There's a pattern here. They launch dozens of new products and then kill them a short time later. The roll out WiFi to their home town and then neglect it.
Advertising brings in 98% of their revenue. Everything else is just playthings for a company with too much money and no idea what to (usefully) do with it. Maybe instead of worrying about balloons in Africa you should work on the things in your own back yard..
Well, doesn't the world just owe you?
Did you read the summary? They launched this network - presumably at the cost of significant time and money - seven years ago. It worked well for over five years. Given the lead time to design, implement and get approval for this network, it may well have been designed around 2004.
I very much doubt it has been neglected if it operated well for so long. It looks like demand is now beyond the capacity of the original network and that Google is addressing this.
How on earth does this make Google a burden? And why, precisely, should they stop caring about people dying in poorer parts of the world, so you can get a better free service?
Do you know anything about Australia? Do you realize that a huge part of the country is essentially desert and uninhabited. Your population density stats mean little.
Look at a state, like Victoria, with a population density of 63/sq mile. That would put it in the middle of the US states, somewhere around Mississippi. Certainly it's no new york city, but neither is it Alaska.
Somewhere with that sort of population should easily be able to support multiple ISPs and have faster and cheaper internet service than that mentioned by the OP. Of course OP may live in the middle of Western Australia, in which case the 1.5 Mbit for $70 is probably a bargain.
Medical literature is a tiny world - much smaller even than the one that shapes Jeopardy questions. Medical journals are numbered in what, the hundreds? Many don't even publish monthly. I'd be willing to bet Google indexes more new content in a minute than there is new medical literature in a year.
On top of that you have a market for the research that can and will pay per query. Combine revenue per query with a small world to search and you can dedicate an enormous amount of processing power and time compared to that which Google can offer.
Are you complaining about not having fiber? While you certainly have my sympathies, we're talking about helping others who are still using dialup.
If you want some comparison to your village, I live in a US city with a population of around 100,000 and am fortunate to have two choices for broadband. It's more expensive than I'd pay in the UK, and there's little chance of this city seeing fiber in the next decade.
Unless the location is remote with a limited users, its better to go with nation building optical.
Maybe you missed the bit that this is all about filling in the coverage gaps in an attempt to ensure the UK has as close to 100% broadband coverage as is possible.
Of course optical is better. If you live half way up a mountainside, 20 miles from the nearest village and perhaps 80 miles from the nearest town with a population over 10,000 you're going to be waiting a while. 4G is comparatively quick to deploy and a heck of a lot cheaper.
If you are afraid of leaving your site unattended there is something wrong with your site.
So you just leave your sites alone when new vulnerabilities are announced? Do you not subscribe to any -security mailing lists?
It doesn't even have to be the CMS? What if there's a remove vulnerability in your network stack announced while you're furloughed? Or a problem with Apache or one of the modules you use there?
Speaking personally I'd never be happy leaving any internet connected server completely unattended - without even the ability to patch it if a vulnerability is announced - for any period of time.
There's also a legitimate technical interest. If I was given the choice of leaving a complex, dynamic site up and running with no maintenance or support, or putting up a single, static page, I'd opt for the static page every time.
Launch a clean VM, put up the static page and tun everything else off. Otherwise there's a real risk of a government site being attacked and content modified without anyone realizing.
I'm not sure load testing alone would be the solution. For a site like this, I see little point in making the expenditure to handle all the day 0 traffic.
Rather they should have load tested to find out how many users they could safely serve. Then they should have simply restricted the number of active connections. Other users should have seen a static holding page. That way, everyone that gets through gets a good experience.
By adopting this approach, you can save money. And, given the publicity available pre launch, they could easily have explained how this would work so as to manage expectations. After the first few week or so, they would likely be able to manage the traffic comfortably.
Why would you want to do this? If you had an income that fluctuated each year, would you not save in the good years so you could maintain a reasonable quality of lifestyle in the barren years? Or would you downsize your house and sell your car every other year as your income fluctuated.
Balancing the budget is not the challenge. The real challenge is finding a government that can save when the going is good, and convincing the US electorate of the need for a rainy-day fund, rather than giving it all back and more in tax breaks.
Surely if it were being intercepted, it could also be modified? If it can be modified, then they can change the javascript so as to never report a problem. Similarly for a manual check they can simply change the fingerprint you send to match the one they are using.
If they have a valid certificate and are using it to perform a MIM attack, nothing you send or receive can be trusted.
If someone hits you slowly, say between 5-10 miles per hour, that's 2-3 times walking speed. If someone does hit you with that force, your foot slipping is entirely possible.
If you're in the US, take a look at the local news sometime. You frequently see stories of folk parked in parking lots driving into buildings. That often happens because their foot slipped while they were keeping the car parked using just the foot brake. I've seen at least one store in the past year or so of a woman killing a child outside a fast food restaurant by doing this.
And certainly some people who don't adopt the neutral + hand brake will keep he car stationary on hills using a combination of the clutch and accelerator. That involved keeping the clutch partially depressed for an extended period and will indeed cause unnecessary wear.
Actually, in the US where almost everyone is driving an automatic, this is dangerous. If the foot slips off the brake for any reason, the car will propel itself forward while the driver likely has no hands on the steering wheel, and is distracted by their phone. You might think that scenario unlikely, but if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake and you are now going into the car in front of you - one that might be driving through the intersection at speed.
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
Agreed. If I have no idea where a link is going, I'm sure as hell not trusting it enough to click on it.
Did you even read the original post before replying? The poster wanted a US government site that hosts static screen captures of web pages referenced in official documents. By implication you would know exactly where the link was taking you - to a government server that hosts images or PDFs of web pages.
Excepting the possibility that the NSA might be monitoring the documents you access, I can't really see why you would object to clicking through to such a site.
The reason for a URL shortener would, I imagine, be to make citations more manageable. Ideally it could also strip out characters that are likely to be confused 1/I 0/O to make it easier to transcribe a url from the printed document.
WHO SAID TRAINING FEWER LAWYERS WAS A BAD THING? I just don't see the problem.
Presumably you've never needed a lawyer.
If you ever do, and your lawyer wants to cite to a case with a broken link referenced, it could impact you directly. Even if the linked page is still available somewhere, you might be paying $500/hour for your lawyer to find it.
I can't for the life of me understand how this could have happened.
You could try reading the opinion. The judges do explain their reasoning.
It goes something like this.
"Radio communication" is not defined in the Act's definitions section.
To define it the court uses predetermined rules of construction - the idea being to ensure people reading an act of Congress should be able to anticipate how it will be interpreted.
In this instance they use the ordinary meaning of the word "radio communication" at the time Congress passed the Act, and look to Congress's other actions for additional guidance.
The court held that "radio communication" at that time would commonly be intended to refer to stuff like radio shows on FM. he court acknowledges that lots of other things happen with radio, and sees that Congress has not typically assumed "radio" to also encompass things such as television broadcasts.
Therefore the court believes that, when Congress passed the act, they were only thinking about audio radio broadcasts.
Of course you can disagree with their reasoning, but as for how they got there, the reasoning itself is pretty well explained.
I agree the Nexus 4 is a nice phone at a great price, but it isn't "high end" either. There are other similar priced smart phones with similar features.
I wasn't aware of that. Can you name a few similarly priced phones with 4.7" screens or larger at over 300ppi. Gorilla Glass. 8 megapixel camera. 2GB RAM, quad core 1.5Ghz processor and NFC?
Aside from that declaring it "evil" is specifically a move to shut off debate?
You realize that 'evil' is the/. heaadline, not the paper title. Indeed the paper itself doesn't appear to use the word. The article itself seems much more balanced than the article summary would like to make out.
For example, here's the start of the conclusion:
What this leaves us with is, on the one hand, the significant terrestrial advantages of abundant and comparatively clean energy (assuming that a comparatively clean form of fusion can be made to generate more power than it consumes) and, on the other hand, a duty to extend life (or human life) which might be served by the lure of this unique resource and by the terrestrial breathing space that a better kind of energy production could offer us. If we do mine the Moon it will, no doubt, help to equip us as we extend our reach and attempt to improve our survival chances. However, with regard to terrestrial benefits all is not so simple as it may seem. Access to new forms of energy production are likely to open pathways to terrestrial harm as well as pathways towards a healing of the planet (or to the healing of our seriously-fractured and power-hungry societies). Eco-minded critics, with whom I am broadly in sympathy, who argue that we already have more energy than we can handle without causing terrestrial damage may have a point. Such damage has, up to the present, resulted not just from the limitations of existing fuels but from their inappropriate usage. A change of fuel source may make some of us more powerful but it is unlikely to make us any wiser.
It's a lot less dramatic than simply claiming such mining is wrong in absolute terms.
If you're REALLY dead set on not even having it at all... You're going to be stuck 2 generations ago forever.
Any evidence for this statement? There's a bunch of posts above that say it can typically be turned off at the BIOS, if the motherboard even as the unit installed, and that windows 8 will run without it. So if you can run a current OS, why would the OP be stuck 2 generations ago?
I find it interesting that they are claiming Title VII instead of violation of H1-B rules, presumably because this way they can point at a systematic exclusion of Americans on a non-technical basis.
You don't think it's because if they succeed under Title VII they can also recover attorney's fees?
Amber Alerts are meant to be restricted to cases where "the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death." [amberalert.gov]
From the NY Times article:
"A spokesman for the Police Department said that the so-called Amber Alert was requested after officers determined that the child could have been in imminent danger, but that it was the state police that approved and sent out the alert."
The court case is over and the result wasn't actually all that bad. Sure Myriad and their stock holders would much rather have complete patent rights to the whole thing, but they kept the protections on their actual asset and the court case is now final and decided. Hell even if they'd lost completely their stock probably would have gone up because at least the risk was gone.
Not that bad? Ambry Genetics are, as of this afternoon, offering BRCA testing at half the cost Myriad were charging yesterday. other firms have already announced they'll be offering the test later this year.
Take a look at the front page of Ambry's website. If I were a Myriad stock holder, I'd think this was pretty bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, doesn't the world just owe you?
Did you read the summary? They launched this network - presumably at the cost of significant time and money - seven years ago. It worked well for over five years. Given the lead time to design, implement and get approval for this network, it may well have been designed around 2004.
I very much doubt it has been neglected if it operated well for so long. It looks like demand is now beyond the capacity of the original network and that Google is addressing this.
How on earth does this make Google a burden? And why, precisely, should they stop caring about people dying in poorer parts of the world, so you can get a better free service?
Do you know anything about Australia? Do you realize that a huge part of the country is essentially desert and uninhabited. Your population density stats mean little.
Look at a state, like Victoria, with a population density of 63/sq mile. That would put it in the middle of the US states, somewhere around Mississippi. Certainly it's no new york city, but neither is it Alaska.
Somewhere with that sort of population should easily be able to support multiple ISPs and have faster and cheaper internet service than that mentioned by the OP. Of course OP may live in the middle of Western Australia, in which case the 1.5 Mbit for $70 is probably a bargain.
Medical literature is a tiny world - much smaller even than the one that shapes Jeopardy questions. Medical journals are numbered in what, the hundreds? Many don't even publish monthly. I'd be willing to bet Google indexes more new content in a minute than there is new medical literature in a year.
On top of that you have a market for the research that can and will pay per query. Combine revenue per query with a small world to search and you can dedicate an enormous amount of processing power and time compared to that which Google can offer.
Are you complaining about not having fiber? While you certainly have my sympathies, we're talking about helping others who are still using dialup.
If you want some comparison to your village, I live in a US city with a population of around 100,000 and am fortunate to have two choices for broadband. It's more expensive than I'd pay in the UK, and there's little chance of this city seeing fiber in the next decade.
Maybe you missed the bit that this is all about filling in the coverage gaps in an attempt to ensure the UK has as close to 100% broadband coverage as is possible.
Of course optical is better. If you live half way up a mountainside, 20 miles from the nearest village and perhaps 80 miles from the nearest town with a population over 10,000 you're going to be waiting a while. 4G is comparatively quick to deploy and a heck of a lot cheaper.
So you just leave your sites alone when new vulnerabilities are announced? Do you not subscribe to any -security mailing lists?
It doesn't even have to be the CMS? What if there's a remove vulnerability in your network stack announced while you're furloughed? Or a problem with Apache or one of the modules you use there?
Speaking personally I'd never be happy leaving any internet connected server completely unattended - without even the ability to patch it if a vulnerability is announced - for any period of time.
There's also a legitimate technical interest. If I was given the choice of leaving a complex, dynamic site up and running with no maintenance or support, or putting up a single, static page, I'd opt for the static page every time.
Launch a clean VM, put up the static page and tun everything else off. Otherwise there's a real risk of a government site being attacked and content modified without anyone realizing.
I'm not sure load testing alone would be the solution. For a site like this, I see little point in making the expenditure to handle all the day 0 traffic.
Rather they should have load tested to find out how many users they could safely serve. Then they should have simply restricted the number of active connections. Other users should have seen a static holding page. That way, everyone that gets through gets a good experience.
By adopting this approach, you can save money. And, given the publicity available pre launch, they could easily have explained how this would work so as to manage expectations. After the first few week or so, they would likely be able to manage the traffic comfortably.
Why would you want to do this? If you had an income that fluctuated each year, would you not save in the good years so you could maintain a reasonable quality of lifestyle in the barren years? Or would you downsize your house and sell your car every other year as your income fluctuated.
Balancing the budget is not the challenge. The real challenge is finding a government that can save when the going is good, and convincing the US electorate of the need for a rainy-day fund, rather than giving it all back and more in tax breaks.
Surely if it were being intercepted, it could also be modified? If it can be modified, then they can change the javascript so as to never report a problem. Similarly for a manual check they can simply change the fingerprint you send to match the one they are using.
If they have a valid certificate and are using it to perform a MIM attack, nothing you send or receive can be trusted.
They pulled support for a propriety protocol over which they had no control, in favor of supporting an open one. I don't see the problem.
Yes, I have both a manual and an automatic car.
If someone hits you slowly, say between 5-10 miles per hour, that's 2-3 times walking speed. If someone does hit you with that force, your foot slipping is entirely possible.
If you're in the US, take a look at the local news sometime. You frequently see stories of folk parked in parking lots driving into buildings. That often happens because their foot slipped while they were keeping the car parked using just the foot brake. I've seen at least one store in the past year or so of a woman killing a child outside a fast food restaurant by doing this.
Remember, half of all drivers are blow average.
And certainly some people who don't adopt the neutral + hand brake will keep he car stationary on hills using a combination of the clutch and accelerator. That involved keeping the clutch partially depressed for an extended period and will indeed cause unnecessary wear.
Actually, in the US where almost everyone is driving an automatic, this is dangerous. If the foot slips off the brake for any reason, the car will propel itself forward while the driver likely has no hands on the steering wheel, and is distracted by their phone. You might think that scenario unlikely, but if someone even bumps the back of your car gently, your foot is going to come off the brake and you are now going into the car in front of you - one that might be driving through the intersection at speed.
In some other countries where most have manual transmissions, drivers are trained to place the car into neutral and engage the handbrake at a red light. That at least makes this a somewhat safer practice.
Did you even read the original post before replying? The poster wanted a US government site that hosts static screen captures of web pages referenced in official documents. By implication you would know exactly where the link was taking you - to a government server that hosts images or PDFs of web pages.
Excepting the possibility that the NSA might be monitoring the documents you access, I can't really see why you would object to clicking through to such a site.
The reason for a URL shortener would, I imagine, be to make citations more manageable. Ideally it could also strip out characters that are likely to be confused 1/I 0/O to make it easier to transcribe a url from the printed document.
Presumably you've never needed a lawyer.
If you ever do, and your lawyer wants to cite to a case with a broken link referenced, it could impact you directly. Even if the linked page is still available somewhere, you might be paying $500/hour for your lawyer to find it.
You could try reading the opinion. The judges do explain their reasoning.
It goes something like this.
"Radio communication" is not defined in the Act's definitions section.
To define it the court uses predetermined rules of construction - the idea being to ensure people reading an act of Congress should be able to anticipate how it will be interpreted.
In this instance they use the ordinary meaning of the word "radio communication" at the time Congress passed the Act, and look to Congress's other actions for additional guidance.
The court held that "radio communication" at that time would commonly be intended to refer to stuff like radio shows on FM. he court acknowledges that lots of other things happen with radio, and sees that Congress has not typically assumed "radio" to also encompass things such as television broadcasts.
Therefore the court believes that, when Congress passed the act, they were only thinking about audio radio broadcasts.
Of course you can disagree with their reasoning, but as for how they got there, the reasoning itself is pretty well explained.
I wasn't aware of that. Can you name a few similarly priced phones with 4.7" screens or larger at over 300ppi. Gorilla Glass. 8 megapixel camera. 2GB RAM, quad core 1.5Ghz processor and NFC?
You realize that 'evil' is the /. heaadline, not the paper title. Indeed the paper itself doesn't appear to use the word. The article itself seems much more balanced than the article summary would like to make out.
For example, here's the start of the conclusion:
It's a lot less dramatic than simply claiming such mining is wrong in absolute terms.
Find a state that offers a prepaid 529 plan. Move there.
Any evidence for this statement? There's a bunch of posts above that say it can typically be turned off at the BIOS, if the motherboard even as the unit installed, and that windows 8 will run without it. So if you can run a current OS, why would the OP be stuck 2 generations ago?
You don't think it's because if they succeed under Title VII they can also recover attorney's fees?
From the NY Times article:
"A spokesman for the Police Department said that the so-called Amber Alert was requested after officers determined that the child could have been in imminent danger, but that it was the state police that approved and sent out the alert."
If it's not a misunderstanding, you have a comprehension problem.
The poster wants an open source GIt interface. That still does not mean he intends to use it for development of open source software.
Not that bad? Ambry Genetics are, as of this afternoon, offering BRCA testing at half the cost Myriad were charging yesterday. other firms have already announced they'll be offering the test later this year.
Take a look at the front page of Ambry's website. If I were a Myriad stock holder, I'd think this was pretty bad.