GPS alone has an circular error of 15 meters, or about 50 feet. With WAAS augmentation, that drops to 3 meters, or about 10 feet. WAAS only applies to the US, and southern parts of Canada. here for all the details.
One thing that makes virtual machines cheaper is that you can combine performance profiles. If you have one application which requires an average of 50, and a peak of 100, and a second application with the same 50 & 100, but the peak is at a different time, then with 2 seperate machines you need 2 of 100. With VM, you can get 1 of 150, because you know that the load will never exceed that, or you machine is not twice as fast, but only 1.5 times as fast. This gets easier and easier to do as you increase the number of applications.
ASPs can release as often as they want, making their development process and bug fixing extremely rapid
Which is a bad thing for businesses, because they cannot keep their training schedule up to date.
Seroiusly, who would remove a feature from their app?
It happensallthetime, whenever the cost of maintaing the feature exceeds the revenue.
This should require little bandwidth Obviously for some applications it may, and for some organizations they may already have sufficent bandwidth. However there is no doubt at all that bandwidth is a concern that you must ensure is addressed if you are considering using an ASP.
ASPs do this... it is standard practice.
However with ordinary system, if the vendor decides not to do so, then the customer can choose a different organization to do the customization. This happens all the time. With the ASP model the customer has no possibility of doing this.
Nations don't normally hand over accused criminals unless the nation requesting extradition provides reasonable evidence that those accused may have committed the crime and usally that the requesting nation will treat them in a fashion which is compatable with what the originating nation would expect, no torture, or other cruel inhuman or degrading treatments. In otherwords, if Ebolia demands extradition of George W. Bush for the crime of eating pork, then the US is not going to hand over George W. Bush. Even if eating pork was a crime in the US, Ebolia is still going to have show that GWB is a reasonable suspect. It's also very rare for a nation to extradite unless there is a treaty with the requesting nation.
The US refused to show the Taliban the evidence they claim they have against bin Laden. Afganistan also has not extradition treaty with the US. The Taliban was therefore justified under international law to not extradite bin Laden.
Some argue that a game like baseball is based on the opinion of "judges", in that umpires make the call for everything that happens. Strikes, balls, calls at the plate, etc.
Every sport has this, however they are giving their opinion of the events, not the quality of the events. Given the right technology the opinion can be removed, and the result proven. Tennis used to have a line judge who would decide if a ball was in or out. Now they have electronic eyes which can measure it.
And this lets me introduce one of the reasons why I think that the number of viewers of the olympics, both summer and winter, are falling.
If I'm a casual viewer, I can look at any sport and very quickly know what is to be measured and how a winnner can be a winner. If it's downhill skiing, then it's the fastest person. If it's long jump then it's the person who jumps the longest. If it's weightlifting it's the person who lifts the most. Simple concepts that even the least sports knowledgable can identify. However, in recent years, there have been more and more non sports introduced. These have judges who cannot give an objective measurement about the event, and have to give their opinion. That means that the average person cannot look at the competition and understand the event, and the judges are free to give a biased result - no-one can argue with a judge's opinion. Eliminate skating, except for speed skating. Eliminate diving. Eliminate syncronized swimming. Eliminate EVERYTHING which cannot be objectivily measured, and get back to only sports.
1 is a bad thing for the customer. They spend a long time training 10,000 users on how to use the software, and suddenly it all changes. Even if it's a great new feature, they no longer have control how their users use the product.
For 2, you're underestimating the cost of upgrading in an enterprise. If those 10,000 users are spread through 50 offices then the costs of upgrading are huge, both one time and on going. This is very different to the cost of a few hundred hard drives.
For 3, even the most closed software is still customizable. Our copy of office has had templates added, to give company standard documents and presentations.
For 4, it's nothing to do with the newness or size of the company. Even the biggest company or organization can have their websites hacked. However, if it is an ASP, then the company which owns the data has NO possibilty of preventing or correcting the problem.
Also the general consensus is that the merger will fail. They don't have the support of the Packard foundation (10% of votes) or the Hewlett & Packard family members (another 8%). The Packard Humanities Institude (another 1.3%) is "exremely unlikely" to approve it.
If you look at their actual actions though, no they're not. They've just been sued for not paying artists the proper royalties on CD's, by underreporting sales, overcharging on packaging and paying royalties on the incorrect prices.
I don't see it as particularly inovative. Good transport systems already have a mesh, for example Toronto's, where every major street has a subway, streetcar or bus route, and you can switch from one to the other wherever they intersect.
It's not a goal I'd be worried about. Given the choice of a link which is running at 40% capacity with 100,000 p/s and a link which is running at 99% capacity but 50,000 p/s, I'd rather use the first link. Of course the client can't tell this, but if using a UDP based protocol, it can monitor the number of packets dropped, and with either TCP or UDP, it can tell the transmission speed.
You sound like you're fighting congestion. I'm worried about overloading the networks because we were not responsible with watching to whom we connected
What is the difference in your eyes? To me, that's two different phrasings of the same thing. An overloaded network is a congested one.
Diff was around in Seventh Edition Unix, released in 1979 or so. Here is the man page. I think it actually dates to Sixth or even Fifth, but I can't find any confirmation at this time.
The world is much bigger than just games. Visualization of data is a huge market, and something I think is going to expand as time goes on. If you're trying to analyze your sales for 10,000 stores around the world then you're going to have very different goals than if you're trying to write the next Quake.
Wouldn't a gnutella network that "flattened out" to mimic the underlying structure of the routers be better than one that insisted in creating links that spanned more routers?
In theory, sorta yes. I say sorta, because the actual number of routers isn't important, it's more to do with the end to end reliability and bandwidth and transit time. It doesn't matter if there are 2 routers, or 28 routers, as long as all the other things are equal. However it's very complex to actually determine what are the 'best' peers to use. It certainly can't be done simply by hop counting. If I have A & B both 4 hops from a common point, and C 3 hops from that common point, then A to B is 8 hops, while A to C is 7 hops. So even though the link from the common point to C might be the most congested link, it's still the closest in terms of hops. It also can't be done by ping timing. Ping timing with normal (small) ping packets in a non-congested network is mainly affected by how fast the routers can pass on packets, which is largely independant of the speed of their links. In order to give a good indication of how fast the links will actually be, you have to simulate traffic with the same size packets, and transmitted at the same time intervals. In addition, the dynamics of the network mean that what was the right answer now, might not be the right answer in 10 minutes time or so.
The upshot is, if I was to do this from scratch, I think the easiest & most effective way would be for the client to open N connections, and periodically check to see how 'good' those connections are. It would then drop the worse X connections, and re-establish them to different peers. After a period of time, you'll hopefully find that you've got N-X stable connections to the best possible peer, and X connections which are fluculating.
Slashdot Mirror
You're misreading the story. The average wage in SV is $75,000, not the average wage of the temps. So that $75,000 includes the CEO's etc.
GPS alone has an circular error of 15 meters, or about 50 feet. With WAAS augmentation, that drops to 3 meters, or about 10 feet. WAAS only applies to the US, and southern parts of Canada. here for all the details.
It doesn't have to be a sizable segment, it only needs to be a few, because the protocol encodes the port number that each server is running on.
One thing that makes virtual machines cheaper is that you can combine performance profiles. If you have one application which requires an average of 50, and a peak of 100, and a second application with the same 50 & 100, but the peak is at a different time, then with 2 seperate machines you need 2 of 100. With VM, you can get 1 of 150, because you know that the load will never exceed that, or you machine is not twice as fast, but only 1.5 times as fast. This gets easier and easier to do as you increase the number of applications.
The proper port ranges for gnutella are 1-65535.
This would be the WinAMP who were allowed to develop their new program without interference?
Frame rate is probably the easiest thing to automatically convert. You simply either duplicate or delete frames as required.
This is become less true all the time. Big films are now almost always released simultatinously in all the major markets.
Which is a bad thing for businesses, because they cannot keep their training schedule up to date.
Seroiusly, who would remove a feature from their app?
It happens all the time, whenever the cost of maintaing the feature exceeds the revenue.
This should require little bandwidth Obviously for some applications it may, and for some organizations they may already have sufficent bandwidth. However there is no doubt at all that bandwidth is a concern that you must ensure is addressed if you are considering using an ASP.
ASPs do this... it is standard practice.
However with ordinary system, if the vendor decides not to do so, then the customer can choose a different organization to do the customization. This happens all the time. With the ASP model the customer has no possibility of doing this.
Ever heard of SSL? TLS
Only helps with client->server connection, if supported properly by the server. Once the data is on the server it's now up to the server to hold it securely.
The US refused to show the Taliban the evidence they claim they have against bin Laden. Afganistan also has not extradition treaty with the US. The Taliban was therefore justified under international law to not extradite bin Laden.
Then they're failing, and should be replaced with something else.
Every sport has this, however they are giving their opinion of the events, not the quality of the events. Given the right technology the opinion can be removed, and the result proven. Tennis used to have a line judge who would decide if a ball was in or out. Now they have electronic eyes which can measure it.
If I'm a casual viewer, I can look at any sport and very quickly know what is to be measured and how a winnner can be a winner. If it's downhill skiing, then it's the fastest person. If it's long jump then it's the person who jumps the longest. If it's weightlifting it's the person who lifts the most. Simple concepts that even the least sports knowledgable can identify. However, in recent years, there have been more and more non sports introduced. These have judges who cannot give an objective measurement about the event, and have to give their opinion. That means that the average person cannot look at the competition and understand the event, and the judges are free to give a biased result - no-one can argue with a judge's opinion. Eliminate skating, except for speed skating. Eliminate diving. Eliminate syncronized swimming. Eliminate EVERYTHING which cannot be objectivily measured, and get back to only sports.
Yeah, I should really have said 'security of data', which includes ensuring access as well as compromises.
For 2, you're underestimating the cost of upgrading in an enterprise. If those 10,000 users are spread through 50 offices then the costs of upgrading are huge, both one time and on going. This is very different to the cost of a few hundred hard drives.
For 3, even the most closed software is still customizable. Our copy of office has had templates added, to give company standard documents and presentations.
For 4, it's nothing to do with the newness or size of the company. Even the biggest company or organization can have their websites hacked. However, if it is an ASP, then the company which owns the data has NO possibilty of preventing or correcting the problem.
It seems that you can never make a mistake recommending against an ASP, while you can make one recommending for it. That to me makes it a no-brainer.
Also the general consensus is that the merger will fail. They don't have the support of the Packard foundation (10% of votes) or the Hewlett & Packard family members (another 8%). The Packard Humanities Institude (another 1.3%) is "exremely unlikely" to approve it.
Yes, but the schedule they set is not being followed in the slightest, and even the FCC chairman admits that the date might slip, and unless things change they will slip.
If you look at their actual actions though, no they're not. They've just been sued for not paying artists the proper royalties on CD's, by underreporting sales, overcharging on packaging and paying royalties on the incorrect prices.
I don't see it as particularly inovative. Good transport systems already have a mesh, for example Toronto's, where every major street has a subway, streetcar or bus route, and you can switch from one to the other wherever they intersect.
It's not a goal I'd be worried about. Given the choice of a link which is running at 40% capacity with 100,000 p/s and a link which is running at 99% capacity but 50,000 p/s, I'd rather use the first link. Of course the client can't tell this, but if using a UDP based protocol, it can monitor the number of packets dropped, and with either TCP or UDP, it can tell the transmission speed.
What is the difference in your eyes? To me, that's two different phrasings of the same thing. An overloaded network is a congested one.
Diff was around in Seventh Edition Unix, released in 1979 or so. Here is the man page. I think it actually dates to Sixth or even Fifth, but I can't find any confirmation at this time.
The world is much bigger than just games. Visualization of data is a huge market, and something I think is going to expand as time goes on. If you're trying to analyze your sales for 10,000 stores around the world then you're going to have very different goals than if you're trying to write the next Quake.
In theory, sorta yes. I say sorta, because the actual number of routers isn't important, it's more to do with the end to end reliability and bandwidth and transit time. It doesn't matter if there are 2 routers, or 28 routers, as long as all the other things are equal. However it's very complex to actually determine what are the 'best' peers to use. It certainly can't be done simply by hop counting. If I have A & B both 4 hops from a common point, and C 3 hops from that common point, then A to B is 8 hops, while A to C is 7 hops. So even though the link from the common point to C might be the most congested link, it's still the closest in terms of hops. It also can't be done by ping timing. Ping timing with normal (small) ping packets in a non-congested network is mainly affected by how fast the routers can pass on packets, which is largely independant of the speed of their links. In order to give a good indication of how fast the links will actually be, you have to simulate traffic with the same size packets, and transmitted at the same time intervals. In addition, the dynamics of the network mean that what was the right answer now, might not be the right answer in 10 minutes time or so.
The upshot is, if I was to do this from scratch, I think the easiest & most effective way would be for the client to open N connections, and periodically check to see how 'good' those connections are. It would then drop the worse X connections, and re-establish them to different peers. After a period of time, you'll hopefully find that you've got N-X stable connections to the best possible peer, and X connections which are fluculating.