ISO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) says 2001-09-11... year first, then month, then day. Europeans complain about American date conventions, but then use their own idiosyncratic ones anyways. insensitive clods!
Full disclosure: my relationship with these people is as a happy customer for... I dunno around a decade for a mid-size organization of about 6000 mailboxes. Sorry if this reads like a commercial, I really am just that happy with these guys.
https://www.roaringpenguin.com... they provide and support CANIT PRO, which is basically mimedefang and spamassassin on a debian base, with dynamically updated blacklists and filtering rules. It works really well. David is one of the guys behind behind mimedefang, so you are also helping open source by going with these guys. The pricing for us was really decent.
They usually work with appliances, but we managed to use our own configuration to do some sweet stuff: we put the mail filtering cluster in the DMZ, along with the DB. but we put the customization interface is on an internal network. That way there is no firewall exception for the DMZ (ok except SMTP... can't avoid that one.) and the DMZ gateway doesn't need access to internal credentials at all (Active Directory in our case) It just knows that the interface machine on the inside is trustworthy. Even though the DB has no access to authentication services, the users can still customize their filtering to their desire.
I think for big companies, one concern is that I have never heard anyone rave about spam filtering. In terms of brand-awareness it is a completely one way street, Either people are satisfied with it, in which case they shrug, or they get irrationally violently abusive of the service, and have un-realistic expectations. It is a risk for any major brand to operate spam filtering, with literally no upside (ok, aside form revenue, but if it is a small part of a business, the reputation risk might outweigh the revenues.) Touching people's email brings out all the consipacy buffs you can imagine, and for some small but vociferous group they always have their own solution, and whatever the email admin does is crap. That's a thing that was great about Roaring Penguin's CanIT PRO when we rolled it out, it gave each user the ability to turn off the filtering entirely, if that's what they wanted.
It worked like a charm. Whenever we got some idiot (the truth hurts!) who thought they could do better, we just said fine, here is how to turn it off. Out of 6000 boxes, we had about 200 opt-out right away, most of them turned it back on within a few days, after a year it was down to 60 or so, and then when there were some malware infection episodes, it came out that their 'custom' solutions were not actually working that well, and everyone came back into the fold. Being able to let people opt-out saved us literally months of pointless arguments while letting us deploy good service for the co-operative many.
This was for about 7000 mailboxes, which is small as far as mail installations go these days. The real clients for this stuff is hosting providers and outsourcing companies (cloud based) I think the reason for large companies exiting the business is the huge trend of small companies to cloud, there just isn't much of a market for small email installs anymore... People are using huge hosted configurations. It's gradually getting dismantled now because of some organization move to a single outsourced solution with many hundreds of thousands of mailboxes...
Economy of scale can drive costs down, and the same time it drives down competition, and makes the entire network less robust and reliable because of fewer reliable power sources. You have Hoover dam. Can you scale out hoover dam to get enough electricity for the entire country from Hydro? No. What are the other options? Most other central generation schemes involve nuclear or fossil fuels. While these methods may produce a lower cost grid at this time, this is because there are unpriced externalities: No price on carbon dumped in the atmosphere, or for facilities like Yucca Mountain. I'm all for market pricing, but markets need to reflect the real cost to all of us, and not subsidize certain technologies, as has been the case with these other technologies for many decades.
So long term, those other sources are likely going to have to go away or their costs will increase substantially, so redesigning the grid to deal with truly sustainable generation methods, like wind and solar, is going to need to be done sooner or later. If you are running a public utility, for the public good, you do not want to be prolonging environmental degradation by subsidizing incumbents at the expense of those who are doing the right thing for everyone's future.
In a Smart Grid world, Hoover Dam would sell at the price Hoover Dam wants to charge, and the price from Solar City at the price they want to charge... When you run out of cheap power, you buy the expensive stuff. When nuclear plants start paying for rent for 50,000 years of storage of their waste, and gas plants include carbon sequestration in their operations, perhaps their properly priced production cost will end up as 20 cents/KWh. Add in grid storage, and perhaps people will buy hoover dam power cheap at night, and use it during the day, when they need it. A lot of improvement becomes plausible (perhaps not easy, but at least plausible) with a smart grid.
Great sentiment. How many utility grids can compete for customers? Five? Seven? So a cheaper grid made possible by local generation, reducing the cost of distribution because current has to move less distance competes with huge cables from Hoover Dam how exactly? oh... PUC stands for public utility commission, and there is only one grid. It is not a supply and demand issue when there is only 1 grid, and it is the public utility commission making rules that are lopsided in favour of the Hoover Dam proponents. What is power worth at the Hoover Dam ? about 2 cents/KW perhaps... but to get them to Las Vegas, it's probably going to lose half of them en route, so what does a KW cost in there? about 4 cents... why should the electric company be given power for half of their cost from other sources, why doesn't the electric company negotiate with each of the small scale producers? how is it more 'market' if the cost is set by the PUC down rather than up.
There is no market solution to this problem, right now. Pehaps smart grids will be able to address that someday, but right now, it's just who lobbies the regulator better. Given the reality that a monopoly grid currently in place, and is necessary, and given a monopoly, it must be regulated, and that regulation will perforce shape the market, the choice before people is what shape of market do you want? Distributed generation, as it reduces the amount of electricity that must be moved over long distances, is more efficient, and therefore cheaper, and so if we are going to fail in any direction it should be in favour of reducing costs for everyone. On that basis, a feed-in tarriff that encourages distributed generation is better for everyone except the incumbent electric generation and distribution organizations, as it reduces the amount of electricity they sell and ship.
banana pi R... 279$ at newegg, I probably would buy it, but at that price... its hard to decide between it and a nuc, or the thing the guy at ars started with... its no longer 5x cheaper, its equal cost for 4 more ethernet ports... but yeah, Id go for that to have a truly open small ethernet switch.
Having already listened to Joanna Rutkowska's talk a few weeks ago, the writer got it wrong... he/she read or heard 'stick' and inferred 'USB'... no. USB is terminally insecure because the controllers necessary to operate it can be infected also (https://srlabs.de/badusb/) That's why there is a line that says SPI in it. She is talking about something like an SDcard, which has less firmware in it to corrupt. Complexity is the enemy of trust. The issue is that the new stuff is harder for white hats to access/audit/disinfect because the way the chip vendors are "securing" it is by keeping it all a secret... security by obscurity. Muzzling the good guys just gives the advantage to the bad guys.
If IME or (AMD's PSP) gets exploited, you are completely screwed, throw the motherboard out. no amount of re-flashing can get you to known good state. The advantage of the stick, as a relatively passive device and preferably read-only to the managed device, is that it can be removed/reviewed/fixed on another device. Imagine it like using an SD-Card to store a BIOS, and having no firmware other than that. to upgrade the BIOS, you remove the stick, put it on a trusted computer (you have to find one of those) and use that to do the BIOS upgrade, then you put it back in the computer, where it is read-only. This works for fixing a corrupt BIOS as well. The only capability you give to the CPU is the ability to load it's microcode on boot from this stick.
Implemented properly, with co-operation from the chip vendors that has the potential to be much more secure, but how likely is that?
Thats about the same thing I do, and my uptime is beter than with the craptastic appliances you can get at your local tech store... and I actually understand what is happenning when it breaks, I can get decent log messages, etc... also my ISP gateway is in a chimney renovated into a closet... brick walls, so the wifi in there does not make much sense, got the house wired for ethernet, and have WIFI APs else where... used normal store bought boxes for those, and those fail a lot... (honey... my tablet is slow!... reboot the consumer crap box... thank! honey...) they are just in bridge mode, and they still get confused after they are up a while.
So totally over the packaged all in one junk with the most functionality possible crammed into one box, where a lot of it is done badly, it doesnt really get patched, and the error messages are terrible. What I would like for wifi is something that just bridges wifi to my copper network, just do that right and forget everything else. The other stuff makes it unreliable.
As the ISP limits me to 30 mbps, it handles the maximum the link will tolerate, I don't have an easy way to test properly beyond that. During such tests, the pi answers at the command line readily enough, I think I recall doing a top and it wasn't suffering. I did not put a hard disk on it, specifically to reserve USB bandwidth for the ethernet dongle. just the SDCARD. As others have mentioned, you need to be careful with the power supply, and some USB ethernet dongles are crap, but once you get properly equipped it's very reliable. Every couple of months I reboot the cable modem (not the pi..) and my dlink router that is the wifi thing has to get rebooted every few weeks when throughput slows to a crawl. The pi is better than either of them. I'm using the original model B. only 512 MB of RAM, but it's always idle... it is a very internet centric house, we run half-a-terabyte a month through it in a typical month, lots of netflix and gaming for a whole family.
raspberry pi, usb ethernet dongle, power supply... about 40$. does 30 mbps with full iptables, NAT, dual stack ipv4 and ipv6,
speed test is 30 mbps flat out. my isp rate is 30 mbps... If you have access to > 100mbps great, but outside of google cities isn't that kind of rare? Don't see the point of a 300$ homebrew router.
been using a pi for years. have two spares. no moving parts, no fan, low power consumption...
It's not a mistake. Do you have a touch version of gimp handy? no? That's the problem. For gimp the idea is that you use the keyboard and mouse and you can use it as a completely "traditional" computer. but you can use it as a tablet for the stuff that works well with that... those are going to be other apps, because of the need to allow for humungous fingers that blot out half the screen whenever you do anything, rather than mouse pointers. The only way to do convergence is to let both worlds live together, give easy switching, and see what the software does over time.
It is a launch cost, not a total cost. It makes no sense to estimate the cost of the rocket to be divided equally among the two stages. SpaceX doesnt build the payloads, it isnt their cost. The payload is almost certainly not included in the 60M$ launch costs cited. So The main cost of the stages is the engines. there are nine in the first stage, and only one in the second. I imagine the breakdown in costs is proportional to that, rather than the 50:50 breakdown proposed above. The motor is a little different, being optimized for lower atmospheric pressure, but thats just a difference not an added cost, the only added complication in the second stage is the carbon fibre fairing... everything thing else is payload.
so I expect that even if we say only 40 M$ is the vehicle itself, then probably 36 M$ or thereabouts is the first stage. So yeah... 10:1 on the vehicle... results in going from 60 M$/launch to 24 M$/launch... or 2/3rds cheaper.
well you're looking too narrowly. Electrical generation plants that burn fossil fuels are a lot more efficient than ICE. The use of ICE is based on the ease of accelleration/torque on demand, lack of long startup phases. If you use an electric motor for the kinetic activities, the the options for generating electricity for the powertrain to use are wide open. Say when the battery gets down to 25% charge, you start up a compact gas turbine, and run it until it's back up to >90% and then shut it off. so the duty cycle is long, no varying torque, something like this: http://www.bladonjets.com/ has only one moving part... should last forever, far simpler than an ICE, and likely more efficient. another product: http://www.capstoneturbine.com...
Walmart's gas turbine hybrid truck:
http://www.greencarcongress.co...
thirdly, it takes about 6KW at the refinery to make a gallon of gas, and most electric vehicles can go further on 6KW than a gasoline powered car can go on a gallon of gas. So getting rid of the middleman conversion to gasoline actually reduces energy consumption.
http://gatewayev.org/how-much-...
uh... "Also don't forget about being stuck in traffic, driving at slow speeds, etc... A vehicle that's only good for approximately 80 minutes of driving"
unlike ice, electric cars consume practically nothing, you could sit in traffic all day and the charge would probbably be fine. The only way a leaf is going to run out of power in 80 minutes is if you're going 80 miles per hour... getting stuck in traffic is actually where electric shines.
as someone who led a project to replace a suite of 750 kloc apps written in compiled languages with 20 klocs of python that performed between 4x and 100x better, I do not find it perplexing at al. Concision is a value in and of itself. It brings better algorithms within reach, when the implementation in C would collapse under the effort of getting it right. There is nothing that stops you from re-implementing in C after you have explored and implemented in python. In practice, I have never found it necessary to do so, by ymmv.
uh, no, just the opposite. Many supercomputing applications are about getting access to compute/memory/io bandwidth with as little intermediation as possible. Job allocation methods on supercomputers typically allocate entire nodes, so the sort of fine grained prioritization is prescribed is rather irrelevant. Whole article looks a bit anachronistic, maybe it is sensible to people from a mainframe background where reliability/predictability trumps other requirements, but when performance is an important concern, this kind of intrusive over-monitoring described would not be wanted.
Given this problem, there are several options for fanout... Im assuming that hardware can be added, so adding a load balancer and then three or four machines to cope with the load behind the load balancer might be the quickest (least code change) way to address the issue. Especially if there is no global state needed, this is likely the most expedient.
An option that might be a bit more flexible on a single box, while still scalable, would be to have a task that parses each incoming job and posts it to a rabbitmq instance (AMQP bus.) rabbitmq works very well out of the box, with little tweaking.
you then have the fifteen scripts called in subscriber instances as separate processes. You are essentially farming out all the IPC to the broker, and the broker does this sort of thing very well. The scripts are now isolated processes, and their memory management etc... now become separate issues (if one misbehaves, you an always have the subscription management wrapper around it restart it from time to time.)
Pika would be the preferred python bindings appropriate for speaking with the broker. You might still be beyond what can be done with a single node, but growing things with AMQP/rabbit is straight-forward.
I wrote by most measures... this one like shows 1.47% share world-wide... 8x higher than your number.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/...
You accuse someone of pulling numbers out of a body cavity, then do exactly the same thing?
When presented with some kind of data you just disparage it...
How about some data that backs up your claim?
The actual desktop share for Linux in the US is around 2% by most measures... so the while grandfather might have been off 5x, you were off by 10x... http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-...
Hi there,
you don't need the proprietary drivers anymore. I use steam games, like portal, and portal2 (beta, but works better than on windos 7, where my kids say it crashes a lot) on an ATI 75xx video card using pure open source drivers (ubuntu 14.04) and it runs really, really well. I don't know what, if anything is missing, The card may run a little hotter and a bit slower than the proprietary drivers, but it works well enough that I am thrilled not to have to bother with them anymore.
Belief #1: the sun will rise tommorrow.
Belief #2: 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Belief is Belief. the two are completely equivalent.
As soon as you say you believe in anything, all beliefs are equivalent. That's your argument?
You are the one who has not shown a single reference in any of your posts, or done a single search. You have not provided a single support for any of your points, and you claim that the strogest statement science can make "we have proven that"... OK, so I googled: scientist say "we have proven", and here is the first hit:
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/why-do-many-people-believe-evolution-when-bib-390580
Is that you? In other words, they only people who claim that scientists say "we have proven" are evolution deniers.
The interpretation I gave was not invented, it is the plot of the movie you provide as your source. I have seen the movie. It isn't a misinterpretation, you are a just really sloppy, lazy troll. so let's see, It's "Just a Theory", "I need proof", "there are gaps", and maybe "prometheus" as a mechanism is more believable, but you are not really suggesting that...
To that I say: A Theory is the strongest statement one can make in science, the proof (to any reasonable standard of evidence) is already there, the so-called gaps are a bad joke, and the problem of speciation is imaginary.
Your objections to evolution are specious, and the evidence of evolution so overwhelming that no-one in their right mind would entertain any doubts. That is not a religious statement, it is not a statement of faith based belief. It is a statement based on a reasonable examination of the facts and the preponderance of evidence available. When the evidence is strong enough, not accepting something falls over the line from reasonable scepticism to denial with some sort of axe to grind. That is where your statements lie, either because you are truly deluded, or because you are a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
ISO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) says 2001-09-11 ... year first, then month, then day. Europeans complain about American date conventions, but then use their own idiosyncratic ones anyways. insensitive clods!
I had no idea! It shows how long it has been since we needed to talk! Thanks for the great product, Dianne !
https://www.roaringpenguin.com... they provide and support CANIT PRO, which is basically mimedefang and spamassassin on a debian base, with dynamically updated blacklists and filtering rules. It works really well. David is one of the guys behind behind mimedefang, so you are also helping open source by going with these guys. The pricing for us was really decent.
They usually work with appliances, but we managed to use our own configuration to do some sweet stuff: we put the mail filtering cluster in the DMZ, along with the DB. but we put the customization interface is on an internal network. That way there is no firewall exception for the DMZ (ok except SMTP... can't avoid that one.) and the DMZ gateway doesn't need access to internal credentials at all (Active Directory in our case) It just knows that the interface machine on the inside is trustworthy. Even though the DB has no access to authentication services, the users can still customize their filtering to their desire.
I think for big companies, one concern is that I have never heard anyone rave about spam filtering. In terms of brand-awareness it is a completely one way street, Either people are satisfied with it, in which case they shrug, or they get irrationally violently abusive of the service, and have un-realistic expectations. It is a risk for any major brand to operate spam filtering, with literally no upside (ok, aside form revenue, but if it is a small part of a business, the reputation risk might outweigh the revenues.) Touching people's email brings out all the consipacy buffs you can imagine, and for some small but vociferous group they always have their own solution, and whatever the email admin does is crap. That's a thing that was great about Roaring Penguin's CanIT PRO when we rolled it out, it gave each user the ability to turn off the filtering entirely, if that's what they wanted.
It worked like a charm. Whenever we got some idiot (the truth hurts!) who thought they could do better, we just said fine, here is how to turn it off. Out of 6000 boxes, we had about 200 opt-out right away, most of them turned it back on within a few days, after a year it was down to 60 or so, and then when there were some malware infection episodes, it came out that their 'custom' solutions were not actually working that well, and everyone came back into the fold. Being able to let people opt-out saved us literally months of pointless arguments while letting us deploy good service for the co-operative many.
This was for about 7000 mailboxes, which is small as far as mail installations go these days. The real clients for this stuff is hosting providers and outsourcing companies (cloud based) I think the reason for large companies exiting the business is the huge trend of small companies to cloud, there just isn't much of a market for small email installs anymore... People are using huge hosted configurations. It's gradually getting dismantled now because of some organization move to a single outsourced solution with many hundreds of thousands of mailboxes...
So long term, those other sources are likely going to have to go away or their costs will increase substantially, so redesigning the grid to deal with truly sustainable generation methods, like wind and solar, is going to need to be done sooner or later. If you are running a public utility, for the public good, you do not want to be prolonging environmental degradation by subsidizing incumbents at the expense of those who are doing the right thing for everyone's future.
In a Smart Grid world, Hoover Dam would sell at the price Hoover Dam wants to charge, and the price from Solar City at the price they want to charge... When you run out of cheap power, you buy the expensive stuff. When nuclear plants start paying for rent for 50,000 years of storage of their waste, and gas plants include carbon sequestration in their operations, perhaps their properly priced production cost will end up as 20 cents/KWh. Add in grid storage, and perhaps people will buy hoover dam power cheap at night, and use it during the day, when they need it. A lot of improvement becomes plausible (perhaps not easy, but at least plausible) with a smart grid.
There is no market solution to this problem, right now. Pehaps smart grids will be able to address that someday, but right now, it's just who lobbies the regulator better. Given the reality that a monopoly grid currently in place, and is necessary, and given a monopoly, it must be regulated, and that regulation will perforce shape the market, the choice before people is what shape of market do you want? Distributed generation, as it reduces the amount of electricity that must be moved over long distances, is more efficient, and therefore cheaper, and so if we are going to fail in any direction it should be in favour of reducing costs for everyone. On that basis, a feed-in tarriff that encourages distributed generation is better for everyone except the incumbent electric generation and distribution organizations, as it reduces the amount of electricity they sell and ship.
banana pi R... 279$ at newegg, I probably would buy it, but at that price... its hard to decide between it and a nuc, or the thing the guy at ars started with... its no longer 5x cheaper, its equal cost for 4 more ethernet ports... but yeah, Id go for that to have a truly open small ethernet switch.
If IME or (AMD's PSP) gets exploited, you are completely screwed, throw the motherboard out. no amount of re-flashing can get you to known good state. The advantage of the stick, as a relatively passive device and preferably read-only to the managed device, is that it can be removed/reviewed/fixed on another device. Imagine it like using an SD-Card to store a BIOS, and having no firmware other than that. to upgrade the BIOS, you remove the stick, put it on a trusted computer (you have to find one of those) and use that to do the BIOS upgrade, then you put it back in the computer, where it is read-only. This works for fixing a corrupt BIOS as well. The only capability you give to the CPU is the ability to load it's microcode on boot from this stick.
Implemented properly, with co-operation from the chip vendors that has the potential to be much more secure, but how likely is that?
Thats about the same thing I do, and my uptime is beter than with the craptastic appliances you can get at your local tech store... and I actually understand what is happenning when it breaks, I can get decent log messages, etc... also my ISP gateway is in a chimney renovated into a closet... brick walls, so the wifi in there does not make much sense, got the house wired for ethernet, and have WIFI APs else where... used normal store bought boxes for those, and those fail a lot... (honey... my tablet is slow!... reboot the consumer crap box... thank! honey...) they are just in bridge mode, and they still get confused after they are up a while. So totally over the packaged all in one junk with the most functionality possible crammed into one box, where a lot of it is done badly, it doesnt really get patched, and the error messages are terrible. What I would like for wifi is something that just bridges wifi to my copper network, just do that right and forget everything else. The other stuff makes it unreliable.
duino? How do I run iptables and 6RD on that sucker? Pi is normal Debian, piece of cake.
As the ISP limits me to 30 mbps, it handles the maximum the link will tolerate, I don't have an easy way to test properly beyond that. During such tests, the pi answers at the command line readily enough, I think I recall doing a top and it wasn't suffering. I did not put a hard disk on it, specifically to reserve USB bandwidth for the ethernet dongle. just the SDCARD. As others have mentioned, you need to be careful with the power supply, and some USB ethernet dongles are crap, but once you get properly equipped it's very reliable. Every couple of months I reboot the cable modem (not the pi..) and my dlink router that is the wifi thing has to get rebooted every few weeks when throughput slows to a crawl. The pi is better than either of them. I'm using the original model B. only 512 MB of RAM, but it's always idle... it is a very internet centric house, we run half-a-terabyte a month through it in a typical month, lots of netflix and gaming for a whole family.
raspberry pi, usb ethernet dongle, power supply... about 40$. does 30 mbps with full iptables, NAT, dual stack ipv4 and ipv6, speed test is 30 mbps flat out. my isp rate is 30 mbps ... If you have access to > 100mbps great, but outside of google cities isn't that kind of rare? Don't see the point of a 300$ homebrew router.
been using a pi for years. have two spares. no moving parts, no fan, low power consumption...
It's not a mistake. Do you have a touch version of gimp handy? no? That's the problem. For gimp the idea is that you use the keyboard and mouse and you can use it as a completely "traditional" computer. but you can use it as a tablet for the stuff that works well with that... those are going to be other apps, because of the need to allow for humungous fingers that blot out half the screen whenever you do anything, rather than mouse pointers. The only way to do convergence is to let both worlds live together, give easy switching, and see what the software does over time.
It is a launch cost, not a total cost. It makes no sense to estimate the cost of the rocket to be divided equally among the two stages. SpaceX doesnt build the payloads, it isnt their cost. The payload is almost certainly not included in the 60M$ launch costs cited. So The main cost of the stages is the engines. there are nine in the first stage, and only one in the second. I imagine the breakdown in costs is proportional to that, rather than the 50:50 breakdown proposed above. The motor is a little different, being optimized for lower atmospheric pressure, but thats just a difference not an added cost, the only added complication in the second stage is the carbon fibre fairing... everything thing else is payload. so I expect that even if we say only 40 M$ is the vehicle itself, then probably 36 M$ or thereabouts is the first stage. So yeah... 10:1 on the vehicle... results in going from 60 M$/launch to 24 M$/launch... or 2/3rds cheaper.
well you're looking too narrowly. Electrical generation plants that burn fossil fuels are a lot more efficient than ICE. The use of ICE is based on the ease of accelleration/torque on demand, lack of long startup phases. If you use an electric motor for the kinetic activities, the the options for generating electricity for the powertrain to use are wide open. Say when the battery gets down to 25% charge, you start up a compact gas turbine, and run it until it's back up to >90% and then shut it off. so the duty cycle is long, no varying torque, something like this: http://www.bladonjets.com/ has only one moving part... should last forever, far simpler than an ICE, and likely more efficient. another product: http://www.capstoneturbine.com... Walmart's gas turbine hybrid truck: http://www.greencarcongress.co...
thirdly, it takes about 6KW at the refinery to make a gallon of gas, and most electric vehicles can go further on 6KW than a gasoline powered car can go on a gallon of gas. So getting rid of the middleman conversion to gasoline actually reduces energy consumption. http://gatewayev.org/how-much-...
uh... "Also don't forget about being stuck in traffic, driving at slow speeds, etc... A vehicle that's only good for approximately 80 minutes of driving" unlike ice, electric cars consume practically nothing, you could sit in traffic all day and the charge would probbably be fine. The only way a leaf is going to run out of power in 80 minutes is if you're going 80 miles per hour... getting stuck in traffic is actually where electric shines.
as someone who led a project to replace a suite of 750 kloc apps written in compiled languages with 20 klocs of python that performed between 4x and 100x better, I do not find it perplexing at al. Concision is a value in and of itself. It brings better algorithms within reach, when the implementation in C would collapse under the effort of getting it right. There is nothing that stops you from re-implementing in C after you have explored and implemented in python. In practice, I have never found it necessary to do so, by ymmv.
uh, no, just the opposite. Many supercomputing applications are about getting access to compute/memory/io bandwidth with as little intermediation as possible. Job allocation methods on supercomputers typically allocate entire nodes, so the sort of fine grained prioritization is prescribed is rather irrelevant. Whole article looks a bit anachronistic, maybe it is sensible to people from a mainframe background where reliability/predictability trumps other requirements, but when performance is an important concern, this kind of intrusive over-monitoring described would not be wanted.
Given this problem, there are several options for fanout... Im assuming that hardware can be added, so adding a load balancer and then three or four machines to cope with the load behind the load balancer might be the quickest (least code change) way to address the issue. Especially if there is no global state needed, this is likely the most expedient.
An option that might be a bit more flexible on a single box, while still scalable, would be to have a task that parses each incoming job and posts it to a rabbitmq instance (AMQP bus.) rabbitmq works very well out of the box, with little tweaking. you then have the fifteen scripts called in subscriber instances as separate processes. You are essentially farming out all the IPC to the broker, and the broker does this sort of thing very well. The scripts are now isolated processes, and their memory management etc... now become separate issues (if one misbehaves, you an always have the subscription management wrapper around it restart it from time to time.)
Pika would be the preferred python bindings appropriate for speaking with the broker. You might still be beyond what can be done with a single node, but growing things with AMQP/rabbit is straight-forward.
I wrote by most measures... this one like shows 1.47% share world-wide... 8x higher than your number. http://www.netmarketshare.com/... You accuse someone of pulling numbers out of a body cavity, then do exactly the same thing? When presented with some kind of data you just disparage it... How about some data that backs up your claim?
The actual desktop share for Linux in the US is around 2% by most measures... so the while grandfather might have been off 5x, you were off by 10x... http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-...
Hi there, you don't need the proprietary drivers anymore. I use steam games, like portal, and portal2 (beta, but works better than on windos 7, where my kids say it crashes a lot) on an ATI 75xx video card using pure open source drivers (ubuntu 14.04) and it runs really, really well. I don't know what, if anything is missing, The card may run a little hotter and a bit slower than the proprietary drivers, but it works well enough that I am thrilled not to have to bother with them anymore.
Belief #1: the sun will rise tommorrow. Belief #2: 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Belief is Belief. the two are completely equivalent. As soon as you say you believe in anything, all beliefs are equivalent. That's your argument?
Is that you? In other words, they only people who claim that scientists say "we have proven" are evolution deniers.
QED.
To that I say: A Theory is the strongest statement one can make in science, the proof (to any reasonable standard of evidence) is already there, the so-called gaps are a bad joke, and the problem of speciation is imaginary.
Your objections to evolution are specious, and the evidence of evolution so overwhelming that no-one in their right mind would entertain any doubts. That is not a religious statement, it is not a statement of faith based belief. It is a statement based on a reasonable examination of the facts and the preponderance of evidence available. When the evidence is strong enough, not accepting something falls over the line from reasonable scepticism to denial with some sort of axe to grind. That is where your statements lie, either because you are truly deluded, or because you are a troll.