How about a previous (5,1) generation Mac Pro with 2 3.33Ghz 6-core Xeons and 48GB of RAM in it. I used it for a few years editing videos, and then moved to the new 6,1 Mac Pro. Instead of selling the 5,1, I loaded it up with Linux and KVM. It makes for a superb hypervisor.
Yes, every employee is given these cards, but no they do nothing to "fast track" support. What they do is help a customer get more help and final resolution to issues that they typical tier 1 and 2 tech support can't help with. It is an admission that their tech support sucks, but it's not some special pass to get a customer something they don't otherwise deserve. Nor are they used for bribery purposes.
Basically, the original story is full of shit. But that's not terribly surprising around here, sometimes.
For the record, I'm a former Comcast employee and am not in any way defending their practices.
[First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
I'm glad someone posted this before I did. This most definitely has zilch to do with Amendment #1. I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them. It's those disclaimers that Sony will use to sue press organizations into oblivion if they dare print any of it.
While I'm no fan of Sony, I don't really see this ending well for the press.
It was in the 60's not the 90's. Lowered to 55 in the Nixon admin and slowly climbing since then.
Shortly after Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act in '95. Montana did indeed have a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit set on its (very rural!) highways. It didn't last due to how vague the phrasing was.
You do realize that taxing either has a negative effect on things you and I buy every day, right? No one likes the big 18-wheeler trucks, but none of the local supermarkets get restocked with food without those big, nasty trucks. If we make it more expensive for those trucks to operate, guess who's really going to pay for it?
Yep, I know. But the results on both WIndows and Macs are, at best: mixed. Unicomp's USB versions are identical from a mechanical perspective, and are already set up with the USB port from the factory. They even have Mac-specific versions (if you're so inclined) with the appropriate key layout and labels.
I had about 7 or 8 of them in unopened boxes before I finally decided to recycle them a month or two ago. Most from back in the mid-late 90s. If they'd just had USB connectors on keyboards way back then...:-) (The PS/2 - USB adapters are all trash). I do completely agree with the post though: the M is simply the best, by far. I have USB versions of them (done by Unicomp/PCKeyboard.com) on all of my Macs, and my gaming rig. It gives my co-workers yet another reason to dislike me, but, eh. I loves me some M.
"Say what? I can't hear you over the massive awesomeness of my keyboard!"
A few tens of millions, and a bionic pancreas is nearing usability
tell me again why the bandwagon for stem cells
A child growing up with Type-1 is going to fare a lot better in life with a completely internal, biological solution to the problem versus having a device attached or implanted. So too will adults. Your thought process is a bit short-sighted, it seems.
It seems as though the big problem with this technology is that it's not measuring blood directly. What are the barriers to placing a sensor more-or-less permanantly inside the body that can test blood directly and the send, via radio or whatever, commands to an external insulin pump to dispense insulin?
Fun problems that aren't insurmountable, but expensive and very challenging. You have the issue of potential infections and rejection, first and foremost. Any insulin pump wearer knows that the site he or she is using needs to be ripped out and replaced every 3 days or so. Why? The body will muck it up via its internal self-defense mechanisms. The same thing would happen to a foreign body fully immersed inside the body.
Power supply. Something that's transmitting constantly or regularly is going to need a power source. Do you make it something that attaches to the outside of the skin for power (ie: a small battery)? Or cut the person open whenever the battery starts flaking out? If the latter, we have new members of the zipper club instantly.
]but when done right the results really are quite useful.
All I ask is that you don't judge the entirety of an approach based on your experience with one flawed implementation.
Show me it "done right" with years(!) of lab evidence, trials including hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals, and perhaps I'll believe you. Oh, and when you provide said data, don't be an "Anonymous Coward" about it, either.
No, blood tests aren't 100% accurate. They are, however, a far, *FAR* more accurate way to get an idea of levels than using interstitial fluid. And, as it turns out in this case: accuracy counts. A lot.
The first company to cure diabetes is going to make a shit ton of money.
My prediction regarding Type-1 is this: The computer geeks are going to come up with a pretty damned good solution before the geneticists do (the tech in the aforementioned article is *not* that). But ultimately, it'll be the geneticists that figure out how to cram new Islets of Langerhans into the pancreas and keep them protected from the immune system without the anti-rej drugs.
The former solution will be an acceptable stop-gap measure for however long it takes the geneticists to cook up the latter.
Why are we screwing around with artificial organs when we can have the real deal?
He. Joking aside, I know someone who actually did get a pancreas transplant, and his Type-1 was *essentially* cured. However. He eats massive handfuls of anti-rej drugs with every meal, all to keep that pancreas functioning. IMHO, not a good trade. At all.
Yep. I'm a *big* fan of my insulin pump, but the included "Constant Glucose Monitoring" device that the pump's company touts as "FDA-approved artificial pancreas!!one11eleven!!" is anything but. It's measuring interstitial fluid, which is *randomly* accurate in *random* people at *random* times. It can neither be trusted, nor should be. And I've since stopped using the CGM side of the pump.
The tech that they're talking about in this article is the same idea: measure interstitial fluid and make insulin decisions based on that. Bad. Ju. Ju.
We need some way of measuring blood glucose levels from, ya know, actual *blood*, without the risk of causing infections. Until we get that, no bueno. Just pass on it.
Unlike a lot of nay-sayers, I'm a big fan of GM and will continue to buy specific products from them. However, I'm *not* a fan of this move. Always praise in public and punish in private. They should have simply released a press statement with something like, "We've determine who was responsible for this ignition switch issue, and they've been terminated or dealt with accordingly." Done. Naming them serves no purpose whatsoever.
Your main workflow, on the other hand, shouldn't be constrained by your network. There's so many things that could wrong in that chain. 1. your computer 2. your router/LAN 3. your ISP 4. the internet (yeah, sometimes everything breaks) 5. Adobe's servers
as opposed to just (1) if you've purchased a static installation.
And this is where some clarity is needed, I suspect. Again, as has been stated numerous times in this thread: the applications will continue working as long as they have already validated your subscription. For instance, I just fired Photoshop and Premiere up. Both popped open a dialog that said, basically, "Hey, we can't validate your subscription, but you can continue using the app until July 28, 2014. If we can't connect by then, your product will stop working."
There are a *FEW* folks that will run into problems authenticating and consequently not being able to use the product. Why their machines haven't authenticated in the past is beyond me. But the dialog is clear: I have almost 2.5 months! I suspect most people (other than those trying to do new installs... UGH!) are in the same boat.
Is it ideal? Oh hell no. Is there anything we can realistically do about it? Well, we can leave Adobe if that's our choice. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, their products really *are* the best out there. I know comparing FCPX and Premiere Pro is almost laughable (and I've done it on my new Mac Pro). As optimized as FCPX is for the new Macs, Premiere is *still* faster for what I do. No one else really has a Photoshop. Or a Lightroom if you don't need PShop's grunt.
Another solution: stick with the CS6 versions of the suite assuming you've already purchased them. The problem with that is: they're not being developed any more, and will *only* have major bug fixes done. What? Can't run them on the latest OS de'jour? Tough shitski. You're outta luck.
I'm not trying to defend the CC sub model because it sucks the big'n. But I *like* Adobe's software, so I'll continue p[l]aying along. If something better appears, I'll look into it.
Adobe, incompetent? I wasn't aware that there was any doubt about that?
I think their application developers are top notch, actually. Their IT and infrastructure guys, on the other hand? Not... so much. If a "competence injection" could be given, I'd aim it towards their inf guys, not their devs.
I attached a comment to this article before it was posted, but it looks like timothy nuked it before he made it live.
This "sniff test" for this is: hack. Not maintenance. I say that because the authentication system went down, as best I can tell, around 1700EST Wednesday. Afternoon maintenance is not unheard of, but it seems like a silly and unlikely thing to do.
Fortunately, as I pointed out: you can still the CC apps while this debacle is being un-FUBAR'd. That is unless it takes them up to 2 months to fix it, at which point the app will no longer be able to authenticate and validate your subscription. THEN it's "NO Photoshop for you!"
If it takes them that long to fix this, then they are truly, completely, and absolutely incompetent...
Slashdot Mirror
How about a previous (5,1) generation Mac Pro with 2 3.33Ghz 6-core Xeons and 48GB of RAM in it. I used it for a few years editing videos, and then moved to the new 6,1 Mac Pro. Instead of selling the 5,1, I loaded it up with Linux and KVM. It makes for a superb hypervisor.
...and therefore, it must be true.
Yes, every employee is given these cards, but no they do nothing to "fast track" support. What they do is help a customer get more help and final resolution to issues that they typical tier 1 and 2 tech support can't help with. It is an admission that their tech support sucks, but it's not some special pass to get a customer something they don't otherwise deserve. Nor are they used for bribery purposes.
Basically, the original story is full of shit. But that's not terribly surprising around here, sometimes.
For the record, I'm a former Comcast employee and am not in any way defending their practices.
[First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
I'm glad someone posted this before I did. This most definitely has zilch to do with Amendment #1. I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them. It's those disclaimers that Sony will use to sue press organizations into oblivion if they dare print any of it.
While I'm no fan of Sony, I don't really see this ending well for the press.
It was in the 60's not the 90's. Lowered to 55 in the Nixon admin and slowly climbing since then.
Shortly after Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act in '95. Montana did indeed have a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit set on its (very rural!) highways. It didn't last due to how vague the phrasing was.
...if they raised the speed limit to eighty-eight, scott could save *years*...
That's assuming he was driving something that vaguely looked like a DeLorean ...
Or has the US DOT had a change in policy?
Repealed as of 1995 with the passage of the National Highway System Designation Act.
So tax the trucks; not gas.
You do realize that taxing either has a negative effect on things you and I buy every day, right? No one likes the big 18-wheeler trucks, but none of the local supermarkets get restocked with food without those big, nasty trucks. If we make it more expensive for those trucks to operate, guess who's really going to pay for it?
That would be: us.
There is a special USB converter available that can handle the current:
http://www.clickykeyboards.com...
Yep, I know. But the results on both WIndows and Macs are, at best: mixed. Unicomp's USB versions are identical from a mechanical perspective, and are already set up with the USB port from the factory. They even have Mac-specific versions (if you're so inclined) with the appropriate key layout and labels.
I had about 7 or 8 of them in unopened boxes before I finally decided to recycle them a month or two ago. Most from back in the mid-late 90s. If they'd just had USB connectors on keyboards way back then... :-) (The PS/2 - USB adapters are all trash). I do completely agree with the post though: the M is simply the best, by far. I have USB versions of them (done by Unicomp/PCKeyboard.com) on all of my Macs, and my gaming rig. It gives my co-workers yet another reason to dislike me, but, eh. I loves me some M.
"Say what? I can't hear you over the massive awesomeness of my keyboard!"
I'm actually still trying to figure out why the *FCC* is getting involved in this, and not the *FTC* ...
A few tens of millions, and a bionic pancreas is nearing usability
tell me again why the bandwagon for stem cells
A child growing up with Type-1 is going to fare a lot better in life with a completely internal, biological solution to the problem versus having a device attached or implanted. So too will adults. Your thought process is a bit short-sighted, it seems.
It seems as though the big problem with this technology is that it's not measuring blood directly. What are the barriers to placing a sensor more-or-less permanantly inside the body that can test blood directly and the send, via radio or whatever, commands to an external insulin pump to dispense insulin?
Fun problems that aren't insurmountable, but expensive and very challenging. You have the issue of potential infections and rejection, first and foremost. Any insulin pump wearer knows that the site he or she is using needs to be ripped out and replaced every 3 days or so. Why? The body will muck it up via its internal self-defense mechanisms. The same thing would happen to a foreign body fully immersed inside the body.
Power supply. Something that's transmitting constantly or regularly is going to need a power source. Do you make it something that attaches to the outside of the skin for power (ie: a small battery)? Or cut the person open whenever the battery starts flaking out? If the latter, we have new members of the zipper club instantly.
]but when done right the results really are quite useful.
All I ask is that you don't judge the entirety of an approach based on your experience with one flawed implementation.
Show me it "done right" with years(!) of lab evidence, trials including hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals, and perhaps I'll believe you. Oh, and when you provide said data, don't be an "Anonymous Coward" about it, either.
No, blood tests aren't 100% accurate. They are, however, a far, *FAR* more accurate way to get an idea of levels than using interstitial fluid. And, as it turns out in this case: accuracy counts. A lot.
Doughnuts aren't going to eat the selves(sic).
Is it bad that I know that a Dunkin Donuts Boston Kreme donut has about 32g of carbs? ... :-D
The first company to cure diabetes is going to make a shit ton of money.
My prediction regarding Type-1 is this: The computer geeks are going to come up with a pretty damned good solution before the geneticists do (the tech in the aforementioned article is *not* that). But ultimately, it'll be the geneticists that figure out how to cram new Islets of Langerhans into the pancreas and keep them protected from the immune system without the anti-rej drugs.
The former solution will be an acceptable stop-gap measure for however long it takes the geneticists to cook up the latter.
Anti rejection drugs > death.
Yeah. Maybe. But probably not, depending on whether you happen to get sick one day...
In a very long list titled - Stupid Things I Have Done ---- ignoring my doctors warnings on my blood sugar levels ranks right around #1.
While your contribution to the thread is admirable, it's centered around Type-2. We're discussing the genetic, auto-immune disease known as Type-1.
Why are we screwing around with artificial organs when we can have the real deal?
He. Joking aside, I know someone who actually did get a pancreas transplant, and his Type-1 was *essentially* cured. However. He eats massive handfuls of anti-rej drugs with every meal, all to keep that pancreas functioning. IMHO, not a good trade. At all.
Yep. I'm a *big* fan of my insulin pump, but the included "Constant Glucose Monitoring" device that the pump's company touts as "FDA-approved artificial pancreas!!one11eleven!!" is anything but. It's measuring interstitial fluid, which is *randomly* accurate in *random* people at *random* times. It can neither be trusted, nor should be. And I've since stopped using the CGM side of the pump.
The tech that they're talking about in this article is the same idea: measure interstitial fluid and make insulin decisions based on that. Bad. Ju. Ju.
We need some way of measuring blood glucose levels from, ya know, actual *blood*, without the risk of causing infections. Until we get that, no bueno. Just pass on it.
...punish in private!
Unlike a lot of nay-sayers, I'm a big fan of GM and will continue to buy specific products from them. However, I'm *not* a fan of this move. Always praise in public and punish in private. They should have simply released a press statement with something like, "We've determine who was responsible for this ignition switch issue, and they've been terminated or dealt with accordingly." Done. Naming them serves no purpose whatsoever.
Looks like it's back up and running. I can sign into the CC application as well as their various web properties.
Your main workflow, on the other hand, shouldn't be constrained by your network. There's so many things that could wrong in that chain.
1. your computer
2. your router/LAN
3. your ISP
4. the internet (yeah, sometimes everything breaks)
5. Adobe's servers
as opposed to just (1) if you've purchased a static installation.
And this is where some clarity is needed, I suspect. Again, as has been stated numerous times in this thread: the applications will continue working as long as they have already validated your subscription. For instance, I just fired Photoshop and Premiere up. Both popped open a dialog that said, basically, "Hey, we can't validate your subscription, but you can continue using the app until July 28, 2014. If we can't connect by then, your product will stop working."
There are a *FEW* folks that will run into problems authenticating and consequently not being able to use the product. Why their machines haven't authenticated in the past is beyond me. But the dialog is clear: I have almost 2.5 months! I suspect most people (other than those trying to do new installs... UGH!) are in the same boat.
Is it ideal? Oh hell no. Is there anything we can realistically do about it? Well, we can leave Adobe if that's our choice. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, their products really *are* the best out there. I know comparing FCPX and Premiere Pro is almost laughable (and I've done it on my new Mac Pro). As optimized as FCPX is for the new Macs, Premiere is *still* faster for what I do. No one else really has a Photoshop. Or a Lightroom if you don't need PShop's grunt.
Another solution: stick with the CS6 versions of the suite assuming you've already purchased them. The problem with that is: they're not being developed any more, and will *only* have major bug fixes done. What? Can't run them on the latest OS de'jour? Tough shitski. You're outta luck.
I'm not trying to defend the CC sub model because it sucks the big'n. But I *like* Adobe's software, so I'll continue p[l]aying along. If something better appears, I'll look into it.
Adobe, incompetent? I wasn't aware that there was any doubt about that?
I think their application developers are top notch, actually. Their IT and infrastructure guys, on the other hand? Not... so much. If a "competence injection" could be given, I'd aim it towards their inf guys, not their devs.
The best part is that this is happening on the eve of Adobe canceling sales of perpetual licensing to Adobe Creative Suite products
I attached a comment to this article before it was posted, but it looks like timothy nuked it before he made it live.
This "sniff test" for this is: hack. Not maintenance. I say that because the authentication system went down, as best I can tell, around 1700EST Wednesday. Afternoon maintenance is not unheard of, but it seems like a silly and unlikely thing to do.
Hope I'm wrong about that.
Fortunately, as I pointed out: you can still the CC apps while this debacle is being un-FUBAR'd. That is unless it takes them up to 2 months to fix it, at which point the app will no longer be able to authenticate and validate your subscription. THEN it's "NO Photoshop for you!"
If it takes them that long to fix this, then they are truly, completely, and absolutely incompetent...