No kidding.. I'm still using CS3, and I've never run into a virus/exploit for it. It's a 700-2500$ program... there can't possibly be as many people with CS as MS Office, outlook, firefox, or a dozen other programs that have holes discovered all the time.
I've heard of nginx before.. but it's written in C, and C should not be used on the internet. When they do a complete rewrite in a non-C langauge, like the bourne shell, then maybe I'll take them seriously.
So.. nuclear is ok, as long as nothing unexpected happens. If it does, then massive swaths of the earth will be rendered unusable.
Sounds awesome.
We should get started on more nuclear reactors once human beings are able to forecast all future events.
And btw, they knew about the earthquake risk.. japan gets earthquakes regularly. And they also knew about the tsunami risk.. they just didn't build the wall high enough, despite being warned about it nearly a year before.
Some of the Fukushima reactors were only 25 years old. Since it was obviously an unsafe design, at what point should it have been shut down? At 15 years? At 20 years?
The AP1000 design lasted 5 years before a safety flaw was found.
If the lifetime for a reactor is supposed to be 60 years, it should be safe the ENTIRE 60 years. Not, 40 years safe.. 20 years "hopefully nothing will happen"
Stop pretending these things are safe. They are complicated, with far too many parts to get right. Safety flaws have been found even in our very newest reactors.
I'll play along... quick question: how much time is there between safety issues being discovered? Since that's how much time the reactors will be safe and usable before they should be fixed.
So you say they are safe now? The Westinghouse AP1000 was approved by the NRC in 2005. The NRC approved two plants in 2011 (in GA). and it's being built at the Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in China. "Unequaled safety".. a Gen III+ reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
Are you saying that the reactors we have now were designed with KNOWN safety issues?
Of course that's ridiculous... everyone THOUGHT they were safe when they were designed and built. It's not until decades later we find out if they were wrong.
Of course he doesn't have any evidence. The pro-nuclear crowd wants to pick and chose the best parts about nuclear... they want to pretend that each plant lasts for 40-60 years--so that the cost of nuclear is competitive with coal,etc.. and then when those 50 year old reactors are found to be unsafe, they say it's because they are out of date.
Well... if they were rebuilt every decade with the latest safety improvements, they would not be cost competitive. So chose: unsafe reactors... or uncompetitive energy prices.
Apache is old news. It's bloated and there are security advisories for it all the time. I can't believe anyone uses that anymore. I, like many other admins, start by writing a webserver using the bourne shell: http://sprocket.io/blog/2008/03/writing-a-web-server-in-bourne-shell/
Then, all of the web development is done using LISP. LISP is much cleaner to write a CGI program in than the bourne shell. Here's a CGI LISP tutorial that includes a comparison of the two: http://cybertiggyr.com/lc/
No need to thank me for getting you up to speed on the latest web development techniques... but you're welcome.
It's not an imaginary problem. Even with this tech, making people wait at a charging station for 30 minutes is a problem. No one is going to look at that and think it's a good thing. It's a ridiculously long wait before the driver can continue on their way.
Second, you obviously didn't read any of the links I posted. The swap station is 1/2 the price of a gas station, and the price to the driver is competitive with gasoline.
Third, Better Place is a Californian company, not an Israeli company. They are rolling this out in Finland, Japan, and Israel.. Not because Israel needs to get off gasoline, but because these are small areas where they can roll it out the service across the entire area (or country, in the case of Israel).
Why don't you try actually reading about what they are doing, instead of blindly dismissing it.
Interesting.. I have the exact opposite experience. Lots of extra drives from constant upgrades. I have around 7-8TB (including 3TB of backups).
The file server gets maxed out.. so I upgrade the drives with new HDs.. take the old ones and put them in the backup server (so it has enough space for the new data).. and then remove the oldest drives from the backup.
The "old" drives get placed in any new computer that gets built.
Recently, I've had 2x250GB drives fail... both with about the same amount of time in service (one with bad sectors.. the other constant clicking). both about 6.5 years old.
So I would say anything 250gb or less (and probably even 500gb or less) is probably too old to be used for anything.
If you click on the 10 year chart, you'll see in 2008, it went from 0.97 cents to 0.6175 cents within 3 months. So it can recover (not saying it will, but it's possible).
the AUD/USD exchange rate can fluctuate by 2% per day. On CS6, that would be a $50 change per day.
You can pretend that you wouldn't mind a 2% fluctuation, but people will care about a $50 change in the price per day.
Either Australians will be outraged it changed so rapidly (and Adobe's greed), or they will try to play the exchange rates to purchase at the lowest price, making demand very variable.
Probably both.
why do you calculate that rate change on an AUD$2600 base price rather than the actual USD base price, though?
Right now, 1 AUD is about 1 USD. Since CS6 is 2600 USD, it's also 2600 AUD (without the GST).
And if you think Adobe should adjust their prices according to the exchange rate... I'm sure you won't protest when cs6 is 2600 AUD, and the next day you wake up and it's 2800 AUD... and within 3 months, it's 4000 AUD..
By your numbers, when the exchange rate recovers, Adobe CS6 should go from 2600 AUD today to 5200 AUD.
adobe cs6 is $2600 usd + 1400 markup = 4000.. or 54% more - 10% GST = 44%
Coincidentally, that nearly matches the change in the exchange rates (according to you).
If I buy a microwave for $100 USD that was made in Mexico.. and the USD becomes worth more... They don't adjust their US price.. the manufacturer pockets the difference.
If Adobe software was priced at $4000 AUD, and the exchange rate changes, and they still priced it at 4000 AUD.. how is that any different. It's just keeping the local prices intact.
1300 is the price for the absolute cheapest version of Adobe CS6. The article says "UP TO" so we can assume that is for the most expensive version. The Adobe site says the Master Collection is $2600: http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite.html?kw=p&sdid=JRSIM&skwcid=TC|22178|adobe%20CS6||S|e|10550251960
Second, the article says it is "up to 1400 more", not 1600.
Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company.
Wow, that's revisionist. Schmidt was at Novell when Adwords was launched.. nearly a year before scmidt became CEO (and 6 months before he even worked at google).
Google does not give away its product for free. Its product is advertising space.
instagram has 27 million users: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/tech/mobile/instagram-sxsw/ who don't pay anything; has no real business model; and will probably never earn a penny. That anyone could think that it's valuable boggles the mind. Just because you're happy to use something for free, doesn't mean it has value... in fact, it says the opposite, since you're unwilling to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding.. I'm still using CS3, and I've never run into a virus/exploit for it. It's a 700-2500$ program... there can't possibly be as many people with CS as MS Office, outlook, firefox, or a dozen other programs that have holes discovered all the time.
Users not installing patches has been an issue for as long as I can remember. That is why we have Windows Update, Mac Software Update, RHN, etc.
So it's a problem with an obvious solution: add an auto-update feature to the JRE and enable it by default on desktops.
Refusing to implement a time-tested solution does not allow them to wash their hands of the problem.
Java isn't insecure, criminals just aren't being punished.
That applies to EVERY piece of software. Why should Java get a free pass?
Latency has significantly decreased, thanks to higher clock frequencies. See the chart on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
But RAM will always be slower than L1 and L2, simply because of the size of the memory.
Yes, Barshar has 55% popularity in Syria. And Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote in his last election (up from 99.96% in the previous election).
I've heard of nginx before.. but it's written in C, and C should not be used on the internet. When they do a complete rewrite in a non-C langauge, like the bourne shell, then maybe I'll take them seriously.
So.. nuclear is ok, as long as nothing unexpected happens. If it does, then massive swaths of the earth will be rendered unusable.
Sounds awesome.
We should get started on more nuclear reactors once human beings are able to forecast all future events.
And btw, they knew about the earthquake risk.. japan gets earthquakes regularly. And they also knew about the tsunami risk.. they just didn't build the wall high enough, despite being warned about it nearly a year before.
Some of the Fukushima reactors were only 25 years old. Since it was obviously an unsafe design, at what point should it have been shut down? At 15 years? At 20 years?
The AP1000 design lasted 5 years before a safety flaw was found.
If the lifetime for a reactor is supposed to be 60 years, it should be safe the ENTIRE 60 years. Not, 40 years safe.. 20 years "hopefully nothing will happen"
Stop pretending these things are safe. They are complicated, with far too many parts to get right. Safety flaws have been found even in our very newest reactors.
I'll play along... quick question: how much time is there between safety issues being discovered? Since that's how much time the reactors will be safe and usable before they should be fixed.
So you say they are safe now? The Westinghouse AP1000 was approved by the NRC in 2005. The NRC approved two plants in 2011 (in GA). and it's being built at the Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in China. "Unequaled safety".. a Gen III+ reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
They break ground in Georgia and China... and then they find it has a safety flaw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/energy-environment/21nuke.html?pagewanted=all
This is it.. the latest, greatest nuclear tech we have.. and we're still making mistakes with it.
Are you saying that the reactors we have now were designed with KNOWN safety issues?
Of course that's ridiculous... everyone THOUGHT they were safe when they were designed and built. It's not until decades later we find out if they were wrong.
Of course he doesn't have any evidence. The pro-nuclear crowd wants to pick and chose the best parts about nuclear... they want to pretend that each plant lasts for 40-60 years--so that the cost of nuclear is competitive with coal,etc.. and then when those 50 year old reactors are found to be unsafe, they say it's because they are out of date.
Well... if they were rebuilt every decade with the latest safety improvements, they would not be cost competitive. So chose: unsafe reactors... or uncompetitive energy prices.
Apache is old news. It's bloated and there are security advisories for it all the time. I can't believe anyone uses that anymore. I, like many other admins, start by writing a webserver using the bourne shell:
http://sprocket.io/blog/2008/03/writing-a-web-server-in-bourne-shell/
Then, all of the web development is done using LISP. LISP is much cleaner to write a CGI program in than the bourne shell. Here's a CGI LISP tutorial that includes a comparison of the two:
http://cybertiggyr.com/lc/
No need to thank me for getting you up to speed on the latest web development techniques... but you're welcome.
It's not an imaginary problem. Even with this tech, making people wait at a charging station for 30 minutes is a problem. No one is going to look at that and think it's a good thing. It's a ridiculously long wait before the driver can continue on their way.
Second, you obviously didn't read any of the links I posted. The swap station is 1/2 the price of a gas station, and the price to the driver is competitive with gasoline.
Third, Better Place is a Californian company, not an Israeli company. They are rolling this out in Finland, Japan, and Israel.. Not because Israel needs to get off gasoline, but because these are small areas where they can roll it out the service across the entire area (or country, in the case of Israel).
Why don't you try actually reading about what they are doing, instead of blindly dismissing it.
That's right.. it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.
Thank you for pointing out how difficult it would be if they ran out. It's not like one switch station with 15 batteries could swap batteries for over 2500 EVs. and each station would cost 1/2 the cost of a gas station.. and the batteries could be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/better-place-denmark-plan-gives-glimpse-of-battery-exchange-cost.html
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/
http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/04/battery-swap-program-begins-in-tokyo-with-taxi-company-demo.html
You're such a genius for pointing how wrong they are.
Interesting.. I have the exact opposite experience. Lots of extra drives from constant upgrades. I have around 7-8TB (including 3TB of backups).
The file server gets maxed out.. so I upgrade the drives with new HDs.. take the old ones and put them in the backup server (so it has enough space for the new data).. and then remove the oldest drives from the backup.
The "old" drives get placed in any new computer that gets built.
Recently, I've had 2x250GB drives fail... both with about the same amount of time in service (one with bad sectors.. the other constant clicking). both about 6.5 years old.
So I would say anything 250gb or less (and probably even 500gb or less) is probably too old to be used for anything.
the parent said the USD was 1/10th AUD... which is blatantly false.
the editorial control today? this is your first day here isnt it?
No kidding... If Cocacola can keep its soda formula a secret, why can't/wouldn't a pharm company?
No patents = everything is a trade secret.
That's why we grant patents.. so inventors will tell us how their creation works.
You're obviously trolling.. but 1 AUD is 1.047 USD
https://www.google.com/finance?q=CURRENCY:AUDUSD
If you click on the 10 year chart, you'll see in 2008, it went from 0.97 cents to 0.6175 cents within 3 months. So it can recover (not saying it will, but it's possible).
the AUD/USD exchange rate can fluctuate by 2% per day. On CS6, that would be a $50 change per day.
You can pretend that you wouldn't mind a 2% fluctuation, but people will care about a $50 change in the price per day.
Either Australians will be outraged it changed so rapidly (and Adobe's greed), or they will try to play the exchange rates to purchase at the lowest price, making demand very variable.
Probably both.
why do you calculate that rate change on an AUD$2600 base price rather than the actual USD base price, though?
Right now, 1 AUD is about 1 USD. Since CS6 is 2600 USD, it's also 2600 AUD (without the GST).
And if you think Adobe should adjust their prices according to the exchange rate... I'm sure you won't protest when cs6 is 2600 AUD, and the next day you wake up and it's 2800 AUD... and within 3 months, it's 4000 AUD..
By your numbers, when the exchange rate recovers, Adobe CS6 should go from 2600 AUD today to 5200 AUD.
Australians will appreciate the inflation.. yes?
Didn't you just explain the entire markup?
adobe cs6 is $2600 usd + 1400 markup = 4000.. or 54% more - 10% GST = 44%
Coincidentally, that nearly matches the change in the exchange rates (according to you).
If I buy a microwave for $100 USD that was made in Mexico.. and the USD becomes worth more... They don't adjust their US price.. the manufacturer pockets the difference.
If Adobe software was priced at $4000 AUD, and the exchange rate changes, and they still priced it at 4000 AUD.. how is that any different. It's just keeping the local prices intact.
1300 is the price for the absolute cheapest version of Adobe CS6. The article says "UP TO" so we can assume that is for the most expensive version. The Adobe site says the Master Collection is $2600:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite.html?kw=p&sdid=JRSIM&skwcid=TC|22178|adobe%20CS6||S|e|10550251960
Second, the article says it is "up to 1400 more", not 1600.
So 4000/2600 = 54% markup in Australia.
Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company.
Wow, that's revisionist. Schmidt was at Novell when Adwords was launched.. nearly a year before scmidt became CEO (and 6 months before he even worked at google).
Google does not give away its product for free. Its product is advertising space.
instagram has 27 million users: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/tech/mobile/instagram-sxsw/
who don't pay anything; has no real business model; and will probably never earn a penny. That anyone could think that it's valuable boggles the mind. Just because you're happy to use something for free, doesn't mean it has value... in fact, it says the opposite, since you're unwilling to pay for it.
bing has 26.2% of the search engine market: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2158888/Yahoo-Search-Share-Sinks-Google-Bing-Rise-in-February-2012
and served 5.1 billion searches last month, and makes 1.22 cents per search (compared with 1.47 cents per search for google)
http://www.trefis.com/stock/msft/articles/75824/can-miscrosoft-improve-its-search-revenues-with-facebook/2011-10-03
http://www.trefis.com/stock/goog/articles/34615/can-google-better-target-ads-to-sustain-rps/2011-01-27