Please explain how proxies are more convenient or "free" than a VPN. Neither tend to be free, and VPNs tend to be more convenient than proxies in that many VPNs come with an application that has a handy on/off switch, while proxies typically require you to change your browser proxy settings every time you want to use netflix.
He makes the claim that their software quality has taken a nosedive, that they're introducing tons of bugs and functional regressions, but he doesn't give a single example of any of that. He just makes the unsubstantiated claim.
That "tiny" finish bank has US$3.23 billion in revenues, around US$900 million in net income, and nearly 13 thousand employees. They can afford to pay a bit more for their servers.
There are service providers that specialize in DDoS mitigation. Some of them already host banks (lots of them, in some cases), and have multiple terabits of bandwidth available to survive DDoS attacks with minimal impact. They're able to mitigate attacks in the hundreds of gigabits.
They're not cheap, but they work, and banks tend to be able to afford it.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying with the exception of their book of business. I'm not sure how you came up with a figure of $2 billion including NASA contracts, when their CCtCap contract alone is for $2.6 billion. And using your average of $100 million per launch, well, they've got a good deal more than 20 flights on their manifest...
One of their biggest weaknesses seems to be their launch frequency. People keep telling me I'm crazy when I predict they're not going to hit anywhere close to their estimates, but it happens every year. It's certainly improving, because six launches is better than the three launches the year before, or the two before that, but SpaceX's original prediction for 2014 was 14 launches. They don't publish target launch years on their manifest anymore.
To be fair, SpaceX's valuation is probably similar to or higher than ATK at this point. They disputed the $10 billion figure, but the estimate of their valuation in 2012 was $4-5 billion, and they've added a rather large amount of future business to the books since then, including a lot of regular launches, plus stuff like the multi-billion dollar NASA contracts... ATK, for their part, has a market cap of $3.7 billion.
Nope, once you run an Internet company, you're never allowed to be successful at anything else. It doesn't matter if you run a highly successful and profitable space transport company, that's just vanity and hubris. It doesn't even matter if you weren't a billionaire when you founded said space transport company, and that it was your post-dot-com companies such as said space transport company that made you a billionaire... you're now in the "billionaire robber baron space club".
Most network providers (about 80% of the Internet) do this on the other end, doing ingress filtering. There should be little functional difference between an ISP refusing to let spoofed packets leave their network, versus an ISP refusing to let spoofed packets enter it, if the two ISPs in question were directly connected.
This is true, that study apparently showed a 5% increase in injury causing crashes. This doesn't necessarily take the severity of the injury into account, however: I'd wager that the sorts of injuries sustained from rear-ending people at red lights tend to be more mild than the injuries from people who get t-boned by somebody who ran a red. The study mentioned *did* find that there was a 15% reduction in that type of accident. But without seeing the study data (which is paywalled) I'm just speculating.
"364. Unless otherwise directed by a sign or signal, when facing a green arrow, the driver of a road vehicle or any person riding a bicycle must move in the direction indicated by the arrow, after yielding the right of way to road vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians crossing the intersection."
There is no provision for turning on a straight green arrow.
Most studies show that red light cameras work, in that they reduce the overall number of injuries and fatalities (but increase the overall number of accidents), which seems like a pretty desirable benefit to me. People are more important than cars. As someone who is primarily a pedestrian, too many times have I narrowly avoided being hit by a driver who ran a red light, or who turned on a green forward arrow before the light changed to a green circle. I'd be quite satisfied if the people who did that had to pay a fine.
Don't want cities to try gaming the system? Fine, just have the government set rules that remove the incentive. For example, the provincial government could require that the revenue from red light cameras installed by the city goes to the province instead of the municipality, or goes to some sort of charity, or goes into the caisse de depot or CPPIB or something. Cities can install the cameras for safety if they want, but would see no financial benefit.
Or at least the failing flash isn't the reason the problem is serious. Software bugs involving how the failed flash is handled are the problems, causing infinite loops and automatic reboots.
Explain how the results of research done two years ago could have been built into a probe launched ten years ago using technology from twenty years ago?
I'd love to get a Unicomp keyboard, but they're seemingly only available from the manufacturer, and their shipping costs ($30 to Montreal) are rather high. It's unfortunate that they don't work with suppliers who have more reasonable shipping costs.
Nobody would invade Siberia to colonize it. They'd invade Siberia for things like its $5 trillion USD in remaining proven oil reserves. Russia is the largest producer/exporter of oil in the world, and the vast majority of it comes from Siberia.
Indeed, I'd like to see the UnExtended Edition, which compresses the three films (474 minutes long, or 7.9 hours) down to one film that's somewhere between 120 and 180 minutes long.
You're not the only one. If I was spending $70 million on a home, it'd look nothing like that. It'd probably be a good deal smaller, or if it was the same number of overall square feet, it'd probably be more subdivided. To me, a room for a given purpose has an optimal size. If the room is too small for that purpose, it's not going to work great, but also if the room is too big for that purpose, it will also not work great.
I'd probably focus less on strange decorations (some ornamental motorcycle? A wall of candy?) and more on practical stuff, like going whole hog on expensive home automation. To me, luxury involves making something easier to use or more functional (like electronically tinting windows or a Washlet toilet), or more comfortable (like a nice mattress or a good carpet), or making it look nicer (like a nice wood finish)... not stuff whose sole purpose is to look expensive. I want something to look luxurious and pleasing, not expensive.
Gas stations currently have no involvement in Tesla's charging infrastructure. I believe the prototype battery swap station is inside a converted gas station carwash, but that's probably more because it's a prototype that isn't fully automated than any indication of what a final fully automated station would look like. Further, I highly doubt that the gas station next to the prototype swap station has any involvement in it beyond providing the land and/or structure.
The space required for battery storage would be non-negligible, but they don't take up very much space, considering they're thin and can be stacked (you'd expect them to go on racks) The original goal was also for the system to be fully automated, minimizing labour costs, and the total number of batteries at a station would never change since any swap would result in a new battery being deposited. While occasional trips by Tesla to replace batteries might be required, they'd be rare, only happening when a given station accumulated a sufficiently large number of defunct batteries. Normally it would take years for a battery to reach that state.
The problem currently is that the prototype system isn't fully automated, and isn't as space-efficient as an automated system would be, hence why they put it in a carwash.
No, they're not. Sony's annual revenue is $64.7 billion USD. North Korea's GDP is $12.4 billion USD. Sony's market capitalization is also larger than North Korea's entire economy. The drop in Sony's stock value after the hack was roughly a quarter of North Korea's GDP, although the stock has since recovered somewhat.
Sony is far larger than North Korea, economically.
Slashdot Mirror
The cited examples that he gives lead to a 404 error, so that's not really helping his point.
Please explain how proxies are more convenient or "free" than a VPN. Neither tend to be free, and VPNs tend to be more convenient than proxies in that many VPNs come with an application that has a handy on/off switch, while proxies typically require you to change your browser proxy settings every time you want to use netflix.
He makes the claim that their software quality has taken a nosedive, that they're introducing tons of bugs and functional regressions, but he doesn't give a single example of any of that. He just makes the unsubstantiated claim.
That "tiny" finish bank has US$3.23 billion in revenues, around US$900 million in net income, and nearly 13 thousand employees. They can afford to pay a bit more for their servers.
There are service providers that specialize in DDoS mitigation. Some of them already host banks (lots of them, in some cases), and have multiple terabits of bandwidth available to survive DDoS attacks with minimal impact. They're able to mitigate attacks in the hundreds of gigabits.
They're not cheap, but they work, and banks tend to be able to afford it.
And we shall call it... Tom Clancy's NetForce.
Wait, that was an FBI outfit.
Yes, wanting people who break the law to get the punishment the law proscribes, that's all about revenge.
I just don't want people to be able to run red lights all the time without any consequences, which is the current situation.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying with the exception of their book of business. I'm not sure how you came up with a figure of $2 billion including NASA contracts, when their CCtCap contract alone is for $2.6 billion. And using your average of $100 million per launch, well, they've got a good deal more than 20 flights on their manifest...
One of their biggest weaknesses seems to be their launch frequency. People keep telling me I'm crazy when I predict they're not going to hit anywhere close to their estimates, but it happens every year. It's certainly improving, because six launches is better than the three launches the year before, or the two before that, but SpaceX's original prediction for 2014 was 14 launches. They don't publish target launch years on their manifest anymore.
To be fair, SpaceX's valuation is probably similar to or higher than ATK at this point. They disputed the $10 billion figure, but the estimate of their valuation in 2012 was $4-5 billion, and they've added a rather large amount of future business to the books since then, including a lot of regular launches, plus stuff like the multi-billion dollar NASA contracts... ATK, for their part, has a market cap of $3.7 billion.
Nope, once you run an Internet company, you're never allowed to be successful at anything else. It doesn't matter if you run a highly successful and profitable space transport company, that's just vanity and hubris. It doesn't even matter if you weren't a billionaire when you founded said space transport company, and that it was your post-dot-com companies such as said space transport company that made you a billionaire... you're now in the "billionaire robber baron space club".
Most network providers (about 80% of the Internet) do this on the other end, doing ingress filtering. There should be little functional difference between an ISP refusing to let spoofed packets leave their network, versus an ISP refusing to let spoofed packets enter it, if the two ISPs in question were directly connected.
It still stops botnets from spoofing their IPs, which (if widely implemented) does open the door to ISPs to block the IPs known to belong to a botnet.
This is true, that study apparently showed a 5% increase in injury causing crashes. This doesn't necessarily take the severity of the injury into account, however: I'd wager that the sorts of injuries sustained from rear-ending people at red lights tend to be more mild than the injuries from people who get t-boned by somebody who ran a red. The study mentioned *did* find that there was a 15% reduction in that type of accident. But without seeing the study data (which is paywalled) I'm just speculating.
The law says you're wrong:
"364. Unless otherwise directed by a sign or signal, when facing a green arrow, the driver of a road vehicle or any person riding a bicycle must move in the direction indicated by the arrow, after yielding the right of way to road vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians crossing the intersection."
There is no provision for turning on a straight green arrow.
Most studies show that red light cameras work, in that they reduce the overall number of injuries and fatalities (but increase the overall number of accidents), which seems like a pretty desirable benefit to me. People are more important than cars. As someone who is primarily a pedestrian, too many times have I narrowly avoided being hit by a driver who ran a red light, or who turned on a green forward arrow before the light changed to a green circle. I'd be quite satisfied if the people who did that had to pay a fine.
Don't want cities to try gaming the system? Fine, just have the government set rules that remove the incentive. For example, the provincial government could require that the revenue from red light cameras installed by the city goes to the province instead of the municipality, or goes to some sort of charity, or goes into the caisse de depot or CPPIB or something. Cities can install the cameras for safety if they want, but would see no financial benefit.
It's not a satchel, it's European.
Or at least the failing flash isn't the reason the problem is serious. Software bugs involving how the failed flash is handled are the problems, causing infinite loops and automatic reboots.
Explain how the results of research done two years ago could have been built into a probe launched ten years ago using technology from twenty years ago?
I'd love to get a Unicomp keyboard, but they're seemingly only available from the manufacturer, and their shipping costs ($30 to Montreal) are rather high. It's unfortunate that they don't work with suppliers who have more reasonable shipping costs.
Nobody would invade Siberia to colonize it. They'd invade Siberia for things like its $5 trillion USD in remaining proven oil reserves. Russia is the largest producer/exporter of oil in the world, and the vast majority of it comes from Siberia.
90% of Canada's population is within 160KM of the southern US border. Add the Calgary and Edmonton metro areas and you're up to 97% of the population.
Indeed, I'd like to see the UnExtended Edition, which compresses the three films (474 minutes long, or 7.9 hours) down to one film that's somewhere between 120 and 180 minutes long.
You're not the only one. If I was spending $70 million on a home, it'd look nothing like that. It'd probably be a good deal smaller, or if it was the same number of overall square feet, it'd probably be more subdivided. To me, a room for a given purpose has an optimal size. If the room is too small for that purpose, it's not going to work great, but also if the room is too big for that purpose, it will also not work great.
I'd probably focus less on strange decorations (some ornamental motorcycle? A wall of candy?) and more on practical stuff, like going whole hog on expensive home automation. To me, luxury involves making something easier to use or more functional (like electronically tinting windows or a Washlet toilet), or more comfortable (like a nice mattress or a good carpet), or making it look nicer (like a nice wood finish)... not stuff whose sole purpose is to look expensive. I want something to look luxurious and pleasing, not expensive.
Gas stations currently have no involvement in Tesla's charging infrastructure. I believe the prototype battery swap station is inside a converted gas station carwash, but that's probably more because it's a prototype that isn't fully automated than any indication of what a final fully automated station would look like. Further, I highly doubt that the gas station next to the prototype swap station has any involvement in it beyond providing the land and/or structure.
The space required for battery storage would be non-negligible, but they don't take up very much space, considering they're thin and can be stacked (you'd expect them to go on racks) The original goal was also for the system to be fully automated, minimizing labour costs, and the total number of batteries at a station would never change since any swap would result in a new battery being deposited. While occasional trips by Tesla to replace batteries might be required, they'd be rare, only happening when a given station accumulated a sufficiently large number of defunct batteries. Normally it would take years for a battery to reach that state.
The problem currently is that the prototype system isn't fully automated, and isn't as space-efficient as an automated system would be, hence why they put it in a carwash.
No, they're not. Sony's annual revenue is $64.7 billion USD. North Korea's GDP is $12.4 billion USD. Sony's market capitalization is also larger than North Korea's entire economy. The drop in Sony's stock value after the hack was roughly a quarter of North Korea's GDP, although the stock has since recovered somewhat.
Sony is far larger than North Korea, economically.