Streaming a SINGLE HD TV channel, or even just a signle high quality non-HD DVD will take far more than that, so yes we ARE going to be viewing more content than that at any one time. I'm at 2MBps ADSL now, and I find it limiting. I'm just waiting for the 24Mbps ADSL services here in London to get rolled out in my area - I'll switch almost right away.
Unfortunately I apparently have to expect to wait another 6 months for it to be available.
The problem lies in interpreting the data. Apple surely has one of the best known brands in the world. It would likely also score high if people were asked which brands they'd consider for purchasing portable music players, or which brands are "cool".
But trust? I'm not surprised Apple isn't scoring higher, because most people won't give a high degree of trust without significant personal experience, or the a high level of feedback from their friends, and Apple's reach simply isn't high enough in terms of product sales to be able to get there. Or at least hasn't been high enough for sufficient amount of time.
First you have to answer the question of what constitutes "realistically model". You can "realistically model" the outcome of throwing a dice trivially, but exactly modelling it is incredibly hard. Depending on your goal the easy approach (just pick a random number from 1 to 6 for each throw) is often sufficient.
A significant point of modelling something is that you want to simplify something sufficiently to show all the key behavior without the same level of complexity. In this case you can assume that modelling the way quantum mechanics affects the behavior of individual particles is mostly unimportant, for instance, and a lot of factors can be closely enough modelled by generating random numbers instead of accurately modelling specific processes.
Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Haven't the soviets put men up in space for over one year with little to no ill effects
In one word: no.
There were certainly ill effects from their experiments, such as fairly significant loss of bone mass and muscle mass. Whether those ill effects were serious enough to be a problem, that's another issue.
Some sites consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth and we can't expect someone to foot the bill for that for free.
Nobody are asking that. Sites pay their ISP. Users pay their ISP. The ISPs pay eachother, or agree on interchange agreements.
Ultimately, all traffic on an ISPs network has been paid for either by their subscribers or through interchange agreements - either in bandwidth or cash.
What these telcos wants is to get paid twice for the same service.
These days you can get up to about 1TB in a standard 42U rack... But given that I was quoted up to $250k (depending on options) for a 32GB unit, I don't even want to think about what they charge for the 1TB unit...
Of course, there are reasons why these types of units are so expensive, like the fact that most of them use hardware RAID with chipkill support (the DIMM's will automatically be taken out of use if they get unreliable, and can be hotswapped), two or three separate power supplies, typically multiple fibrechannel interfaces that can be max'ed out at the same time for interfacing with the box (or in some cases custom PCI cards with custom buses).
I very much doubt they use flash based SSD's for performance enhancements.
Most large scale systems that use SSD's to increase DB performance do so using DRAM (mainly) or SRAM based units with battery backup, RAM based RAID and controllers that dump the data to disk either on an ongoing basis or in the case of a power failure (using battery power to keep things up at least long enough to write a consistent snapshot to disk).
The units are ridiculously expensive, but far faster than anything you'd manage to get with flash or harddisks (typically they're maxing out the controller/bus you connect to them via).
If mean it will be a failure if it doesn't get in the hand of every child in wartorn regions, then, yes, it will be a failure. But most of the people in the developing world lives in areas where sufficient infrastructure for distribution exists, and is in regular use by commercial companies, and where even major international transport companies operate with limited problems.
Many people seems to think that the developing world == those starving children you see on TV every now and again. But there's more to the developing world than that. Famine due to difficulty of distribution happens, yes, and is a serious problem. But even during the worst disasters they hit only a small percentage of the people living in the developing world.
Employers "doing their job" is often the biggest threat to a company both from a security and legal standpoint. Employes tends to defend the most ridiculous things with "it was needed for me to do my job".
When it comes to things like depending on e-mail archives what it really means it "I can't be assed to sort through my e-mail and save the few bits of information I really need to keep separately".
I depend heavily on e-mail, but I also routinely delete business related e-mail as soon as I can. Very little end up staying in my archives more than a few weeks. Even most documents etc. tend to end up being superceded or become obsolete within weeks.
The point is that the CSS spec specifies exactly the behavior a browser should use to handle invalid CSS: It should ignore the declaration, but continue to parse the file. A browser that accepts invalid CSS declarations, or fails to recover and continue parsing is not conformant.
So the test is verifying conformance not only with treatment of valid CSS, but also correct treatment of invalid CSS, which is very important given that a significant part of compatibility problems between current web-browsers is caused by different behavior in the face of errors - whether they ignore it, stop parsing, try to render it anyway etc.
Except that a "byte" isn't an SI unit in the first place, so what those prefixes means in the context of SI units have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
Ask your legal counsel about the legal risks of allowing unlimited retention. Your company ought to have a policy for retention that is not too far above what can be minimally expected of a company in your line of business, simply because every e-mail has a potential liability to the company if you're sued tomorrow (and if you're sued or expect to be sued, you better not even think about starting to purge anything or you WILL be in deep shit).
It's the best way you have of getting a hard upper limit on retention times - the company legal counsel have a far better hope of getting a limit enforced than you ever have, and they'll have a good reason for it.
Remember those embarrassing e-mails that showed up in the Microsoft anti-trust trial? You can bet that given the wrong lawsuit, even if there's nothing illegal in there, there WILL BE stuff in your companys e-mail archives that would damage the companys reputation, damage you a lawsuit (even if just because some morons in sales were stupid and brash and made silly claims in an e-mail or wrote stuff like "we'll CRUSH the f*ckers!!! World domination! Muahahah" in a fit of motivation - it will be exploited, even if only for a PR win, if "the f*ckers" ever sue...)
Then you can start considering within those restrictions what other things you should and can limit to safeguard security.
Then LASTLY you ask the question of whether there are any other things you can or need to restrict. Odds are the limitations to get reasonable retention times and security restrictions will have cut your storage needs significantly already (unless you're in finance or other heavily regulated business and is required by law to archive significant amounts of your communications)
You have no idea how many registrations Yahoo gets a day, do you?
Yahoo has a significant team working just on handling issues related to registrations, including managing all kinds of different types of abuse as well as spammers attempting to automatically register tons of accounts.
Sometimes adding blocks is the only way of effectively deal with problems like that, and then you can remove the blocks when the idiots they were meant to stop have gotten tired and gone to play other places instead.
It's more than that - most of these charities are funded by donations of stock (haven't bothered to check for Google, so I'm talking in general). Selling those large quantities of stock on the open market in one big swoop, particularly if insider do it, would drive down the price dramatically. Instead, by donating the stock, you can often achieve tax deductions without selling the shares, and then have the charitable fund slowly sell off the shares later.
Some of the charitable institutions will also have significant political agendas - Gates for instance have been accused of (as much as I don't like him, I don't know if this is true - consider it an example of what such a fund could be used for rather than fact...) using his foundation to fund HIV drugs as a way of preventing a widespread third world backlash against the current patent systems and treaties.
Whether or not it is true in this case, any foundation managing billions of dollars outside of the confines of a normal business is certainly a potentially formidable political tool, and it would be naive to think none of these foundations take advantage of that to further the political agenda of their founders.
I have this problem all the time on a machine with 1GB RAM. Firefox will often eat well over half a GB before CPU usage starts growing, but eventually it'll get to a point where the system performance degrades so quickly that it's tough to get a chance to kill Firefox before it freezes completely.
So are you for disallowing divorce when children are involved, perhaps? And what about couples where one parent dies? Should the remaining parent be forced to give up the child or remarry, perhaps?
Fact is, huge numbers of children already grow up without both a mom and a dad, or with relatives who may or may not be single, and there is NO evidence to suggest that growing up with two dads or moms in any way is worse than many of the alternatives we have no problems accepting.
In other words, it is pure bigotry, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
You conveniently ignored these two parts of the post you replied to:
With the exception of those who have free will yet lack the ability to consent (children, animals, etc.) and anybody who tells anybody else who they can't marry speaks far worse of a civilization.
In other words, he was not suggestion anyone could marry anyone without consent. So sorry, you'd still out of luck with Liz Hurley unless you manage to get her consent, and that Chinese pig is out of bounds too...
I stripped a "live" television cable with my teeth...
I did it to a phone line as I was wiring an extension to hook up my modem. Which was not a problem, until someone called, at which point everything went white for a second or so... Thankfully I dropped the wire before the second ring. My tongue was kind of numb for a few minutes, though.
It's not that easy. The geek/nerd distinctions varies markedly by geography, from slight differences to having switched place completely. And in many places there isn't any distinction between the two terms at all.
You cannot ask FISA for a warrant yet both because you can't and must not for security reasons give FISA all the numbers on the watchlist
And exactly at this point your reasoning fell apart. The very rationale for the existence of FISA is exactly that Congress wanted to ensure 1) oversight, and 2) that oversight would not compromise security. It is a secret court for a reason. It allows warrants to be obtained after the fact for a reason.
Regardless, if the government truly has such a compelling reason for bypassing FISA, then they should have put that argument to Congress.
As much as I dislike Bush, if he'd told Congress up front "sorry, but national security requires us to bypass FISA temporarily while you are addressing the concerns we're presenting, but we'll prepare documentation of the wiretaps as and when security allows" he would have earned a lot of respect. It would have opened the door for finding methods of oversight to address whatever concerns the government had, OR for Congress to decide that those concerns were invalid.
In a pragmatic world you have to expect that sometimes rules may have to be broken, and sometimes that is ok. But big alarm bells should go off if you're not willing to be upfront about it with those charged with overseeing your powers.
Anything else is a slippery slope towards a dictatorial police state.
I believe in both. However US Citizens calling known or suspected terrorists hardly have a valid right to privacy.
And that's the huge gaping hole in your argument. How do you know they are calling known or suspected terorists, when your government refuses to let anybody know who they are tapping on what basis but just ask you to trust them?
Do I really have to point out to you that the US has at least once had a president who had no qualms about wiretapping his political enemies for political gain (Nixon, in case you completely lack history knowledge)? What makes you think you can trust the current and all future governments not to do the same.
Keep in mind that regardless whether you think Bush is an asswipe or a true American hero, he will not be president forever, and any expansion of presidential powers will be there to exploit for future presidents too unless something is done to stop it.
The scary part here is not that Bush wants to wiretap, but that he so obviously KNOW that these wiretaps are wide reaching, considering that he's decided it's worthwhile to avoid asking for permission from a court that hardly ever says no to any request, and where the requests can be filed after the fact.
It takes an extreme naivety to think even for a second that nothing is fishy there.
If these are truly people calling suspected terrorists, then warrants for these wiretaps would be granted with no problems.
So why again, is it necessary to bypass the oversight measures put in place by congress?
Slashdot Mirror
Streaming a SINGLE HD TV channel, or even just a signle high quality non-HD DVD will take far more than that, so yes we ARE going to be viewing more content than that at any one time. I'm at 2MBps ADSL now, and I find it limiting. I'm just waiting for the 24Mbps ADSL services here in London to get rolled out in my area - I'll switch almost right away. Unfortunately I apparently have to expect to wait another 6 months for it to be available.
I'm not sure I want to, given the amount of sharing that would involve..
But trust? I'm not surprised Apple isn't scoring higher, because most people won't give a high degree of trust without significant personal experience, or the a high level of feedback from their friends, and Apple's reach simply isn't high enough in terms of product sales to be able to get there. Or at least hasn't been high enough for sufficient amount of time.
This guy at Oxford University poses an interesting argument about the likelihood that we're all living in a simulation.
A significant point of modelling something is that you want to simplify something sufficiently to show all the key behavior without the same level of complexity. In this case you can assume that modelling the way quantum mechanics affects the behavior of individual particles is mostly unimportant, for instance, and a lot of factors can be closely enough modelled by generating random numbers instead of accurately modelling specific processes.
In one word: no.
There were certainly ill effects from their experiments, such as fairly significant loss of bone mass and muscle mass. Whether those ill effects were serious enough to be a problem, that's another issue.
Nobody are asking that. Sites pay their ISP. Users pay their ISP. The ISPs pay eachother, or agree on interchange agreements.
Ultimately, all traffic on an ISPs network has been paid for either by their subscribers or through interchange agreements - either in bandwidth or cash.
What these telcos wants is to get paid twice for the same service.
Of course, there are reasons why these types of units are so expensive, like the fact that most of them use hardware RAID with chipkill support (the DIMM's will automatically be taken out of use if they get unreliable, and can be hotswapped), two or three separate power supplies, typically multiple fibrechannel interfaces that can be max'ed out at the same time for interfacing with the box (or in some cases custom PCI cards with custom buses).
Most large scale systems that use SSD's to increase DB performance do so using DRAM (mainly) or SRAM based units with battery backup, RAM based RAID and controllers that dump the data to disk either on an ongoing basis or in the case of a power failure (using battery power to keep things up at least long enough to write a consistent snapshot to disk).
The units are ridiculously expensive, but far faster than anything you'd manage to get with flash or harddisks (typically they're maxing out the controller/bus you connect to them via).
Wait... Are you trying to tell me Miriam Abacha e-mailed you too? That lying double crossing old cow...
Many people seems to think that the developing world == those starving children you see on TV every now and again. But there's more to the developing world than that. Famine due to difficulty of distribution happens, yes, and is a serious problem. But even during the worst disasters they hit only a small percentage of the people living in the developing world.
When it comes to things like depending on e-mail archives what it really means it "I can't be assed to sort through my e-mail and save the few bits of information I really need to keep separately".
I depend heavily on e-mail, but I also routinely delete business related e-mail as soon as I can. Very little end up staying in my archives more than a few weeks. Even most documents etc. tend to end up being superceded or become obsolete within weeks.
So the test is verifying conformance not only with treatment of valid CSS, but also correct treatment of invalid CSS, which is very important given that a significant part of compatibility problems between current web-browsers is caused by different behavior in the face of errors - whether they ignore it, stop parsing, try to render it anyway etc.
He presumably referred to using "SI-style" prefixes to "byte". However that isn't part of the SI standard at all, as byte isn't an SI unit.
Except that a "byte" isn't an SI unit in the first place, so what those prefixes means in the context of SI units have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
It's the best way you have of getting a hard upper limit on retention times - the company legal counsel have a far better hope of getting a limit enforced than you ever have, and they'll have a good reason for it.
Remember those embarrassing e-mails that showed up in the Microsoft anti-trust trial? You can bet that given the wrong lawsuit, even if there's nothing illegal in there, there WILL BE stuff in your companys e-mail archives that would damage the companys reputation, damage you a lawsuit (even if just because some morons in sales were stupid and brash and made silly claims in an e-mail or wrote stuff like "we'll CRUSH the f*ckers!!! World domination! Muahahah" in a fit of motivation - it will be exploited, even if only for a PR win, if "the f*ckers" ever sue...)
Then you can start considering within those restrictions what other things you should and can limit to safeguard security.
Then LASTLY you ask the question of whether there are any other things you can or need to restrict. Odds are the limitations to get reasonable retention times and security restrictions will have cut your storage needs significantly already (unless you're in finance or other heavily regulated business and is required by law to archive significant amounts of your communications)
Yahoo has a significant team working just on handling issues related to registrations, including managing all kinds of different types of abuse as well as spammers attempting to automatically register tons of accounts.
Sometimes adding blocks is the only way of effectively deal with problems like that, and then you can remove the blocks when the idiots they were meant to stop have gotten tired and gone to play other places instead.
Some of the charitable institutions will also have significant political agendas - Gates for instance have been accused of (as much as I don't like him, I don't know if this is true - consider it an example of what such a fund could be used for rather than fact...) using his foundation to fund HIV drugs as a way of preventing a widespread third world backlash against the current patent systems and treaties.
Whether or not it is true in this case, any foundation managing billions of dollars outside of the confines of a normal business is certainly a potentially formidable political tool, and it would be naive to think none of these foundations take advantage of that to further the political agenda of their founders.
It's been like that since before 1.0.
Fact is, huge numbers of children already grow up without both a mom and a dad, or with relatives who may or may not be single, and there is NO evidence to suggest that growing up with two dads or moms in any way is worse than many of the alternatives we have no problems accepting.
In other words, it is pure bigotry, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
In other words, he was not suggestion anyone could marry anyone without consent. So sorry, you'd still out of luck with Liz Hurley unless you manage to get her consent, and that Chinese pig is out of bounds too...
I did it to a phone line as I was wiring an extension to hook up my modem. Which was not a problem, until someone called, at which point everything went white for a second or so... Thankfully I dropped the wire before the second ring. My tongue was kind of numb for a few minutes, though.
It's not that easy. The geek/nerd distinctions varies markedly by geography, from slight differences to having switched place completely. And in many places there isn't any distinction between the two terms at all.
And exactly at this point your reasoning fell apart. The very rationale for the existence of FISA is exactly that Congress wanted to ensure 1) oversight, and 2) that oversight would not compromise security. It is a secret court for a reason. It allows warrants to be obtained after the fact for a reason.
Regardless, if the government truly has such a compelling reason for bypassing FISA, then they should have put that argument to Congress.
As much as I dislike Bush, if he'd told Congress up front "sorry, but national security requires us to bypass FISA temporarily while you are addressing the concerns we're presenting, but we'll prepare documentation of the wiretaps as and when security allows" he would have earned a lot of respect. It would have opened the door for finding methods of oversight to address whatever concerns the government had, OR for Congress to decide that those concerns were invalid.
In a pragmatic world you have to expect that sometimes rules may have to be broken, and sometimes that is ok. But big alarm bells should go off if you're not willing to be upfront about it with those charged with overseeing your powers.
Anything else is a slippery slope towards a dictatorial police state.
And that's the huge gaping hole in your argument. How do you know they are calling known or suspected terorists, when your government refuses to let anybody know who they are tapping on what basis but just ask you to trust them?
Do I really have to point out to you that the US has at least once had a president who had no qualms about wiretapping his political enemies for political gain (Nixon, in case you completely lack history knowledge)? What makes you think you can trust the current and all future governments not to do the same.
Keep in mind that regardless whether you think Bush is an asswipe or a true American hero, he will not be president forever, and any expansion of presidential powers will be there to exploit for future presidents too unless something is done to stop it.
The scary part here is not that Bush wants to wiretap, but that he so obviously KNOW that these wiretaps are wide reaching, considering that he's decided it's worthwhile to avoid asking for permission from a court that hardly ever says no to any request, and where the requests can be filed after the fact.
It takes an extreme naivety to think even for a second that nothing is fishy there.
If these are truly people calling suspected terrorists, then warrants for these wiretaps would be granted with no problems.
So why again, is it necessary to bypass the oversight measures put in place by congress?