And that is why *the internet is for porn*, there's a reason that everyone says technology progresses to find a better way to deliver smut, because it's true =)
It's likely to be worse than just the government officials, having a couple tens of millions of unmarried men with no prospect of a mate and no gratification outlet is the recipe for a very bloody war. It could end up being civil but it's much more likely that someone bright in the power structure will see the mounting problem and turn that naked aggression outwards.
Well, it's not really a race engine, the next gen Mustang GT will have a 415HP version of the eccoboost V6. I would expect it to go at least 100K miles without problems. Of course if you go out and actually pound on those 415HP for hours at a time that might be slightly reduced =) That is the main difference, you can actually use most of the power of a big block most of the time without stressing it, but man does it come at a cost.
Really, because I don't see many soccer mom's with 8100's, more like farmers, construction crews, and race car drivers with towing loads of 7,000+ pounds. Oh and commercial trucks for intracity delivery and tow trucks.
That's pretty troubling, I wouldn't think the device should accept a service book from anywhere but it's authorized BES server. That means that *any* BB can probably be silently "upgraded" with a SB that compromises encryption (as an example) by the ISP.
The engine being retired made 450HP which Ford is making with a midsized V-6 (ok only 415, but still). The Ford V6 is almost half the weight (449 lbs vs 734). Ok it's apples and bananas since one's a big truck V8 optimized for torque and the other's a race car V6 with twin turbochargers, but the point remains that old technology is old and there's very little need for 8.1L gas engine.
Uh, this was the 8.1L (496 cu) engine that's being retired, it was a true big block. It was also a big hunk of cast iron with iron headers and hence heavy as all get out (734 lbs shipping weight vs 564 for the 6200).
Pretty sure they are talking about things like boat manufacturers and water pump manufacturers. GM stopped using this engine in their trucks over 2 years ago, the production line was kept running to fill those outside customer orders. Since this beast needed 30% more displacement to produce 10% more torque and significantly LESS HP than the 6.2L V8 it's no surprise that GM stopped using it.
Uh, yeah 800+ miles to the plate boundary puts it pretty much in the middle of the plate, New Madrid line doesn't affect Ohio, and even if it did it's an intraplate fault.
Uh, both those were MS files. MS WAS found to have infringed on Stac Electronic's patents for disk compression, but there were no allegations of copyright infringement.
In most of the world you would just have to pay restitution for any damage caused. A good example is a demolition company, they will do everything in their power to keep all debris inside the footprint of the structure they are demolishing but it's not physically possible to do so 100% of the time. They are still allowed to blast but if a piece of the building flies out and hits a nearby structure and damages it they have insurance/a bond for that and they merely pay for the damages.
I would have killed for geothermal heating in my cabin in Yellowstone, waking up at 4am because the fire burned out and the place is nearly freezing sucked.
Actually I think the engineers who designed and built the buildings should be held negligent, building a structure that takes *any* damage from a 3.4 in a fault zone should be criminal. Seriously we get earthquakes on that magnitude here in Ohio on an almost yearly basis, in the middle of the freaking NA plate. If you are in a geothermally active country you should be expecting a heck of a lot more than that!
Exactly, how does a 3.4 damage *anything*, there was a 3.3 here is Ohio back in April and I don't think anyone really noticed. The 1986 5.0 knocked me out of my seat in grade school (I was leaning back on two legs) but the only damage I recall was the separation of cinderblocks in one classroom causing the paint to crack, don't think they even bothered to repair it as it didn't present any kind of risk.
It's actually much worse then the copying that normally goes on with MS's own software, at least there it's at most only a lost sale at stake, here MS is ripping off a direct competitor and hoping to use the stolen code to compete against them using their monopoly power and large warchest to get started in that new venture.
What you don't seem to understand is the value I bring is not primarily in the day to day operations, they can get someone far cheaper to check logs, it's in my ability to respond is a crisis and my ability to design systems to avoid crises. Even if my utilization were 50% (it's not) I would still be at less than half the 3 year cost of the Amazon solution. I guess if I needed a massively scalable web presence it would be an option, but our primary systems are remote access, content managment, OLTP, reporting and business intelligence with only remote access really fitting into a bursty demand model and even that needs to be internal to access all the data systems that the company is not likely to ever outsource. We do use remote hosted solutions when it makes sense, but like most businesses it's not likely to ever be the majority of our IT systems.
OK, they fire me, who's going to setup, configure, and maintain the cloud VM's? Oh, that's right they still need someone to do that.... There is no magic pixie dust despite what IBM and PHB's would like to think, companies need digital janitor's to feed and care for the complex machines that run the company and that's exactly what I do. If you are smaller than Amazon or Google and you have someone who spends most of their time worried about the physical infrastructure then they are doing something terribly wrong.
High-end? Ha, a 32GB machine is as small as I have ordered this year. The biggest was 256GB, and the average was 72GB. Of course I'm already moving towards 90% virtualization internally so the only additional cost is the physical rack and stack which fairly minimal when spread over a 3 year system life (care and feeding is MANY more hours by comparison).
I just did hourly rate for non-dedicated * 24 * 365 * 3 and compared it to the cost of machine + power + AC fraction + warranty uplift which is my standard TCO calculation minus admin time as the admin time will be roughly the same either way.
Considering that the 3 year cost of a Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform is $36k and that the 3 year TCO for such a machine in my environment today would be about $8k I don't think they are losing money on EC2 unless their utilization is *really* low, but this does allow them to maximize utilization (and profit) as it allows near perfect price discrimination. It also allows them to scale *their* resources for things like cyber monday by bumping these low priority jobs off the cluster and using it to run their own dynamic site.
Last I had heard if you wanted to create more than a couple dozen new VM instances at a time you needed to get custom quotes from Amazon, with this metering in place I assume they have worked out those provisioning problems?
Slashdot Mirror
And that is why *the internet is for porn*, there's a reason that everyone says technology progresses to find a better way to deliver smut, because it's true =)
It's the 2011 that's rumored to get the ecoboost.
It's likely to be worse than just the government officials, having a couple tens of millions of unmarried men with no prospect of a mate and no gratification outlet is the recipe for a very bloody war. It could end up being civil but it's much more likely that someone bright in the power structure will see the mounting problem and turn that naked aggression outwards.
Well, it's not really a race engine, the next gen Mustang GT will have a 415HP version of the eccoboost V6. I would expect it to go at least 100K miles without problems. Of course if you go out and actually pound on those 415HP for hours at a time that might be slightly reduced =) That is the main difference, you can actually use most of the power of a big block most of the time without stressing it, but man does it come at a cost.
Really, because I don't see many soccer mom's with 8100's, more like farmers, construction crews, and race car drivers with towing loads of 7,000+ pounds. Oh and commercial trucks for intracity delivery and tow trucks.
That's pretty troubling, I wouldn't think the device should accept a service book from anywhere but it's authorized BES server. That means that *any* BB can probably be silently "upgraded" with a SB that compromises encryption (as an example) by the ISP.
The engine being retired made 450HP which Ford is making with a midsized V-6 (ok only 415, but still). The Ford V6 is almost half the weight (449 lbs vs 734). Ok it's apples and bananas since one's a big truck V8 optimized for torque and the other's a race car V6 with twin turbochargers, but the point remains that old technology is old and there's very little need for 8.1L gas engine.
The 6200 has 10% less torque and more HP for a couple hundred less pounds of weight and significantly better fuel economy.
Uh, this was the 8.1L (496 cu) engine that's being retired, it was a true big block. It was also a big hunk of cast iron with iron headers and hence heavy as all get out (734 lbs shipping weight vs 564 for the 6200).
Pretty sure they are talking about things like boat manufacturers and water pump manufacturers. GM stopped using this engine in their trucks over 2 years ago, the production line was kept running to fill those outside customer orders. Since this beast needed 30% more displacement to produce 10% more torque and significantly LESS HP than the 6.2L V8 it's no surprise that GM stopped using it.
It's only for BIS users I would assume as VZW shouldn't have the ability to push to BES connected devices, which are you connecting your Tour to?
Are you running Flash 10.1? It's supposed to make a HUGE difference on underpowered platforms.
Uh, yeah 800+ miles to the plate boundary puts it pretty much in the middle of the plate, New Madrid line doesn't affect Ohio, and even if it did it's an intraplate fault.
Uh, both those were MS files. MS WAS found to have infringed on Stac Electronic's patents for disk compression, but there were no allegations of copyright infringement.
In most of the world you would just have to pay restitution for any damage caused. A good example is a demolition company, they will do everything in their power to keep all debris inside the footprint of the structure they are demolishing but it's not physically possible to do so 100% of the time. They are still allowed to blast but if a piece of the building flies out and hits a nearby structure and damages it they have insurance/a bond for that and they merely pay for the damages.
I would have killed for geothermal heating in my cabin in Yellowstone, waking up at 4am because the fire burned out and the place is nearly freezing sucked.
Actually I think the engineers who designed and built the buildings should be held negligent, building a structure that takes *any* damage from a 3.4 in a fault zone should be criminal. Seriously we get earthquakes on that magnitude here in Ohio on an almost yearly basis, in the middle of the freaking NA plate. If you are in a geothermally active country you should be expecting a heck of a lot more than that!
Exactly, how does a 3.4 damage *anything*, there was a 3.3 here is Ohio back in April and I don't think anyone really noticed. The 1986 5.0 knocked me out of my seat in grade school (I was leaning back on two legs) but the only damage I recall was the separation of cinderblocks in one classroom causing the paint to crack, don't think they even bothered to repair it as it didn't present any kind of risk.
It's actually much worse then the copying that normally goes on with MS's own software, at least there it's at most only a lost sale at stake, here MS is ripping off a direct competitor and hoping to use the stolen code to compete against them using their monopoly power and large warchest to get started in that new venture.
What you don't seem to understand is the value I bring is not primarily in the day to day operations, they can get someone far cheaper to check logs, it's in my ability to respond is a crisis and my ability to design systems to avoid crises. Even if my utilization were 50% (it's not) I would still be at less than half the 3 year cost of the Amazon solution. I guess if I needed a massively scalable web presence it would be an option, but our primary systems are remote access, content managment, OLTP, reporting and business intelligence with only remote access really fitting into a bursty demand model and even that needs to be internal to access all the data systems that the company is not likely to ever outsource. We do use remote hosted solutions when it makes sense, but like most businesses it's not likely to ever be the majority of our IT systems.
OK, they fire me, who's going to setup, configure, and maintain the cloud VM's? Oh, that's right they still need someone to do that.... There is no magic pixie dust despite what IBM and PHB's would like to think, companies need digital janitor's to feed and care for the complex machines that run the company and that's exactly what I do. If you are smaller than Amazon or Google and you have someone who spends most of their time worried about the physical infrastructure then they are doing something terribly wrong.
High-end? Ha, a 32GB machine is as small as I have ordered this year. The biggest was 256GB, and the average was 72GB. Of course I'm already moving towards 90% virtualization internally so the only additional cost is the physical rack and stack which fairly minimal when spread over a 3 year system life (care and feeding is MANY more hours by comparison).
I just did hourly rate for non-dedicated * 24 * 365 * 3 and compared it to the cost of machine + power + AC fraction + warranty uplift which is my standard TCO calculation minus admin time as the admin time will be roughly the same either way.
Considering that the 3 year cost of a Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform is $36k and that the 3 year TCO for such a machine in my environment today would be about $8k I don't think they are losing money on EC2 unless their utilization is *really* low, but this does allow them to maximize utilization (and profit) as it allows near perfect price discrimination. It also allows them to scale *their* resources for things like cyber monday by bumping these low priority jobs off the cluster and using it to run their own dynamic site.
Last I had heard if you wanted to create more than a couple dozen new VM instances at a time you needed to get custom quotes from Amazon, with this metering in place I assume they have worked out those provisioning problems?