Most people who say "Oh it is selfish not to have kids," are jealous. Kids are a big commitment, you have to trade off a lot to have them, at least if you are going to be a good parent. Now there are benefits, of course, it can be extremely rewarding emotionally. But there are tradeoffs and some people don't like them. So they see childless couples and see all the extra money and time they have and get jealous, and thus hateful.
It is, in fact, not a selfish position. It is a very pragmatic one. If we are to have a sustainable future, we need population growth to level off. Now I suppose we could go about it all draconian like China and force people to have a certain amount of children. However a better solution is for people who don't wish to have children to not do so. That allows those that want to have more children to do so and yet maintain a consistent population level.
None of that changes the fact that when you buy a product, it is part of the cost. I mean I suppose you can decide that it should all be free... but then you have the small issue of how those people are going to make money.
Or even worse "crypto-anarchists" which is what this guy calls himself (no I don't know what it is supposed to mean). They don't really think through what Anarchy would mean, what it would entail, nor do they look at history and realize that Anarchy quickly becomes a chase where the strongest rule. No, they just think it'll be magic and pixie dust without a government. Everyone will be free to do what they want and the world will be an amazing place.
They don't see government as creating order, they think that it just happens magically and government just gets in the way.
Seriously, if you ever talk to someone that thinks they are an Anarchist you'll discover that either they:
1) Don't understand what Anarchy is, and actually want something else.
2) Have very poor knowledge of history, sociology, human interactions, law, and well, pretty much everything. They like the idea of Anarchy because to them it means they can do whatever they want and they really haven't considered the ramifications much further.
You don't find any that have a well reasoned and carefully thought out position on it, because it is the kind of thing that you quickly figure out doesn't work.
I see that all the time in IT with people wanting to cowboy up solutions cobbled together from a bunch of random shit. Yes, you can do that, and it can be made to work. However how much time will it take to do and support? Because unless your time is free, you need to factor that in.
Labour is a big part of the cost of pretty much anything you buy. Software is the ultimate example. The materials and distribution cost of software is minimal even if done on physical media. However that doesn't mean it is free to produce. It takes a lot of labour, in the form of programmers writing the code, QA testers reviewing things, support staff, and so on, to make the product happen.
Physical devices are no different, they just have higher materials costs. However all the labour cost is there. People had to design, build, test, etc, etc, that product and they all need to be paid since they all like to eat, have a place to live, and all that jazz.
There are all kinds of people, you can see them here on Slashdot, that know fuck-all about materials science and think 3D printers are magic. They think they are universal constructors, replicators, or whatever other sci-fi tech than can make anything and everything, just in a primitive form. So they think they can advance from playing with plastic to making metal parts that are as strong as forged metals and electronics and so on.
This is, of course, absurd. Anyone with basic MSE knowledge knows that there's a big difference between what you can potentially extrude using a process like a 3D printer does and how you have to make other various materials. It isn't as simple as just printing metal (which I've no doubt we'll see soon), not all metal processes are created equal.
So he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to materials, which is why he thinks he's such a visionary, and he also knows fuck-all about anarchy. He's one of those loons that thinks an anarchy with no government control would be some kind of utopia instead of what it actually is, a place like Somalia run by warlords.
It all makes me laugh anyhow since he's in the US and could just go buy better parts over the counter anyhow. Oh wow, you can 3D print a lower receiver for an AR-15 that breaks after a little bit. Neat. Or you could just go and buy an AR-15 lower milled from an aluminium billet that will last several lifetimes.
Reading and comprehending posts isn't your thing is it? You just like to skim and then jump to conclusions to try and support your narrow world view.
I noted that my sister has no trouble, she has a generous grant (a scholarship if you like, but it works a little different) and her expenses are handled. However I have a full understanding of what those expenses are, and that they not paid for all students.
So maybe more reading, less jumping to conclusions.
If you like Ubiquiti you could look at their Edgerouter Lite. I'm real happy with mine. $100 and it'll outperform monowall and pfsense on way more expensive hardware. With a basic NAT setup, plus SPI firewall (the basic "permit established and related, drop others" rules) I've measured it at over 500mbps throughput. It probably would do faster, it's CPU wasn't fully loaded, that is just as fast a test server as I could easily get to.
Now of course it is more on the routing, less on the firewall n' such so if you need powerful firewall config, it isn't as much your thing (and won't get as good performance). If you load it down with too much stuff it'll slow way down, particularly since part of its speed is derived from hardware acceleration on its chip, so if tons of stuff is hitting the software it won't be as fast.
Just another option to look at.
In terms of the realtek chips, ya it sucks but it is what you get for the price. Intel NICs are expensive, because Intel knows they are worth it. They charge more for their chips than other vendors by a good bit, so you don't see them in cheap solutions.
In a lot of the EU, students from other EU countries don't have to pay tuition fees. Foreign students? Not so lucky, and language doesn't matter. If you aren't from the EU you pay increased fees. For example in Sweden you pay about 15,000 EUR/year for a science degree. In terms of language, you have to already demonstrate a proficiency in English and Swedish just to be able to get in.
Also all of this assumes you can get a visa and get admitted. People from other EU nations, no problem, you can live and work anywhere in the EU, that is a big part of what the treaty means. Non-EU individuals have to get a student visa, the requirements of which vary.
And of course none of that deals with the cost of food, housing, transport, etc. You are on your own for that, barring a scholarship.
This is a subject I have more than a passing familiarity with, as my sister is currently working on her PhD in Europe (at two universities, one in the EU one outside of it). She got a generous grant that pays all her tuition, living expenses, and even some extra but that isn't what all students get. It wasn't as though she just walked in and said "I'd like to go to school here," and they said "Certainly, please come for free!"
Also she even had an easier in than many: She and I hold Canadian citizenships. Canada is a commonwealth country and England is in the EU so that makes a lot of the visa shit way easier than it would be for an American, not that it wasn't still a big production.
It is exceedingly narrow-minded to suggest that an American should just "Emigrate to an actual civilized country instead of a pretend one," for school, as though such a thing were trivial to do and people only did not out of ignorance (not to mention the misplaced cultural supremacy of the statement). No, it turns out that you can't just graduate from an American highschool and say "Well screw the US, I'm off to Europe!" and walk in and go to school for free.
Grad school was historically and is supposed to be the sort of thing not everyone does. It is for people who are really interested in a field, who want to start doing some original research (under the umbrella of a professor's overall research) and so on. The sort of thing only for those that are truly interested in pursuing the subject more deeply and pushing the boundaries.
Also most fields don't require graduate degrees. There are some that do (like lawyers), though usually they require a PhD or other advanced degree after it (like professors, medical doctors, etc). However for most an undergraduate degree is all they are after.
However where I work, I see a ton of students that go in to grad school that are hoop jumpers. They see it as the next thing, that will get them a better job. They aren't that interested in the work, and don't have a particularly good understanding of it. They take comprehensive exams instead of doing a thesis, and so on. They try and use more time in school to make up for a lack of talent.
So, if you are thinking of grad school, and it'll be any kind of financial hardship ask yourself: Why am I going? If it is because your field requires it, then ok no problem. Gotta do what you gotta do. If it is because you really love the field and you want to go to a higher level, that's good too, but just understand it'll be a pain financially. If it is "because I'll get a better job," then no, stop right there. That's not a reason to go to grad school, particularly if it is going to be a problem financially. It probably will NOT get you a better job, and will just give you more debt.
So if I just show up in a European country, they'll let me go to university for free? Hint: No they won't.
My sister went to Europe for her PhD. She didn't end up paying... because she got a generous scholarship. That also was what allowed her to get the visa to go. She didn't just show up and walk in to a university for free.
Same way it would have worked in the US or Canada, actually. If she had been accepted to a program with a generous scholarship, well it would have been free.
Go to Canada some time, one of the US's closest allies. You'll find that you can travel to Cuba freely, buy Cuban goods (cigars being the most prominently advertised as being of Cuban origin) and so on.
The US is the only country that clings to an embargo and it is purely a face-saving maneuver, not wanting to admit it was a bad idea and hasn't worked to unseat Castro.
However for all that, Cuba is still poor... So sorry, you can't blame the big, bad 'ole US for this. Their policy is not helpful, but it isn't why Cuba is impoverished. That lies at the feet of their own government.
So the US won't trade with them. Ok, but while the US is a large nation, it isn't the be-all, end-all. Canada, the EU, China, Russia, they are all perfectly ok to trade with Cuba. So Cuba has access to most of the world for trade goods. Yet, they still have an extremely low standard of living.
Sorry, but the US boogeyman thing doesn't play, not in this day and age. Cuba has a large responsibility for the problems in Cuba.
Ummm, if you bothered more than a cursory glance at my thing you'd notice I AM advocating open solutions. Monowall is FreeBSD, with some mods and a nice WebUI stuck on it for configuration. EdgeOS, that runs on the ERL, is a fork of Vayetta, which is a fork/mod of Debian.
Both are open solutions but both are under active development and support by a team. Hence I'm a pretty big fan. Monowall was last updated in January, and they still support their legacy version for old hardware like WRAP systems, and their new version for more powerful systems. EdgeOS was updated in March, and they have an alpha for the next version going you can opt in to.
On the other hand the OSS firmwares are half-abandoned it seems. When I Google for Tomato I get a page that talks about it as a WRT54G firmware and looks like it hasn't seen updates in 5-8 years. Further down there's a "Tomato USB" mod on it that was updated in 2010 and still runs on 2.6.
This sort of thing does not engender trust in long term viability or freedom from bugs/exploits.
Also there's the issue that some of us have high speed needs. My Internet connection is 150/20mbps. So I need something that can support that. Triple stream N is pretty much the minimum (dual stream N maybe can in ideal cases) and AC is a better choice. Also the "router" part of the router needs to be able to keep up with that kind of speed, even when I've set up my firewall rules and such.
Finally you seem to confuse reliability with swappability. Sure, you can have a whole host of cheapass old routers and if one dies, put in a new one. However it is hard to do when you need more powerful, and thus expensive, hardware but also that isn't reliable, that is just having extras. I'd rather just have something that has less issues, that works for years on end with no problems, and not have to mess with it. That's what you get with something like a monowall box.
Also like I said, one component may need replacing before others. My Edgerouter Lite will last me a long time, unless it breaks, since it can handle around gigabit speeds with the setup I have (I've tested it). However if I get much faster Internet, I'll need a new cable modem, since mine is only 8x4 stream, and to go much above where I'm at you usually want 16 streams down. Likewise if my WAP is likely to get replaced sooner than the ERL, but probably not as soon as the cable modem.
I can have latest tech where I want it, older tech where I don't and it is all good. Also in my experience setups like that are extremely reliable.
It's a pretty new product, which is why you haven't heard of it. It isn't the greatest thing EVAR, as its web UI could use some work, and some of the features it has can hit the limited CPU pretty hard (VLANs and encryption notably) but it is pretty damn good.
It is what lives at the edge of my home network, and I'm real happy with it.
They also make larger models, should you have the need.
The problem is all those consumer wifi+router deals tend to have kinda crap firmware. While there are, in theory, OSS alternatives they seem to be less than speedy with the updates and support for new hardware.
So I'd look elsewhere. The two things I'd put at the top of your list:
Monowall, on an APU.1C. It is like $150 for the unit, and then $20-30 for an enclosure and CF card. Monowall should support everything you need, it is really feature rich, is pretty easy to use, and the APU.1C is fast enough it shouldn't have issues even with fairly fast internet.
A Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite. This is a funny looking and named lil' router with quite a bit of performance under the hood, thanks to the hardware routing logic its chip has. $100 and it can push gigabit speeds for basic routing setups. It is also extremely configurable, since it runs a Vayetta fork, which is a Linux OS customized for routing. However to configure the kind of things you want, you might have to hop in to the CLI, I don't know that the GUI has what you need. It supports that though, and you can even hop out of the specialized routing CLI and get a regular Linux prompt where you can install packages and such.
If you want a more supported solution, you could look at a Cisco RV320. Costs like $200 and is a fast lil' wired router (uses the same basic chip as the Edgerouter, just slower). I haven't used one but I'm given to understand you can make them do a lot. Sounds like they firmware may be a little flakey though.
You then just set your consumer WAP+router in to "access point" mode and have it just do the wireless functions.
This is all more expensive and complex than just running on a consumer WAP+router, but more likely to be able to do what you require. It also means you can change out components without as much trouble. Like say your WAP gets flakey, and you want a new one with the latest technology. No problem, just buy it. You don't have to worry if it supports the routing features you need because it doesn't do that for you.
If you are stuck on doing an all in one, then you could look at a Netgear Nighthawk R7000 or the new Linksys WRT1900AC. The Netgear does have bandwidth management and QoS in its native firmware (I haven't played with the features, but I can confirm they are there as I own one) and there is a "myopenrouter" site that has OSS firmware for it (ddwrt mod I think). The Linksys router supposedly is going to have OpenWRT support soon as Linksys worked directly with the OpenWRT team for it.
For one, Slashdot has a bunch of anti-social jerks that like to post, who have an inability to empathize with anyone else. So no surprise they think something like that is a good idea, because they they aren't very reasonable people.
However others have pointed out, accurately I think, that something like this can well be a cause for it. The thing is that if you push someone in to a corner and give them what seems to be no way out, no way to fight back, they may go nuts. Happens with other animals, not just humans. So if you have a kid that is continually picked on, who tries to stand up for themselves, but is then picked on even worse, this time by law enforcement, well then they may well take drastic measures because they feel like there's no option, no hope.
I think there is some real merit to this. Not merit as in saying it is good that kids do it, but that it is correct that actions like this can lead to kids doing it. If they feel they have nothing to lose and nowhere to turn, then a completely crazy overreaction may be the only option they feel they have.
I mean here you have a case of a kid who did everything right, and got increasingly screwed: He never fought back or defended himself, which schools do not allow (you can argue if they should, but they don't, it is against the rules). He got no help or support from the school, I mean it was allowed to happen IN CLASS in front of a teacher. He told his parents, they were skeptical, he produced evidence. He was then threatened by the police, ordered to delete it (illegally), drug to court, etc, etc. So what has he got now? He's been effectively told the bullies are allowed to do as they wish and if you attempt to stop them the police and courts will punish you.
So what's he to do? You can see how a drastic, illogical, action might be what he thinks is his only option. Remember that he doesn't have the perspective of age, he can't look on high school and say "Ya that's a real short time in your life and it gets WAY better once you are out and an adult." To him, this is his whole world. And for that matter, the adult world has stepped in and told him he;s wrong to try and make things better for himself.
As such you can see why people are saying it can lead to something like a school shooting. It is something that administrators need to consider: Dealing with bullying isn't something to do just because it is the right thing (which would be a good enough reason) but it is a safety issue as well.
One of the problems with advanced weapons systems is they require a bunch of effort and facilities to produce, maintain, and use. So while they are fearsome, they are vulnerable to a large force that takes over their support structures.
For example while the US's combat planes are the most amazing the world has ever known, they only work when they have secure airfields to operate from. If those get taken over, they are in a world of shit. Which is why they have security but that security is men with guns. The planes can't defend their own airfields, for many reasons.
If you want to see it on a small scale, well ask yourself why the US has been unable to secure Afghanistan or Iraq. They had considerably more forces than your silly "1 aircraft carrier" scenario, it was hardly the whole population fighting, yet after years and years, they have been unable to secure the countries.
Lots of people with small arms are a force all of their own.
They'll provide ISPs with cache engines for their content. That way, it doesn't use near as much bandwidth. Their content gets pushed to the cache engine, and that streams to the customer. It is win-win since both the ISP -and- Netflix get to use less bandwidth.
So it isn't like the ISPs can whine that Netflix is just too heavy a load. They can get cache engines and call it good. Netflix even picks up the cost of said cache engines near as I know.
Cox does this. They've had fast streaming and "super HD" for a long time because they have Netflix cache engines. Comcast is just being greedy.
Hardware costs money. If you want cheap consoles, you have to trade things off. For example my PC has no problems rendering games like Titanfall at 60fps, even at resolutions beyond 1080 (2560x1600 in my case). So, just put that kind of hardware in a console right? Ya well, my GPU alone costs near double what a current console does, never mind the supporting hardware. It isn't feasible to throw that level of hardware at a console, it just costs too much.
That kind of thing has been tried in the past and it never worked. Remember the Neo-Geo? Had real arcade hardware (back when arcade units had better hardware than home systems) in it, far and above its contemporaries. However with a price equivalent to about $1100 today compared to its competitors which were about $350 in today's dollars it did very poorly.
The console makers had to make tradeoffs, and price was a big concern. Hence the somewhat limited hardware. Basically consoles are for people on a budget. They want something that plays games, but doesn't break the bank. So, the hardware in it has to be scaled accordingly. For those that want performance and are willing to for over more coin, the PC market is happy to oblige.
I'm not sure I agree on the honesty thing either. I see all types. Some are extremely honest, some are shady as hell. Heck we have some professors that basically just milk tenure. They don't teach, don't research, just sit around and collect a paycheck because it is too difficult to fire them. It really runs the gamut.
I like working in an academic environment, but getting shit done isn't the strong suit, particularly standards. You get a bunch of faculty on a committee and it'll take years to decide what to call the damn thing.
Just saying that the claim that the reason the IETF can't move fast is because of corporations as opposed to academics is silly.
You can hate on corporate types for various thing, but anyone who acts like academics know how to get anything done has never worked in academia. I work at a university and fuck me do we spend ages spinning our wheels, having meeting after endless meeting, discussing shit to death, and finally doing things 10 years after they needed to be done.
Speed is not what you find in an academic environment.
So they are a bit different, hardware wise. A big difference is unified memory. There is only one pool of memory which both the CPU and GPU access. That's makes sense since the CPU and GPU are also on the same silicon, but it is a difference in the way you program. Also in the case of the Xbone they decided to use DDR3 RAM, instead of GDDR5, which is a little slow for graphics operations, but the APU (what AMD calls the CPU/GPU combo chips) has 32MB of high speed embedded RAM on it to try and buffer for that.
Ok so there are some differences. However that aside, why the problem with the target? Visual quality. Basically, a video card can only do so much in a given time period. It only can push so many pixels/texels, only run so many shaders, etc. So any time you add more visual flair, it takes up available power. There's no hard limit, no amount where it stops working, rather you have to choose what kind of performance you want.
For example if I can render a scene with X polygons in 16ms then I can output that at 60fps. However it also means that I can render a scene of 2X polygons in about 33ms, or 30fps.
So FPS is one tradeoff you can make. You don't have to render at 60fps, you can go lower and indeed console games often do 30fps. That means each frame can have more in it, because the hardware has longer to generate it.
Another tradeoff is resolution. Particularly when you are talking texture related things, lowering the output resolution lowers the demand on the hardware and thus allows you to do more.
So it is a tradeoff in what you think looks best. Ya, you can design a game that runs at 1080p60 solid. However it may not look as good overall as a game that runs at 720p30 because that game, despite being lower FPS and rez, has more detail in the scenes. It is a choice you have to make with limited hardware.
On the PC, we often solve it by throwing more hardware at the problem, but you can't do that on a console.
Why the heck is ASL not American English? Perhaps there is a good reason, but it just seems silly to me, and it seems like something that would make it that much harder for someone who is hearing impaired to interact with those that are not. The fact that it is a different format is not a reason. I mean written and spoken English are very different formats, and do not have a direct 1-1 mapping in terms of things like letters to phonemes and so on, but yet they are exceedingly similar. I fail to see why this couldn't be done with ASL. Yes, you are going to want to have signs that represent words, rather than letters or phonemes. No problem, however syntax, grammar, structure, etc should all be the same as spoken or written English.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who say "Oh it is selfish not to have kids," are jealous. Kids are a big commitment, you have to trade off a lot to have them, at least if you are going to be a good parent. Now there are benefits, of course, it can be extremely rewarding emotionally. But there are tradeoffs and some people don't like them. So they see childless couples and see all the extra money and time they have and get jealous, and thus hateful.
It is, in fact, not a selfish position. It is a very pragmatic one. If we are to have a sustainable future, we need population growth to level off. Now I suppose we could go about it all draconian like China and force people to have a certain amount of children. However a better solution is for people who don't wish to have children to not do so. That allows those that want to have more children to do so and yet maintain a consistent population level.
None of that changes the fact that when you buy a product, it is part of the cost. I mean I suppose you can decide that it should all be free... but then you have the small issue of how those people are going to make money.
Or even worse "crypto-anarchists" which is what this guy calls himself (no I don't know what it is supposed to mean). They don't really think through what Anarchy would mean, what it would entail, nor do they look at history and realize that Anarchy quickly becomes a chase where the strongest rule. No, they just think it'll be magic and pixie dust without a government. Everyone will be free to do what they want and the world will be an amazing place.
They don't see government as creating order, they think that it just happens magically and government just gets in the way.
Seriously, if you ever talk to someone that thinks they are an Anarchist you'll discover that either they:
1) Don't understand what Anarchy is, and actually want something else.
2) Have very poor knowledge of history, sociology, human interactions, law, and well, pretty much everything. They like the idea of Anarchy because to them it means they can do whatever they want and they really haven't considered the ramifications much further.
You don't find any that have a well reasoned and carefully thought out position on it, because it is the kind of thing that you quickly figure out doesn't work.
I see that all the time in IT with people wanting to cowboy up solutions cobbled together from a bunch of random shit. Yes, you can do that, and it can be made to work. However how much time will it take to do and support? Because unless your time is free, you need to factor that in.
Labour is a big part of the cost of pretty much anything you buy. Software is the ultimate example. The materials and distribution cost of software is minimal even if done on physical media. However that doesn't mean it is free to produce. It takes a lot of labour, in the form of programmers writing the code, QA testers reviewing things, support staff, and so on, to make the product happen.
Physical devices are no different, they just have higher materials costs. However all the labour cost is there. People had to design, build, test, etc, etc, that product and they all need to be paid since they all like to eat, have a place to live, and all that jazz.
There are all kinds of people, you can see them here on Slashdot, that know fuck-all about materials science and think 3D printers are magic. They think they are universal constructors, replicators, or whatever other sci-fi tech than can make anything and everything, just in a primitive form. So they think they can advance from playing with plastic to making metal parts that are as strong as forged metals and electronics and so on.
This is, of course, absurd. Anyone with basic MSE knowledge knows that there's a big difference between what you can potentially extrude using a process like a 3D printer does and how you have to make other various materials. It isn't as simple as just printing metal (which I've no doubt we'll see soon), not all metal processes are created equal.
So he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to materials, which is why he thinks he's such a visionary, and he also knows fuck-all about anarchy. He's one of those loons that thinks an anarchy with no government control would be some kind of utopia instead of what it actually is, a place like Somalia run by warlords.
It all makes me laugh anyhow since he's in the US and could just go buy better parts over the counter anyhow. Oh wow, you can 3D print a lower receiver for an AR-15 that breaks after a little bit. Neat. Or you could just go and buy an AR-15 lower milled from an aluminium billet that will last several lifetimes.
Reading and comprehending posts isn't your thing is it? You just like to skim and then jump to conclusions to try and support your narrow world view.
I noted that my sister has no trouble, she has a generous grant (a scholarship if you like, but it works a little different) and her expenses are handled. However I have a full understanding of what those expenses are, and that they not paid for all students.
So maybe more reading, less jumping to conclusions.
If you like Ubiquiti you could look at their Edgerouter Lite. I'm real happy with mine. $100 and it'll outperform monowall and pfsense on way more expensive hardware. With a basic NAT setup, plus SPI firewall (the basic "permit established and related, drop others" rules) I've measured it at over 500mbps throughput. It probably would do faster, it's CPU wasn't fully loaded, that is just as fast a test server as I could easily get to.
Now of course it is more on the routing, less on the firewall n' such so if you need powerful firewall config, it isn't as much your thing (and won't get as good performance). If you load it down with too much stuff it'll slow way down, particularly since part of its speed is derived from hardware acceleration on its chip, so if tons of stuff is hitting the software it won't be as fast.
Just another option to look at.
In terms of the realtek chips, ya it sucks but it is what you get for the price. Intel NICs are expensive, because Intel knows they are worth it. They charge more for their chips than other vendors by a good bit, so you don't see them in cheap solutions.
In a lot of the EU, students from other EU countries don't have to pay tuition fees. Foreign students? Not so lucky, and language doesn't matter. If you aren't from the EU you pay increased fees. For example in Sweden you pay about 15,000 EUR/year for a science degree. In terms of language, you have to already demonstrate a proficiency in English and Swedish just to be able to get in.
Also all of this assumes you can get a visa and get admitted. People from other EU nations, no problem, you can live and work anywhere in the EU, that is a big part of what the treaty means. Non-EU individuals have to get a student visa, the requirements of which vary.
And of course none of that deals with the cost of food, housing, transport, etc. You are on your own for that, barring a scholarship.
This is a subject I have more than a passing familiarity with, as my sister is currently working on her PhD in Europe (at two universities, one in the EU one outside of it). She got a generous grant that pays all her tuition, living expenses, and even some extra but that isn't what all students get. It wasn't as though she just walked in and said "I'd like to go to school here," and they said "Certainly, please come for free!"
Also she even had an easier in than many: She and I hold Canadian citizenships. Canada is a commonwealth country and England is in the EU so that makes a lot of the visa shit way easier than it would be for an American, not that it wasn't still a big production.
It is exceedingly narrow-minded to suggest that an American should just "Emigrate to an actual civilized country instead of a pretend one," for school, as though such a thing were trivial to do and people only did not out of ignorance (not to mention the misplaced cultural supremacy of the statement). No, it turns out that you can't just graduate from an American highschool and say "Well screw the US, I'm off to Europe!" and walk in and go to school for free.
Grad school was historically and is supposed to be the sort of thing not everyone does. It is for people who are really interested in a field, who want to start doing some original research (under the umbrella of a professor's overall research) and so on. The sort of thing only for those that are truly interested in pursuing the subject more deeply and pushing the boundaries.
Also most fields don't require graduate degrees. There are some that do (like lawyers), though usually they require a PhD or other advanced degree after it (like professors, medical doctors, etc). However for most an undergraduate degree is all they are after.
However where I work, I see a ton of students that go in to grad school that are hoop jumpers. They see it as the next thing, that will get them a better job. They aren't that interested in the work, and don't have a particularly good understanding of it. They take comprehensive exams instead of doing a thesis, and so on. They try and use more time in school to make up for a lack of talent.
So, if you are thinking of grad school, and it'll be any kind of financial hardship ask yourself: Why am I going? If it is because your field requires it, then ok no problem. Gotta do what you gotta do. If it is because you really love the field and you want to go to a higher level, that's good too, but just understand it'll be a pain financially. If it is "because I'll get a better job," then no, stop right there. That's not a reason to go to grad school, particularly if it is going to be a problem financially. It probably will NOT get you a better job, and will just give you more debt.
So if I just show up in a European country, they'll let me go to university for free? Hint: No they won't.
My sister went to Europe for her PhD. She didn't end up paying... because she got a generous scholarship. That also was what allowed her to get the visa to go. She didn't just show up and walk in to a university for free.
Same way it would have worked in the US or Canada, actually. If she had been accepted to a program with a generous scholarship, well it would have been free.
Go to Canada some time, one of the US's closest allies. You'll find that you can travel to Cuba freely, buy Cuban goods (cigars being the most prominently advertised as being of Cuban origin) and so on.
The US is the only country that clings to an embargo and it is purely a face-saving maneuver, not wanting to admit it was a bad idea and hasn't worked to unseat Castro.
However for all that, Cuba is still poor... So sorry, you can't blame the big, bad 'ole US for this. Their policy is not helpful, but it isn't why Cuba is impoverished. That lies at the feet of their own government.
So the US won't trade with them. Ok, but while the US is a large nation, it isn't the be-all, end-all. Canada, the EU, China, Russia, they are all perfectly ok to trade with Cuba. So Cuba has access to most of the world for trade goods. Yet, they still have an extremely low standard of living.
Sorry, but the US boogeyman thing doesn't play, not in this day and age. Cuba has a large responsibility for the problems in Cuba.
Ummm, if you bothered more than a cursory glance at my thing you'd notice I AM advocating open solutions. Monowall is FreeBSD, with some mods and a nice WebUI stuck on it for configuration. EdgeOS, that runs on the ERL, is a fork of Vayetta, which is a fork/mod of Debian.
Both are open solutions but both are under active development and support by a team. Hence I'm a pretty big fan. Monowall was last updated in January, and they still support their legacy version for old hardware like WRAP systems, and their new version for more powerful systems. EdgeOS was updated in March, and they have an alpha for the next version going you can opt in to.
On the other hand the OSS firmwares are half-abandoned it seems. When I Google for Tomato I get a page that talks about it as a WRT54G firmware and looks like it hasn't seen updates in 5-8 years. Further down there's a "Tomato USB" mod on it that was updated in 2010 and still runs on 2.6.
This sort of thing does not engender trust in long term viability or freedom from bugs/exploits.
Also there's the issue that some of us have high speed needs. My Internet connection is 150/20mbps. So I need something that can support that. Triple stream N is pretty much the minimum (dual stream N maybe can in ideal cases) and AC is a better choice. Also the "router" part of the router needs to be able to keep up with that kind of speed, even when I've set up my firewall rules and such.
Finally you seem to confuse reliability with swappability. Sure, you can have a whole host of cheapass old routers and if one dies, put in a new one. However it is hard to do when you need more powerful, and thus expensive, hardware but also that isn't reliable, that is just having extras. I'd rather just have something that has less issues, that works for years on end with no problems, and not have to mess with it. That's what you get with something like a monowall box.
Also like I said, one component may need replacing before others. My Edgerouter Lite will last me a long time, unless it breaks, since it can handle around gigabit speeds with the setup I have (I've tested it). However if I get much faster Internet, I'll need a new cable modem, since mine is only 8x4 stream, and to go much above where I'm at you usually want 16 streams down. Likewise if my WAP is likely to get replaced sooner than the ERL, but probably not as soon as the cable modem.
I can have latest tech where I want it, older tech where I don't and it is all good. Also in my experience setups like that are extremely reliable.
It's a pretty new product, which is why you haven't heard of it. It isn't the greatest thing EVAR, as its web UI could use some work, and some of the features it has can hit the limited CPU pretty hard (VLANs and encryption notably) but it is pretty damn good.
It is what lives at the edge of my home network, and I'm real happy with it.
They also make larger models, should you have the need.
The problem is all those consumer wifi+router deals tend to have kinda crap firmware. While there are, in theory, OSS alternatives they seem to be less than speedy with the updates and support for new hardware.
So I'd look elsewhere. The two things I'd put at the top of your list:
Monowall, on an APU.1C. It is like $150 for the unit, and then $20-30 for an enclosure and CF card. Monowall should support everything you need, it is really feature rich, is pretty easy to use, and the APU.1C is fast enough it shouldn't have issues even with fairly fast internet.
A Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite. This is a funny looking and named lil' router with quite a bit of performance under the hood, thanks to the hardware routing logic its chip has. $100 and it can push gigabit speeds for basic routing setups. It is also extremely configurable, since it runs a Vayetta fork, which is a Linux OS customized for routing. However to configure the kind of things you want, you might have to hop in to the CLI, I don't know that the GUI has what you need. It supports that though, and you can even hop out of the specialized routing CLI and get a regular Linux prompt where you can install packages and such.
If you want a more supported solution, you could look at a Cisco RV320. Costs like $200 and is a fast lil' wired router (uses the same basic chip as the Edgerouter, just slower). I haven't used one but I'm given to understand you can make them do a lot. Sounds like they firmware may be a little flakey though.
You then just set your consumer WAP+router in to "access point" mode and have it just do the wireless functions.
This is all more expensive and complex than just running on a consumer WAP+router, but more likely to be able to do what you require. It also means you can change out components without as much trouble. Like say your WAP gets flakey, and you want a new one with the latest technology. No problem, just buy it. You don't have to worry if it supports the routing features you need because it doesn't do that for you.
If you are stuck on doing an all in one, then you could look at a Netgear Nighthawk R7000 or the new Linksys WRT1900AC. The Netgear does have bandwidth management and QoS in its native firmware (I haven't played with the features, but I can confirm they are there as I own one) and there is a "myopenrouter" site that has OSS firmware for it (ddwrt mod I think). The Linksys router supposedly is going to have OpenWRT support soon as Linksys worked directly with the OpenWRT team for it.
For one, Slashdot has a bunch of anti-social jerks that like to post, who have an inability to empathize with anyone else. So no surprise they think something like that is a good idea, because they they aren't very reasonable people.
However others have pointed out, accurately I think, that something like this can well be a cause for it. The thing is that if you push someone in to a corner and give them what seems to be no way out, no way to fight back, they may go nuts. Happens with other animals, not just humans. So if you have a kid that is continually picked on, who tries to stand up for themselves, but is then picked on even worse, this time by law enforcement, well then they may well take drastic measures because they feel like there's no option, no hope.
I think there is some real merit to this. Not merit as in saying it is good that kids do it, but that it is correct that actions like this can lead to kids doing it. If they feel they have nothing to lose and nowhere to turn, then a completely crazy overreaction may be the only option they feel they have.
I mean here you have a case of a kid who did everything right, and got increasingly screwed: He never fought back or defended himself, which schools do not allow (you can argue if they should, but they don't, it is against the rules). He got no help or support from the school, I mean it was allowed to happen IN CLASS in front of a teacher. He told his parents, they were skeptical, he produced evidence. He was then threatened by the police, ordered to delete it (illegally), drug to court, etc, etc. So what has he got now? He's been effectively told the bullies are allowed to do as they wish and if you attempt to stop them the police and courts will punish you.
So what's he to do? You can see how a drastic, illogical, action might be what he thinks is his only option. Remember that he doesn't have the perspective of age, he can't look on high school and say "Ya that's a real short time in your life and it gets WAY better once you are out and an adult." To him, this is his whole world. And for that matter, the adult world has stepped in and told him he;s wrong to try and make things better for himself.
As such you can see why people are saying it can lead to something like a school shooting. It is something that administrators need to consider: Dealing with bullying isn't something to do just because it is the right thing (which would be a good enough reason) but it is a safety issue as well.
One of the problems with advanced weapons systems is they require a bunch of effort and facilities to produce, maintain, and use. So while they are fearsome, they are vulnerable to a large force that takes over their support structures.
For example while the US's combat planes are the most amazing the world has ever known, they only work when they have secure airfields to operate from. If those get taken over, they are in a world of shit. Which is why they have security but that security is men with guns. The planes can't defend their own airfields, for many reasons.
If you want to see it on a small scale, well ask yourself why the US has been unable to secure Afghanistan or Iraq. They had considerably more forces than your silly "1 aircraft carrier" scenario, it was hardly the whole population fighting, yet after years and years, they have been unable to secure the countries.
Lots of people with small arms are a force all of their own.
They'll provide ISPs with cache engines for their content. That way, it doesn't use near as much bandwidth. Their content gets pushed to the cache engine, and that streams to the customer. It is win-win since both the ISP -and- Netflix get to use less bandwidth.
So it isn't like the ISPs can whine that Netflix is just too heavy a load. They can get cache engines and call it good. Netflix even picks up the cost of said cache engines near as I know.
Cox does this. They've had fast streaming and "super HD" for a long time because they have Netflix cache engines. Comcast is just being greedy.
Hardware costs money. If you want cheap consoles, you have to trade things off. For example my PC has no problems rendering games like Titanfall at 60fps, even at resolutions beyond 1080 (2560x1600 in my case). So, just put that kind of hardware in a console right? Ya well, my GPU alone costs near double what a current console does, never mind the supporting hardware. It isn't feasible to throw that level of hardware at a console, it just costs too much.
That kind of thing has been tried in the past and it never worked. Remember the Neo-Geo? Had real arcade hardware (back when arcade units had better hardware than home systems) in it, far and above its contemporaries. However with a price equivalent to about $1100 today compared to its competitors which were about $350 in today's dollars it did very poorly.
The console makers had to make tradeoffs, and price was a big concern. Hence the somewhat limited hardware. Basically consoles are for people on a budget. They want something that plays games, but doesn't break the bank. So, the hardware in it has to be scaled accordingly. For those that want performance and are willing to for over more coin, the PC market is happy to oblige.
I'm not sure I agree on the honesty thing either. I see all types. Some are extremely honest, some are shady as hell. Heck we have some professors that basically just milk tenure. They don't teach, don't research, just sit around and collect a paycheck because it is too difficult to fire them. It really runs the gamut.
Because prison sucks and they'll usually seize any assets that they can prove were from the crime. So that's a pretty good reason not to do it.
Oh, and there's the whole "being a moral person" thing. Some people care about that too.
I like working in an academic environment, but getting shit done isn't the strong suit, particularly standards. You get a bunch of faculty on a committee and it'll take years to decide what to call the damn thing.
Just saying that the claim that the reason the IETF can't move fast is because of corporations as opposed to academics is silly.
You can hate on corporate types for various thing, but anyone who acts like academics know how to get anything done has never worked in academia. I work at a university and fuck me do we spend ages spinning our wheels, having meeting after endless meeting, discussing shit to death, and finally doing things 10 years after they needed to be done.
Speed is not what you find in an academic environment.
So they are a bit different, hardware wise. A big difference is unified memory. There is only one pool of memory which both the CPU and GPU access. That's makes sense since the CPU and GPU are also on the same silicon, but it is a difference in the way you program. Also in the case of the Xbone they decided to use DDR3 RAM, instead of GDDR5, which is a little slow for graphics operations, but the APU (what AMD calls the CPU/GPU combo chips) has 32MB of high speed embedded RAM on it to try and buffer for that.
Ok so there are some differences. However that aside, why the problem with the target? Visual quality. Basically, a video card can only do so much in a given time period. It only can push so many pixels/texels, only run so many shaders, etc. So any time you add more visual flair, it takes up available power. There's no hard limit, no amount where it stops working, rather you have to choose what kind of performance you want.
For example if I can render a scene with X polygons in 16ms then I can output that at 60fps. However it also means that I can render a scene of 2X polygons in about 33ms, or 30fps.
So FPS is one tradeoff you can make. You don't have to render at 60fps, you can go lower and indeed console games often do 30fps. That means each frame can have more in it, because the hardware has longer to generate it.
Another tradeoff is resolution. Particularly when you are talking texture related things, lowering the output resolution lowers the demand on the hardware and thus allows you to do more.
So it is a tradeoff in what you think looks best. Ya, you can design a game that runs at 1080p60 solid. However it may not look as good overall as a game that runs at 720p30 because that game, despite being lower FPS and rez, has more detail in the scenes. It is a choice you have to make with limited hardware.
On the PC, we often solve it by throwing more hardware at the problem, but you can't do that on a console.
Why the heck is ASL not American English? Perhaps there is a good reason, but it just seems silly to me, and it seems like something that would make it that much harder for someone who is hearing impaired to interact with those that are not. The fact that it is a different format is not a reason. I mean written and spoken English are very different formats, and do not have a direct 1-1 mapping in terms of things like letters to phonemes and so on, but yet they are exceedingly similar. I fail to see why this couldn't be done with ASL. Yes, you are going to want to have signs that represent words, rather than letters or phonemes. No problem, however syntax, grammar, structure, etc should all be the same as spoken or written English.