Among my peers, all but two have some sort of smartphone. They routinely bust it out and use it when out and about for one thing or another. Only one has a tablet. To make matters more grim, despite having that iPad with him for hours and using his iPhone several times, and even his laptop several times, he only used his iPad once, and that was *just* so he could say 'look at my iPad'. He may have borught it with him multiple times, but he never borught it out again and no one asked about it again.
Meanwhile, a lot of manufacturers have fixated on tablet computing as the next big thing, more because Apple did it than actual good reason. It's frustrating to me as a consumer, because a lot of the important players in the phone market have to some extent seemingly are de-emphasizing advancing the smartphone market to chase the tablet. Google made a dead-end honeycomb release just-for-tablets, for example. HP seems to be putting the Touchpad above all else (I think this really hurt what remote chances they had at a comeback). All this to chase a market that hasn't achieved the pervasive status that smartphones did in the same time interval.
More and more businesses are seeking to use data plans and equipment purchased by employees on their own dime instead of paying for phones and data plans just so they can force employee's to use a particular platform.
It's clear in the market that if you are trying to make use of whatever the employee buys for himself, you got to sort out an Android and iPhone strategy. Sure, businesses still care, but they simultaneously push for improvements in Android and iOS while at the same time realizing they frequently allow remote access to similarly 'unlocked' computers and therefore the risk isn't that new to fear.
I'm sure the statement was oreinted toward costs like making 80% of your salaried workforce work a few back-to-back 80 hour work-weeks (without overtime) *just* to make a quarterly target and cause a mass departure of top talent. On a related note, massive layoffs before quarterly results to make the bottom line look better and then have to hire back up in 6 months to keep yourself from going under.
However, I do sometimes see business obviously incur massive *monetary* costs in the name of profit, just usually costs that are certain to come but at a later date. For example, moving mass volumes of product knowing that warranty costs will eat you alive in a year, doing some funny accounting to effectively shift a massive expense incurred in the process of booking revenue to a later quarter to make this quarter look good. Stuff like that.
So there has been significant bitching and moaning among general audience web developers about Chrome and now Firefox going down the hole of throwing bugfixes and features and general overhauls all together and ensuring a very high risk for their web applications not working right after an update.
In large IT departments with internal web sites, this is magnified many times over. Generally internal web sites are constructed by people who are frequently not that good at it in the first place, and only part-time, and when done they move on. Companies don't want to see a lot of employee time pissed away churning on website code just because employees browsers are moving, so they usually mandate one browser (usually not to the exclusion of others). They want that browser to have fixes and maintenance, but they want the behaviour to stay absolutely still, for better or worse. IE6 is *still* alive in some places, though MS's actions have forced even most of those to move on. No one may give IE points for being an awesome browser experience for the user, but part of IT is doing what provides for minimal risk and best productivity even if the user hates it.
So we have Chrome which has always been fast and loose with overhauls, feature adds, etc, which gives IT people pause. Firefox and IE both had more 'traditional' models which suits that market perfectly. Now Firefox has declared they are chasing the tail of Chrome and suddenly, IE is the only major browser *explicitly* sticking to the model that many IT departments *really* need. It really pisses me off, because Firefox is threatening enterprise linux desktop by virtue of denying the last hope of mainstream experience with a measure of maintenance assurance.
Restricted devices that are *not* successfully 'jailbroken' can do that. The device is doing the will of the manufacturer rather than the user, and thus the manufacturer colluding with the studios to prevent unlicensed retention and playback of content achieves some measure of success.
So long as there is a large consumer base *that you want to get rental revenue from* using devices they truly control, any scheme with long term storage seems unlikely to be *perceived* as reasonably protected against piracy next to a more constricted mechanism.
I do agree that DRM is a losing proposition as piracy obviously can and does happen. The streaming services are left uncompromised simply because there is no point in ripping content compressed for live streaming when you can rip much higher quality streams. Anyone thinking Netflix's restrictions around DRM are actually meaningful is foolish. However, studios will forever cling to best-efforts.
The thing about talking about something so significant in highly abstract terms is you'll tend to imagine it doing precisely what *you* think the words mean and how you think a vision could be realized.
Then, when you actually get to touch it, you realize their vision either isn't the same as yours, or even if it matches what you had in your head, in practice it won't work out so well.
The ultimate end-user filesystem experience hasn't changed in years for good reason. Any generic approach is going to be fraught with too much work to bother. Sure, Music, Video, Document, etc applications could use the filesystem as a standardized way to store metadata instead of proprietary databases here and there, but much of the time a file containing data is a shared thing in a central place, with much of the pertinent metadata a user caring about specific to their view, making combining that data in the filesystem awkward. Notably some permament attributes (that should go with the file on transfer so it can't just exist outside the file) like title, release year, etc exist that are global in nature, but personal tags, ratings, bookmarks, etc just don't mesh.
Absolutely. It's glaringly obvious that 'buffering' without restriction is best for network utilization, but the provider throttles the connection rate for various reasons (memory consumption vs. disk space is the most technical one), but the biggest thing is 'rental' model is a little more palatable as a streaming implementation that *expressly* prevents faster-than-realtime download out of paranoia of piracy.
I don't anyway. If they are storing CC details in the clear and someone steals it, guess who isn't picking up the tab?
I *hate* this. Even without going to something like bitcoin, tossing relatively short account numbers around is incredibly dumb and the market should demand something that *doesn't* require trusting the person you are buying 5 bucks of lunch with a number that can be used to suck your account dry. If subtlety is exercised, you may not even notice the small charge here and there if not watching like a hawk.
Is Bitcoin braindead? I certainly think so. Is the status quo of credit card numbers fine? Hell no.
3. The storage is remotely replicated - pull the remote storage 4. You can't pull the remote storage, you don't have jurisdiction overseas
I don't see why they'd care about seizing all copies of the data. They're looking for evidence, not making sure all copies of the data are destroyed. Even one full copy is sufficient for evidence.
I'd wager that for business continuity, large cloud hosting providers all have a process to export data to comply with a warrant without having to give up a bit of production hardware. There is always the chance they think the provider is complicit or incompetent and take hardware anyway, but I'd be surprised if they tried to take the hardware hosting data from a large provider.
Frequently, job restart. Long running jobs have checkpoint and restore. Generally, fault is isolated to a job, so yes, on 80,000 systems you'll have a failure, but if you were doing 800 large jobs, you only lose 1, and 799 jobs didn't even know something went wrong. Generally something like this runs a few benchmarks across the whole thing in the very very beginning, and never again does the whole work as one toward a single task.
Once they secure '.example', they need take no other action to prevent others from doing anything underneath the domain. Admittedly, it's a bit too late for the old TLDs.
We just never did figure out an effective usage of DNS hierarchy because unfortunately it's having to deal with human factors and humans perceive the internet by and large as flat, and no single hierarchy meaningfully ties every arbitrary thing together in a way that makes sense.
To be fair, a large part of the argument was the problem of domain owners having to buy a whole new domain for every TLD issued. Example corp. had to get example.com, example.net, and example.org. Adding.mobi and.xxx 'forces' them to get example.xxx and example.mobi. The premise here is that in practice, the TLD became a meaningless thing, and adding another just causes another clone of the other TLDs. In this line of thinking, the TLD being deprecated for a single '.' TLD actually alleviates this syndrome. There is one wave of 'yet another clone', but perhaps resets the playing field so that future disciussions would no longer be needed.
It would have been another thing if the TLDs *actually* had meaningfully kept things separate, but general usage of DNS system just didn't work out that way.
Task switching without hint as to how much further to the task you are actually looking for, only allowing non-overlapping windows. It's essentially Windows 1.0 on those fronts.
Microsoft saw iPhone acheieve apparent success making a giant phone, and MS wants every desktop to be that way. Further making things worse, they are ignoring the market reality and declaring WP7 the most awesome interface for phones and giant phones.
That's assuming you know it's a phrase of exactly four normal English words long (no more, no less), what punctuation, capitilization, odd spelling or any other things could be in the mix. Even if you ignored all of that, even with 16,000 GPUs at your disposal, it'd still take you up to 6 months for *one* guy's password, The chances that you will be singled out as the target to the exclusion of all others seem slim. If you do have the attention of 16,000 GPUs dedicated to just you you must be a very special person of interest whose password is probably the least of your concerns.
If your business model is shot by having your wire protocol well understood, your business model is crap. Based on my admittedly low knowledge of Skype, I don't understand how third party clients can threaten them, since the client is free, not ad-supported, and they charge for access to services, unless they enforce those business policies client-side, which brings us to point two...
If your protocol being understood opens the door to unauthorized access to your premium services and phishing and other security threats, your protocol is crap. The term in the industry is security through obscurity, with well deserved disdain.
I'd advise xCAT at that scale. Particularly nowadays it obviates the need to tftp even the kernel and initrd, which speeds things up and makes netboot a lot more reliable. You can put together the same stuff manually with iPXE added to your equations, but xCAT2 represents a codebase embodying the experiences of a lot of people over time and wrapping it up under convenience commands. rinstall takes your kickstart file, makes it unique for the node, puts everything in place for PXE and the installer to function, and runs.
Slashdot Mirror
Among my peers, all but two have some sort of smartphone. They routinely bust it out and use it when out and about for one thing or another. Only one has a tablet. To make matters more grim, despite having that iPad with him for hours and using his iPhone several times, and even his laptop several times, he only used his iPad once, and that was *just* so he could say 'look at my iPad'. He may have borught it with him multiple times, but he never borught it out again and no one asked about it again.
Meanwhile, a lot of manufacturers have fixated on tablet computing as the next big thing, more because Apple did it than actual good reason. It's frustrating to me as a consumer, because a lot of the important players in the phone market have to some extent seemingly are de-emphasizing advancing the smartphone market to chase the tablet. Google made a dead-end honeycomb release just-for-tablets, for example. HP seems to be putting the Touchpad above all else (I think this really hurt what remote chances they had at a comeback). All this to chase a market that hasn't achieved the pervasive status that smartphones did in the same time interval.
More and more businesses are seeking to use data plans and equipment purchased by employees on their own dime instead of paying for phones and data plans just so they can force employee's to use a particular platform.
It's clear in the market that if you are trying to make use of whatever the employee buys for himself, you got to sort out an Android and iPhone strategy. Sure, businesses still care, but they simultaneously push for improvements in Android and iOS while at the same time realizing they frequently allow remote access to similarly 'unlocked' computers and therefore the risk isn't that new to fear.
If you stick to performance available for single-digit watts, not much need for active cooling.
The only way to win is not to answer.
I'm sure the statement was oreinted toward costs like making 80% of your salaried workforce work a few back-to-back 80 hour work-weeks (without overtime) *just* to make a quarterly target and cause a mass departure of top talent. On a related note, massive layoffs before quarterly results to make the bottom line look better and then have to hire back up in 6 months to keep yourself from going under.
However, I do sometimes see business obviously incur massive *monetary* costs in the name of profit, just usually costs that are certain to come but at a later date. For example, moving mass volumes of product knowing that warranty costs will eat you alive in a year, doing some funny accounting to effectively shift a massive expense incurred in the process of booking revenue to a later quarter to make this quarter look good. Stuff like that.
So there has been significant bitching and moaning among general audience web developers about Chrome and now Firefox going down the hole of throwing bugfixes and features and general overhauls all together and ensuring a very high risk for their web applications not working right after an update.
In large IT departments with internal web sites, this is magnified many times over. Generally internal web sites are constructed by people who are frequently not that good at it in the first place, and only part-time, and when done they move on. Companies don't want to see a lot of employee time pissed away churning on website code just because employees browsers are moving, so they usually mandate one browser (usually not to the exclusion of others). They want that browser to have fixes and maintenance, but they want the behaviour to stay absolutely still, for better or worse. IE6 is *still* alive in some places, though MS's actions have forced even most of those to move on. No one may give IE points for being an awesome browser experience for the user, but part of IT is doing what provides for minimal risk and best productivity even if the user hates it.
So we have Chrome which has always been fast and loose with overhauls, feature adds, etc, which gives IT people pause. Firefox and IE both had more 'traditional' models which suits that market perfectly. Now Firefox has declared they are chasing the tail of Chrome and suddenly, IE is the only major browser *explicitly* sticking to the model that many IT departments *really* need. It really pisses me off, because Firefox is threatening enterprise linux desktop by virtue of denying the last hope of mainstream experience with a measure of maintenance assurance.
Restricted devices that are *not* successfully 'jailbroken' can do that. The device is doing the will of the manufacturer rather than the user, and thus the manufacturer colluding with the studios to prevent unlicensed retention and playback of content achieves some measure of success.
So long as there is a large consumer base *that you want to get rental revenue from* using devices they truly control, any scheme with long term storage seems unlikely to be *perceived* as reasonably protected against piracy next to a more constricted mechanism.
I do agree that DRM is a losing proposition as piracy obviously can and does happen. The streaming services are left uncompromised simply because there is no point in ripping content compressed for live streaming when you can rip much higher quality streams. Anyone thinking Netflix's restrictions around DRM are actually meaningful is foolish. However, studios will forever cling to best-efforts.
The thing about talking about something so significant in highly abstract terms is you'll tend to imagine it doing precisely what *you* think the words mean and how you think a vision could be realized.
Then, when you actually get to touch it, you realize their vision either isn't the same as yours, or even if it matches what you had in your head, in practice it won't work out so well.
The ultimate end-user filesystem experience hasn't changed in years for good reason. Any generic approach is going to be fraught with too much work to bother. Sure, Music, Video, Document, etc applications could use the filesystem as a standardized way to store metadata instead of proprietary databases here and there, but much of the time a file containing data is a shared thing in a central place, with much of the pertinent metadata a user caring about specific to their view, making combining that data in the filesystem awkward. Notably some permament attributes (that should go with the file on transfer so it can't just exist outside the file) like title, release year, etc exist that are global in nature, but personal tags, ratings, bookmarks, etc just don't mesh.
Absolutely. It's glaringly obvious that 'buffering' without restriction is best for network utilization, but the provider throttles the connection rate for various reasons (memory consumption vs. disk space is the most technical one), but the biggest thing is 'rental' model is a little more palatable as a streaming implementation that *expressly* prevents faster-than-realtime download out of paranoia of piracy.
I agree with you nearly 100%
I don't anyway. If they are storing CC details in the clear and someone steals it, guess who isn't picking up the tab?
I *hate* this. Even without going to something like bitcoin, tossing relatively short account numbers around is incredibly dumb and the market should demand something that *doesn't* require trusting the person you are buying 5 bucks of lunch with a number that can be used to suck your account dry. If subtlety is exercised, you may not even notice the small charge here and there if not watching like a hawk.
Is Bitcoin braindead? I certainly think so. Is the status quo of credit card numbers fine? Hell no.
3. The storage is remotely replicated - pull the remote storage
4. You can't pull the remote storage, you don't have jurisdiction overseas
I don't see why they'd care about seizing all copies of the data. They're looking for evidence, not making sure all copies of the data are destroyed. Even one full copy is sufficient for evidence.
I'd wager that for business continuity, large cloud hosting providers all have a process to export data to comply with a warrant without having to give up a bit of production hardware. There is always the chance they think the provider is complicit or incompetent and take hardware anyway, but I'd be surprised if they tried to take the hardware hosting data from a large provider.
I might have forgiven the tiering, but the new bottom tier is no cheaper than the older 'unlimited' tier.
Oh, and that one job 'lost' gets restarted shortly thereafter, with the user maybe realizing that it took longer than he thought it should.
Frequently, job restart. Long running jobs have checkpoint and restore. Generally, fault is isolated to a job, so yes, on 80,000 systems you'll have a failure, but if you were doing 800 large jobs, you only lose 1, and 799 jobs didn't even know something went wrong. Generally something like this runs a few benchmarks across the whole thing in the very very beginning, and never again does the whole work as one toward a single task.
Once they secure '.example', they need take no other action to prevent others from doing anything underneath the domain. Admittedly, it's a bit too late for the old TLDs.
We just never did figure out an effective usage of DNS hierarchy because unfortunately it's having to deal with human factors and humans perceive the internet by and large as flat, and no single hierarchy meaningfully ties every arbitrary thing together in a way that makes sense.
Wait a few months and grab a copy for 20-30 dollars.
http://slash.dotslash/
To be fair, a large part of the argument was the problem of domain owners having to buy a whole new domain for every TLD issued. Example corp. had to get example.com, example.net, and example.org. Adding .mobi and .xxx 'forces' them to get example.xxx and example.mobi. The premise here is that in practice, the TLD became a meaningless thing, and adding another just causes another clone of the other TLDs. In this line of thinking, the TLD being deprecated for a single '.' TLD actually alleviates this syndrome. There is one wave of 'yet another clone', but perhaps resets the playing field so that future disciussions would no longer be needed.
It would have been another thing if the TLDs *actually* had meaningfully kept things separate, but general usage of DNS system just didn't work out that way.
"You won't waste as much time on your smartphone because you'll just hate using it that much".
AFAIK, they locked down WP7, just like everything else (except a few select Android handsets and WebOS devices).
Task switching without hint as to how much further to the task you are actually looking for, only allowing non-overlapping windows. It's essentially Windows 1.0 on those fronts.
Microsoft saw iPhone acheieve apparent success making a giant phone, and MS wants every desktop to be that way. Further making things worse, they are ignoring the market reality and declaring WP7 the most awesome interface for phones and giant phones.
I suspect NAT64 will be around for a long long time to keep IPv6 people talking to IPv4 only hosts.
That's assuming you know it's a phrase of exactly four normal English words long (no more, no less), what punctuation, capitilization, odd spelling or any other things could be in the mix. Even if you ignored all of that, even with 16,000 GPUs at your disposal, it'd still take you up to 6 months for *one* guy's password, The chances that you will be singled out as the target to the exclusion of all others seem slim. If you do have the attention of 16,000 GPUs dedicated to just you you must be a very special person of interest whose password is probably the least of your concerns.
If your business model is shot by having your wire protocol well understood, your business model is crap. Based on my admittedly low knowledge of Skype, I don't understand how third party clients can threaten them, since the client is free, not ad-supported, and they charge for access to services, unless they enforce those business policies client-side, which brings us to point two...
If your protocol being understood opens the door to unauthorized access to your premium services and phishing and other security threats, your protocol is crap. The term in the industry is security through obscurity, with well deserved disdain.
I'd advise xCAT at that scale. Particularly nowadays it obviates the need to tftp even the kernel and initrd, which speeds things up and makes netboot a lot more reliable. You can put together the same stuff manually with iPXE added to your equations, but xCAT2 represents a codebase embodying the experiences of a lot of people over time and wrapping it up under convenience commands. rinstall takes your kickstart file, makes it unique for the node, puts everything in place for PXE and the installer to function, and runs.