Can a certain number of solar panels power a datacenter with a given load? Sure! Just not 24/7. But that doesn't mean they can not. Your datacenter takes 1 MW/h. You receive roughly 8 hours of usable sunlight, so you need 3MW/h capacity of solar panels to produce the power you need. During the day, the power company will take your excess power, and light up factories, offices, Air Conditioning, etc... During the night, you will use the power company to power your datacenter, when it has to keep its power systems up anyways, and therefore has excess capacity. Look up the terms "base load" and "peak load", understand that not everything that plugs into the power grid needs to be up 24/7 ( not even all servers, look up "DRS"). So can that much power be produced to have a "net neutral" load on the grid? Sure!
But there is always the desire to be completely self-reliant. In this area, I always liked the idea of using the excess power during the day to lift water to a lake high up, and running hydro at night to power the datacenter. This is of course expensive, especially since power companies have excess power at night anyways, since the cycle time to stop / start producing base power won't allow the company to shut down X generators at night.
It's fair, but to be fair, there should be bandwidth to support that at the peering sites. In the LA area, Verizon Fios is so bad accessing Netflix, it buffers and reduces quality so often, I usually go to HBO GO just to avoid the quality issues. I'd pay more for better bandwidth.
Comcast enters into agreements with various municipalities to have an effective monopoly for a type of service in that area (coax). The original ideals of these arrangements helped the cable co. justify the costly process of installing the coax network, as it would be assumed that X% of lit locations would then subscribe, making the service feasible.
The problem here is you don't have the rules that regulate LECs to ensure competition, yet still provide effective monopolies on a class of service backed by local government regulation. LECs must resell (or lease) their lines to other carriers at fair market value. So you can order say a T1 line or a POTS line from other carriers, and they can deliver that service to you via the wires of the LEC, which will terminate in the 3rd party carriers datacenter.
Coax works different: The company installs the coax network in a neighborhood, and are guaranteed exclusivity in those neighborhoods. No other entity can install Coax (or sometimes anything else, e.g.: fiber; depending on the local agreement). The right answer is to remove exclusivity deals, as I'm not in favor of either government provided service, or regulations from the government. Both would yield a worse situation than what we have now in terms of
1. customer service (just visit your local DMV office for something to compare it to)
2. price (look at the cost per student of your local public vs. private schools)
3. privacy (google Edward Snowden).
I would argue any movement for restricting one's free speech is a credible threat. The "14yo brat" is free to call anyone he or she wishes a faggot, and you and anyone else is free not to listen. Are you proposing limiting the free speech of someone who's right to exercise that free speech has been fought and won with the blood and lives?
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
If the problem was really in the OS, then windows server which shares many of the same underpinnings as Windows desktop(s), would suffer the same fate. Since servers like domain controllers and exchange servers run for years without that issue, the problem seems to be from the crAPP that gets installed, as the parent explained, as well as the article. Bad headline to suggest the bad apps are M$'s problem
Income distribution != theft. When you work, you do so understanding that a portion of your income will be taken for taxes and how much is set before you engage in said work. You can then negotiate with those costs factored in. You don't find out how much of your earnings you get to keep 5 years later at gunpoint. That's why we tax based on income and not net wealth.
But then there's that unfortunate word again.... "Realistically". Are you going to cycle the battery X many times as well to ensure the new phone is the exact same condition as the original?
I agree with you it should be free of charge if there is a defect, and it would have to be counted as one if they claimed it could survive > 90lbs of force, but that wasn't a claim. Realistically, if it was a free replacement, how do you get away from the "I nicked my iPhone dropping it out of my car, let me bend it and get a new one" crowd?
There should be a minimum charge (like another $199) and a replacement phone be provided.
I once had an iPhone that cracked near the camera lens and apple replaced it for free because it was a known defect. Has anyone had an experience where apple didn't replace the phone? I didn't have AppleCare either.
You can point a strong telescope at the moon and see the tracks, footprints, and leftover hardware. It would have been more expensive at the time to send machines to false-place those articles of evidence on the surface. See for yourself, they are on the earth-facing side. Something NASA colt have saved money on if it was a conspiracy by claiming the landing was on the far side.
To google something is to use a company's search engine to search the web, and that fact was created by said company. Search engines existed long before google, so it wouldn't be fair to allow another search engine such as bing to present a text box and a button that said "Google It!". Trademarks don't come with usage limits.
Long enough while filling in the detail on the new 4K TVs the industry is pushing.... obviously! Or do you watch YouTube on nothing but an old tuner-only tv?
Large space is large space, and there will always be uses for it. ALWAYS. 640 *B will never be enough for anyone, ever.
Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute.
I would argue that Mentally-Ill persons can not enter into such an agreement knowingly (without the consent of a care giver), and unless the drug was treating for that ailment, any mental side-effects would be difficult to discern from the original mental illness, and render the result suspect anyways....
just by $0.02
Technically yes, it can be done, but... 1. Where is the list of all IP addresses coming from 2. Who is supposed to manage the white list, or the now very large ruleset in your large organization 3. Who is supposed to whitelist EVERY SINGLE ip address your computer talks to? Track the connections in your ASA, and you will discover that with phones, tablets, and regular users, a 50 man organization will connect to literally tens of thousands of IPs a day. Its unrealistic to whitelist IPs, especially when you can not guarantee targets will not update their DNS records when they obtain new IP addresses. 4. Forget about any P2P application.. not just file-sharing but chat and messaging programs that communicate directly to the client.
not trying to blame the victim, but I wonder if antivirus or anti-malware software will detect these ransomware programs? Just asking. I guess firewalls might be able to detect the Tor server/connections.
All a firewall will see is encrypted traffic from the computer in the LAN (inside) initiate a connection to a random computer (IP address) on the Internet (outside interface). Its not able to see what is being sent/received, which is the entire reason for TORs existence.. protecting you from Man in the Middle attacks, which in this case, the firewall would be.
You make a few good points Maga. What I meant to say is that the "spirit" of the founding laws that coincide with American ideals against unlawful, unwarranted search and seizure are defined to protect the public, and the individual from a questioning government. Basically, the government can not come into your home, and search for without a warrant showing just cause.
The fact that our digital culture has mechanized mass-surveilance, the likes of which were surely unimaginable when the founding laws were laid down, does not change the intent of the law. The government has to show just cause before it can search your effects or your person. Mass surveillance is specifically counter to that intent. There is no just cause for searching people at random, and that again is specifically what the law is written to keep from occurring.
However, if you post on FB, thats information you are choosing to share with a corporate entity. If they in turn share that data, its either in accordance with their policies, the law, or in violation of them, which means you have cause to lay a claim. Just like you can not kiss someone in public and expect privacy, you can not expect to post information to FB and expect privacy. If your friends can see it, they too can share it, which is not in violation of any contract or law.
The chance now is for people to rise up and assert when the information intended to be secure (such as encrypted data to another person), is syphoned and decrypted en masse; the government is in violation of both the "spirit" and the letter of the law.
But that means this is a chance for the nation (and by nation I mean the public), to stand up for what they believe to be right and true in this regard. As an American, you can ask yourself what the freedoms and "spirits" of the founding laws intended, and fight to make it so. So often on slashdot, there are comments that ring with "it can't ever happen, the MAN is too powerful for us peons to do anything to change this". I always feel like I should (but seldom do) remind those folks of the Civil Rights movement. A group of citizens rose up and stood in the face of so many gov't entities and achieved their goal. I also feel that happened when President Obama ran in 2008. The results have been a little underwhelming vs. what the youth of the day thought they would get, but they did achieve it. I think the Civil Rights movement of my generation (30's) and the one that follows will be digital rights, privacy, and freedom to conduct your business without the watchful eye of big brother giving you a second glance, or a nod of approval.
From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection. You can test ipv6 functionality by going to test-ipv6.org. From a hosting perspective, no one will want to use an IPv6 server unless their customers/clients/users can access it. The last-mile retail carriers need to implement v6 first. The situation is getting close to truly exhausting the v4 pool, and it's going to be too little too late very soon. Try and request an org, as, and v4 addresses from ARIN. You better be good at proving an ABSOLUTE NEED for them. They don't have any large blocks left. V6 isn't the same hassle, they hand them out like candy, so it's not a lasyness issue. It's Network admins not knowing how to configure it, old equipment, and end-user inaccessability that keep IaaS companies from switching.
Count the camera's around you... in 100 ft even. Just imagine how many CCDs are being made every day, how many hard drive platters are being created every day! The era of privacy has passed. We will be forever more in a surveillance state. I think our children will be far more accepting of this change than we are, simply because its new. 25 years from now, being "caught on film" doing something we don't want others to know about will be harder and harder. Its a math problem more cameras = more surveillance.
I understand the project made financial sense, and Im not disputing that it did decrease marginal costs. What I am saying is that when you can automate a function, there are more factors to consider than the replaced employee's wages. The drive to automation is to scale efficiently, which humans can not do.
The main driver for this project was not the cost of the technology vs. the cost of the payroll, it was the ancillary benefits that come with automation that humans just can not match. Thats my point (in response to the point of the article).
Again. I understand it increases the bottom line, but it does so in a way that doubling the payroll could not have achieved. There is a diminishing return on the number of employees you can have driving around a warehouse in a propane truck, and yes there is a limit on the number of these forklifts you can hire, but the objective was to maximize shipping capacity of the warehouse. These units were better than the humans at that.
Price has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with (perceived) supply / demand.
And unless you live in a dictatorship, you are not allowed to "demand" anything for any price, just as I am not allowed to "demand" you purchase any particular good or servi... oh wait. I forgot we passed the ACA.
Well if you ignore the fact that the project didn't save money-spent overall, then yes, its about costs.
What you are forgetting to take into account is that you get significantly more production, at a higher rate of accuracy with machines. In some cases (not all), the accuracy and production increase is simply unfeasible with a human workforce. Its like asking how many postmen would it take to deliver all the world's email. There simply wouldn't be enough resources to do the job, regardless of cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Can a certain number of solar panels power a datacenter with a given load? Sure! Just not 24/7. But that doesn't mean they can not. Your datacenter takes 1 MW/h. You receive roughly 8 hours of usable sunlight, so you need 3MW/h capacity of solar panels to produce the power you need. During the day, the power company will take your excess power, and light up factories, offices, Air Conditioning, etc... During the night, you will use the power company to power your datacenter, when it has to keep its power systems up anyways, and therefore has excess capacity. Look up the terms "base load" and "peak load", understand that not everything that plugs into the power grid needs to be up 24/7 ( not even all servers, look up "DRS"). So can that much power be produced to have a "net neutral" load on the grid? Sure!
But there is always the desire to be completely self-reliant. In this area, I always liked the idea of using the excess power during the day to lift water to a lake high up, and running hydro at night to power the datacenter. This is of course expensive, especially since power companies have excess power at night anyways, since the cycle time to stop / start producing base power won't allow the company to shut down X generators at night.
It's fair, but to be fair, there should be bandwidth to support that at the peering sites. In the LA area, Verizon Fios is so bad accessing Netflix, it buffers and reduces quality so often, I usually go to HBO GO just to avoid the quality issues. I'd pay more for better bandwidth.
Mod parent up!
Comcast enters into agreements with various municipalities to have an effective monopoly for a type of service in that area (coax). The original ideals of these arrangements helped the cable co. justify the costly process of installing the coax network, as it would be assumed that X% of lit locations would then subscribe, making the service feasible.
The problem here is you don't have the rules that regulate LECs to ensure competition, yet still provide effective monopolies on a class of service backed by local government regulation. LECs must resell (or lease) their lines to other carriers at fair market value. So you can order say a T1 line or a POTS line from other carriers, and they can deliver that service to you via the wires of the LEC, which will terminate in the 3rd party carriers datacenter.
Coax works different: The company installs the coax network in a neighborhood, and are guaranteed exclusivity in those neighborhoods. No other entity can install Coax (or sometimes anything else, e.g.: fiber; depending on the local agreement). The right answer is to remove exclusivity deals, as I'm not in favor of either government provided service, or regulations from the government. Both would yield a worse situation than what we have now in terms of
1. customer service (just visit your local DMV office for something to compare it to)
2. price (look at the cost per student of your local public vs. private schools)
3. privacy (google Edward Snowden).
I would argue any movement for restricting one's free speech is a credible threat. The "14yo brat" is free to call anyone he or she wishes a faggot, and you and anyone else is free not to listen. Are you proposing limiting the free speech of someone who's right to exercise that free speech has been fought and won with the blood and lives?
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Prominent Female Game Journalists: clearly the most dangerous threat to humanity as we know it. Well deserving of a movement to discredit
If the problem was really in the OS, then windows server which shares many of the same underpinnings as Windows desktop(s), would suffer the same fate. Since servers like domain controllers and exchange servers run for years without that issue, the problem seems to be from the crAPP that gets installed, as the parent explained, as well as the article. Bad headline to suggest the bad apps are M$'s problem
Income distribution != theft. When you work, you do so understanding that a portion of your income will be taken for taxes and how much is set before you engage in said work. You can then negotiate with those costs factored in. You don't find out how much of your earnings you get to keep 5 years later at gunpoint. That's why we tax based on income and not net wealth.
But then there's that unfortunate word again.... "Realistically". Are you going to cycle the battery X many times as well to ensure the new phone is the exact same condition as the original?
I agree with you it should be free of charge if there is a defect, and it would have to be counted as one if they claimed it could survive > 90lbs of force, but that wasn't a claim. Realistically, if it was a free replacement, how do you get away from the "I nicked my iPhone dropping it out of my car, let me bend it and get a new one" crowd?
There should be a minimum charge (like another $199) and a replacement phone be provided. I once had an iPhone that cracked near the camera lens and apple replaced it for free because it was a known defect. Has anyone had an experience where apple didn't replace the phone? I didn't have AppleCare either.
You can point a strong telescope at the moon and see the tracks, footprints, and leftover hardware. It would have been more expensive at the time to send machines to false-place those articles of evidence on the surface. See for yourself, they are on the earth-facing side. Something NASA colt have saved money on if it was a conspiracy by claiming the landing was on the far side.
To google something is to use a company's search engine to search the web, and that fact was created by said company. Search engines existed long before google, so it wouldn't be fair to allow another search engine such as bing to present a text box and a button that said "Google It!". Trademarks don't come with usage limits.
Long enough while filling in the detail on the new 4K TVs the industry is pushing.... obviously! Or do you watch YouTube on nothing but an old tuner-only tv? Large space is large space, and there will always be uses for it. ALWAYS. 640 *B will never be enough for anyone, ever.
Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute. I would argue that Mentally-Ill persons can not enter into such an agreement knowingly (without the consent of a care giver), and unless the drug was treating for that ailment, any mental side-effects would be difficult to discern from the original mental illness, and render the result suspect anyways.... just by $0.02
Technically yes, it can be done, but...
1. Where is the list of all IP addresses coming from
2. Who is supposed to manage the white list, or the now very large ruleset in your large organization
3. Who is supposed to whitelist EVERY SINGLE ip address your computer talks to? Track the connections in your ASA, and you will discover that with phones, tablets, and regular users, a 50 man organization will connect to literally tens of thousands of IPs a day. Its unrealistic to whitelist IPs, especially when you can not guarantee targets will not update their DNS records when they obtain new IP addresses.
4. Forget about any P2P application.. not just file-sharing but chat and messaging programs that communicate directly to the client.
not trying to blame the victim, but I wonder if antivirus or anti-malware software will detect these ransomware programs? Just asking. I guess firewalls might be able to detect the Tor server/connections.
All a firewall will see is encrypted traffic from the computer in the LAN (inside) initiate a connection to a random computer (IP address) on the Internet (outside interface). Its not able to see what is being sent/received, which is the entire reason for TORs existence.. protecting you from Man in the Middle attacks, which in this case, the firewall would be.
You make a few good points Maga. What I meant to say is that the "spirit" of the founding laws that coincide with American ideals against unlawful, unwarranted search and seizure are defined to protect the public, and the individual from a questioning government. Basically, the government can not come into your home, and search for without a warrant showing just cause.
The fact that our digital culture has mechanized mass-surveilance, the likes of which were surely unimaginable when the founding laws were laid down, does not change the intent of the law. The government has to show just cause before it can search your effects or your person. Mass surveillance is specifically counter to that intent. There is no just cause for searching people at random, and that again is specifically what the law is written to keep from occurring.
However, if you post on FB, thats information you are choosing to share with a corporate entity. If they in turn share that data, its either in accordance with their policies, the law, or in violation of them, which means you have cause to lay a claim. Just like you can not kiss someone in public and expect privacy, you can not expect to post information to FB and expect privacy. If your friends can see it, they too can share it, which is not in violation of any contract or law.
The chance now is for people to rise up and assert when the information intended to be secure (such as encrypted data to another person), is syphoned and decrypted en masse; the government is in violation of both the "spirit" and the letter of the law.
But that means this is a chance for the nation (and by nation I mean the public), to stand up for what they believe to be right and true in this regard. As an American, you can ask yourself what the freedoms and "spirits" of the founding laws intended, and fight to make it so. So often on slashdot, there are comments that ring with "it can't ever happen, the MAN is too powerful for us peons to do anything to change this". I always feel like I should (but seldom do) remind those folks of the Civil Rights movement. A group of citizens rose up and stood in the face of so many gov't entities and achieved their goal. I also feel that happened when President Obama ran in 2008. The results have been a little underwhelming vs. what the youth of the day thought they would get, but they did achieve it. I think the Civil Rights movement of my generation (30's) and the one that follows will be digital rights, privacy, and freedom to conduct your business without the watchful eye of big brother giving you a second glance, or a nod of approval.
From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection. You can test ipv6 functionality by going to test-ipv6.org. From a hosting perspective, no one will want to use an IPv6 server unless their customers/clients/users can access it. The last-mile retail carriers need to implement v6 first. The situation is getting close to truly exhausting the v4 pool, and it's going to be too little too late very soon. Try and request an org, as, and v4 addresses from ARIN. You better be good at proving an ABSOLUTE NEED for them. They don't have any large blocks left. V6 isn't the same hassle, they hand them out like candy, so it's not a lasyness issue. It's Network admins not knowing how to configure it, old equipment, and end-user inaccessability that keep IaaS companies from switching.
To get people to the ISS that spaxeX cannot provide?
That spacex doesn't provide to ferry humans up to the IIS? Why do they still need the Russians to get up there?
Count the camera's around you... in 100 ft even. Just imagine how many CCDs are being made every day, how many hard drive platters are being created every day! The era of privacy has passed. We will be forever more in a surveillance state. I think our children will be far more accepting of this change than we are, simply because its new. 25 years from now, being "caught on film" doing something we don't want others to know about will be harder and harder. Its a math problem more cameras = more surveillance.
I understand the project made financial sense, and Im not disputing that it did decrease marginal costs. What I am saying is that when you can automate a function, there are more factors to consider than the replaced employee's wages. The drive to automation is to scale efficiently, which humans can not do.
The main driver for this project was not the cost of the technology vs. the cost of the payroll, it was the ancillary benefits that come with automation that humans just can not match. Thats my point (in response to the point of the article).
Again. I understand it increases the bottom line, but it does so in a way that doubling the payroll could not have achieved. There is a diminishing return on the number of employees you can have driving around a warehouse in a propane truck, and yes there is a limit on the number of these forklifts you can hire, but the objective was to maximize shipping capacity of the warehouse. These units were better than the humans at that.
Price has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with (perceived) supply / demand.
And unless you live in a dictatorship, you are not allowed to "demand" anything for any price, just as I am not allowed to "demand" you purchase any particular good or servi... oh wait. I forgot we passed the ACA.
Well if you ignore the fact that the project didn't save money-spent overall, then yes, its about costs.
What you are forgetting to take into account is that you get significantly more production, at a higher rate of accuracy with machines. In some cases (not all), the accuracy and production increase is simply unfeasible with a human workforce.
Its like asking how many postmen would it take to deliver all the world's email. There simply wouldn't be enough resources to do the job, regardless of cost.