detected? Are they tested?, Is it mandatory?
If IBM is going to do this voluntarily, I would see no reason for them to pre-insert weasely crap into it.
Of COURSE they will have the same health benefits as everybody else. (If they don't do testing, and don't base hiring decisions on genetics, how would they know, anyway?) All employer-provided insurance is group insurance, which means if the company chooses to hire you, the health-insurance company has no choice but to cover you. All the insurance can do to avoid it would be to drop that company as a customer.
If IBM is the only company that does this, then that will make an excellent pool of qualified workers. What could be better!
Who cares how genetic defects could be tested for? If IBM won't discriminate, why would they even perform any tests?
SirWired
They don't need RFID to collect anymore information than they already.
I've seen the amount of information they collect at these POS systems. You use a credit/debit card, your card encodes your zip code, first name, last name. Your purchase is collected already by scanning the item into the register.
Your info is then sent to the 3 credit bueraus and your infor is merged with those large databasese. If you give your email to the retailer, your email is attached to your credit report. Through those credit reports the credit bueraus then sends back your address to the retailer and all other information the retailer can afford.
Your information is already available in catalog dealers, your internet info is available at experian online (yup experian started an internet division). How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.
The retailer already got the information they need, RFID is just a way to track inventory, really no joke. RFID does not add any additional information that the retail/catalog industry does not already have. Oh yea, they used to be able to get large amount of info through the DMV before 9/11.
Experian will sell your info to ANYBODY at the right price, private detective already have this ability, without license. Now the funny thing is the only person that has a hard time getting your info, is yourself! Oh yea don't get me started on the 2 files they keep, one public one that you see, and one that is hidden, that keeps every single transactions you've made in your life. the law says some items fall off the report, but the hiden one is available to anybody with money and can make your life horrible. There are no laws saying that your bank need to tell you they based their decision on this second file. So you think your report is clean, but the hidden one says otherwise. Oh yea that second one contains all your purchase habbits too.
God where's my hat? I can't see an after market of people scanning garbage from a particular locale/district etc. The marketing drones already have this information. Retailers routinely sell their lists to each other. Catelogs company give them to each other as "gifts". Or worse TRADED like comodity. You people are not paranoid enough!
You can take this "two-file" theory and flush it down the toilet.
1) Do you have any idea what kind of database would be required to keep track of EVERY purchase you ever made, everywhere, and attach item data? Do you have any clue how long it would take to search such a database? Most credit card companies keep statements on file for a year, and that only covers where you purchased, and the amount.
2) No, the banks cannot deny you credit based a file that you cannot get a hold of. This is pretty plain in the law, if you chose to actually read it, instead of spreading rumors. (See the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681)
3) Yes, your credit card company (and maybe Experian) will happily tell whoever pays them exactly where you shop. Of course, you can write them and tell them not to, but that isn't nearly newsworthy enough. They still won't know what you bought, they would have to pay the retailer themselves for that.
4) Exactly how would Experian know how much you own? They can't possibly know what you have and what you have gotten rid of, outside of what is already available in public records. (Any schmuck can find out where you live, what real estate you own, which elections you voted in, all campaign contributions, etc. That all comes from your local government.)
5) Considering my credit report never can even get my employer right, I doubt they have any idea how much I make.
Yes, our privacy is pretty bad, but spreading paranoid, ignorant crap like this doesn't make things any better.
SirWired