Once you get directed to a fake site, you can SSL all you want.
99% of people NEVER check SSL certificates but instead choose to continue encrypted access because that's the easiest thing to do.
And not to mention that most (financial enterprises excluded) SSL sites are self-signed, so there's no fucking point of looking at that crap anyway (morons who run unimportant mailing list archives on HTTPS instantly sprint to mind).
>McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
Why is that a problem? If other restaurants served coffee at 50 degrees and McDonalds at 70, would that still be a problem?
>McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
From the same page: "(the damages awareded are) the equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year." If they sell 1b cups each year, how is 700 burn incidents over 10 years anything to worry about? WTF?? That is laughable!
>McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Yes? Yes?
>McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
Last time I checked, McD's hot coffee was still very hot (that's why I don't buy it because I have to wait too long for it to become drinkable). It's that simple - one knows that it's hot, so you don't put the cup in your lap while fastening a seat belt or something. She did that and she burned yourself. That's just too fscking bad.
It seems you conveniently avoided to comment on the temperature recommendation: http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pagei d=71
> IDE drives have been beating SCSI hands down on this for years now.
You are right - four IDE drives can beat one SCSI drive hands on. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/disp lay/i de-scsi.html (there's no space between "i" and "de-scsi.html; it's the stupid/. code)
> The real stated advantage of SCSI drives is seek time.
And what about MTBF?
> They just have some CVS server
I'd guess CVS server has workload similar to database (many small reads, a bit less small writes) which isn't suitable at all for IDE disks.
2. Due to spyware/adware, I'd say that at least 20% of people who do visit gambling sites get to know about them via adware/spyware programs and pop-up windows
3. People who spam/bomb Google to increase ranks for particular site should be removed from their index, no matter what.
4. Say you're searching for online gambling site and there's a #1 link pointing to an.org site. WTF? Would you click on it? I wouldn't (and that's not because I've already heard of Wikipedia).
I is such as stupid idea... Someone should create a wikipedia entry for the genious who started the whole thing.
>Had you known that proper wiki-based research should include not only viewing the articles on the topics you seek, but also a glance at the recent history of the page, and the Talk pages, to see how many "eyeballs" have seen the page, and if there are any recent questionable edits.
Pleeeeze! It's like telling people that proper Linux use includes viewing source code, fiddling kernel recompiles and checking recent diffs in the CVS tree.
If that's the way to use Wikipedia, then I'd rather do my own Google search on the term and check several trustworthy sources (usually a 3:2:1 mixture of commercial, academic and personal sites). Soon a day will come when there will be a site that will automate this and show stuff on-the-fly (similar to Google News) instead of relying on the hopeless method of using actual people to copy and rewrite content as Wikipedia does.
So what? These guys can change the name to muffle or something else in less than 10 minutes (i.e. before they type up a lawsuit). Like anyone wanted to buy this product because it's called Shuffle. Getting them to change it wouldn't matter a bit.
I archive nothing. I did in the beginning, but then later I realized I never ever needed to find anything older than a year.
You want to keep a particular email - forward it to your Gmail (or other) account. If Gmail (or whatever) goes bust one day, so what. It's unlikely you'll actually need any of that crap.
It'd better be cheap 'cause it'll certainly suck - either their supercomputing or the search engine. You can't do both low-latency supercomputing and fast response web search and webmail.
They could, of course, add more servers and balance the load between their current and their new (HPC) services, but their current workloads must be pretty consistent (say, growing 0.3% a day) so they would really need dedicated HPC boxes.
Besides, there's not much in their current technology that lends itself to running HPC workloads - it doesn't sound like they use fast interconnects or HPC-like software, they only have a bunch of servers (and Google File System, which is unrelated to HPC anyway), that's all. Maybe they could uptake huge dataset uploads, but I don't see how would that constitute any on-demand HPC service.
>...to running Linux in something like VMware ESX (not GSX!)?
Not GSX... How is VMWare ESX different from GSX? They don't let you screw around with the OS underneath the ESX version; otherwise it's no different from the GSX on Linux. Last time I tried ESX I could get to Linux logon prompt with ALT+F2. With the level of performance they provide VMware won't be around for too long...
(The answer to your question can be found on Google - "xen vmware comparison".)
What I've learned: 1) They bend their own rules 2) This is ONE of rule violations they've got caught at (they had 3-4 slips in the past 6 months) 3) They can't be completely trusted 4) They do have a PR department
> Speaking of Yahoo, is anyone else afraid that Google will turn into Yahoo if they keep adding services?
Is that a question? Go figure - their market capitalization is (say) about 50 billion. As the point of investing is making money, they'd better return 5 billion a year to make that about 10% ROI, otherwise they're screwed.
Now, 5b a year - that's 13mil a day, or in other words quite hard. They need to show more ads, get more viewers/visitors, etc.
They'll keep adding all kinds of crap, what else do you expect? On the other hand, that doesn't mean you have to use those stupid services if you don't want to.
As far as the article is concerned - it's a two-edged sword - you personalize their news, they personalize ads they show. Screw that.
Mozilla is has an ugly SoB GUI, it sends your searches to the ugly and useless Netscape portal and has a bunch of other annoyances. I can't stand it even on a choice-poor server machine (where I prefer links, the text browser).
The first things I always do in a Gnome based X-Windows is yum install firefox and rpm -e mozilla and related RPMs.
Let's imagine one could use P2P to *legally* download whatever music he wants if he was paying "membership" fee to a consortium of content providers.
It's already been solved by Napster To Go (http://www.napster.com/ntg.html) - it allows you download "all you can eat" music as long as you pay the membership. The catch, some say, is that you can't keep the songs (they won't play if your membership isn't active). Actually it's possible to convert Napster content to MP3s that can be played later, but at the right price, would anyone bother with that? Probably not.
There is no conceptual difference in Napster's approach and legalized P2P sharing - as long as your subscription is active, you can have any and all music you want.
Napster, and not Apple, has the distribution model of tomorrow. Napster may not be the winnerm, but their model will be.
In light of these events, I strongly believe those who were NOT going to be accepted should have received a similar punishment.
I propose that those who illegally checked status of their application and who were originally refused, be now ACCEPTED to the school and hence financially punished to the full extent of applicable tuition and other fees.
>Google's business model DOES NOT rely on trapping users and forcing - practically blackmailing - it's victims to make exorbant payments for upgrades
And WHICH search engine exactly forces you to make upgrades? Is this some kind of attempt to complain about Microsoft? Although I don't understand what possible "upgrade" can a search engine require.
>the page in question does not further any political, social, business, economic, or other goals.
Yes it does, it furthers Google's economic goals. And everyone else gets fucked up. Before some advertiser ranked (say) 5th, now he is probably 6th and makes X dollars a month less. Why? Why? Because Google stole those X dollars by illegally (and quietly, mind you) tuning their own index.
>By the same logic which you have applied here, what would you be feeling if the names "Mother Teresa" and "Osama Bin Laden" were transposed?
In an article about religious zealots, I wouldn't be surprised.
> I haven't seen that reliability of SATA over SCSI is a problem.
And did you know that rebuilding a SATA RAID can take ages (which overlaps with times when you need every bit of performance you can get)?
> Who know (sic!) what kind of cable you're supposed to use with that external SCSI device.
How many companies have a single disk or JBOD (or RAID without enclosure) on an external SCSI connection without enclosure?
> SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.
Everything it its current form is, including SATA. Imagine how stupid would it be to still have SATA storage in 2015? I hope disk drives and all current interfaces will be out of fashion...
>> motherboard based off of this chip and put it into a standard case,
> You can just buy a $499 mini and get done with it.
uhm, did you notice the word **motherboard**? and how about a **standard** case?
the grandparent is right - it's open but not actually.
buy a bladecenter loaded with IBM's PowerPC blades now and pray to dear god you'll have anyone but IBM and their partners give you quotations for maintenance agreement in 2006. "makes you think twice who you invite to your house"
> 50% is a pretty significant number. At what point would you consider it worthy of concern?
As more or less everyone is exposed, even a 100% figure wouldn't concern me too much.
If everyone gets screwed up together, that's okay. If only I was using some radioactive phone, I might pay more attention to the findings.
The same thing is with smoking - if the whole world smoked, would I worry about myself being a smoker? Of course not. I'd have as much (or as little) chance to get sick as the next guy. Then, if he's not worried, why would I be?
And, by the way, it was said before that findings that (for example, as I don't remember well) 40% of smokers get cancer didn't worry most smokers because that was quite a low chance and most people would find 60:40 to be a "good deal".
Slashdot Mirror
> euh, ssl certificates ?
Errr, SSL certs what?
Once you get directed to a fake site, you can SSL all you want.
99% of people NEVER check SSL certificates but instead choose to continue encrypted access because that's the easiest thing to do.
And not to mention that most (financial enterprises excluded) SSL sites are self-signed, so there's no fucking point of looking at that crap anyway (morons who run unimportant mailing list archives on HTTPS instantly sprint to mind).
From the page you linked:
i d=71
>McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
Why is that a problem? If other restaurants served coffee at 50 degrees and McDonalds at 70, would that still be a problem?
>McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
From the same page: "(the damages awareded are) the equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year."
If they sell 1b cups each year, how is 700 burn incidents over 10 years anything to worry about?
WTF?? That is laughable!
>McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Yes? Yes?
>McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
Last time I checked, McD's hot coffee was still very hot (that's why I don't buy it because I have to wait too long for it to become drinkable).
It's that simple - one knows that it's hot, so you don't put the cup in your lap while fastening a seat belt or something. She did that and she burned yourself. That's just too fscking bad.
It seems you conveniently avoided to comment on the temperature recommendation: http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?page
> IDE drives have been beating SCSI hands down on this for years now.
p lay/i de-scsi.html /. code)
You are right - four IDE drives can beat one SCSI drive hands on.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/dis
(there's no space between "i" and "de-scsi.html; it's the stupid
> The real stated advantage of SCSI drives is seek time.
And what about MTBF?
> They just have some CVS server
I'd guess CVS server has workload similar to database (many small reads, a bit less small writes) which isn't suitable at all for IDE disks.
>I is such as stupid idea.
It is such as stupid idea, that is.
1. A gambler is a gambler is a gambler.
.org site. WTF? Would you click on it? I wouldn't (and that's not because I've already heard of Wikipedia).
2. Due to spyware/adware, I'd say that at least 20% of people who do visit gambling sites get to know about them via adware/spyware programs and pop-up windows
3. People who spam/bomb Google to increase ranks for particular site should be removed from their index, no matter what.
4. Say you're searching for online gambling site and there's a #1 link pointing to an
I is such as stupid idea... Someone should create a wikipedia entry for the genious who started the whole thing.
> I often experience delays of tens of seconds when I try to log in.
Overloaded Network Appliance files vs. distributed Google File System
>Had you known that proper wiki-based research should include not only viewing the articles on the topics you seek, but also a glance at the recent history of the page, and the Talk pages, to see how many "eyeballs" have seen the page, and if there are any recent questionable edits.
Pleeeeze! It's like telling people that proper Linux use includes viewing source code, fiddling kernel recompiles and checking recent diffs in the CVS tree.
If that's the way to use Wikipedia, then I'd rather do my own Google search on the term and check several trustworthy sources (usually a 3:2:1 mixture of commercial, academic and personal sites).
Soon a day will come when there will be a site that will automate this and show stuff on-the-fly (similar to Google News) instead of relying on the hopeless method of using actual people to copy and rewrite content as Wikipedia does.
Makes one wonder if what this RoPi guy does isn't right, WTF are Slashdot editors doing when they post/approve his articles?
As they obviously do, either there's something wrong with Slashdot editors or the guy's doing noting unethical.
>Just think of it as a GPL violation. We all get up in arms about that, right?
Uhm, no.
Think of it as if an album you've always wanted and now you've found it on P2P.
And no, noone gives a damn about that.
So what?
These guys can change the name to muffle or something else in less than 10 minutes (i.e. before they type up a lawsuit).
Like anyone wanted to buy this product because it's called Shuffle. Getting them to change it wouldn't matter a bit.
Yeah, they're called Yast and/or Bash
I archive nothing.
I did in the beginning, but then later I realized I never ever needed to find anything older than a year.
You want to keep a particular email - forward it to your Gmail (or other) account. If Gmail (or whatever) goes bust one day, so what. It's unlikely you'll actually need any of that crap.
>may be able to offer the service lot cheaper.
It'd better be cheap 'cause it'll certainly suck - either their supercomputing or the search engine. You can't do both low-latency supercomputing and fast response web search and webmail.
They could, of course, add more servers and balance the load between their current and their new (HPC) services, but their current workloads must be pretty consistent (say, growing 0.3% a day) so they would really need dedicated HPC boxes.
Besides, there's not much in their current technology that lends itself to running HPC workloads - it doesn't sound like they use fast interconnects or HPC-like software, they only have a bunch of servers (and Google File System, which is unrelated to HPC anyway), that's all. Maybe they could uptake huge dataset uploads, but I don't see how would that constitute any on-demand HPC service.
> ...to running Linux in something like VMware ESX (not GSX!)?
Not GSX... How is VMWare ESX different from GSX?
They don't let you screw around with the OS underneath the ESX version; otherwise it's no different from the GSX on Linux.
Last time I tried ESX I could get to Linux logon prompt with ALT+F2.
With the level of performance they provide VMware won't be around for too long...
(The answer to your question can be found on Google - "xen vmware comparison".)
Not to everyone.
What I've learned:
1) They bend their own rules
2) This is ONE of rule violations they've got caught at (they had 3-4 slips in the past 6 months)
3) They can't be completely trusted
4) They do have a PR department
> Speaking of Yahoo, is anyone else afraid that Google will turn into Yahoo if they keep adding services?
Is that a question?
Go figure - their market capitalization is (say) about 50 billion. As the point of investing is making money, they'd better return 5 billion a year to make that about 10% ROI, otherwise they're screwed.
Now, 5b a year - that's 13mil a day, or in other words quite hard. They need to show more ads, get more viewers/visitors, etc.
They'll keep adding all kinds of crap, what else do you expect? On the other hand, that doesn't mean you have to use those stupid services if you don't want to.
As far as the article is concerned - it's a two-edged sword - you personalize their news, they personalize ads they show. Screw that.
Mozilla is has an ugly SoB GUI, it sends your searches to the ugly and useless Netscape portal and has a bunch of other annoyances.
I can't stand it even on a choice-poor server machine (where I prefer links, the text browser).
The first things I always do in a Gnome based X-Windows is yum install firefox and rpm -e mozilla and related RPMs.
Let's imagine one could use P2P to *legally* download whatever music he wants if he was paying "membership" fee to a consortium of content providers.
It's already been solved by Napster To Go (http://www.napster.com/ntg.html) - it allows you download "all you can eat" music as long as you pay the membership.
The catch, some say, is that you can't keep the songs (they won't play if your membership isn't active). Actually it's possible to convert Napster content to MP3s that can be played later, but at the right price, would anyone bother with that? Probably not.
There is no conceptual difference in Napster's approach and legalized P2P sharing - as long as your subscription is active, you can have any and all music you want.
Napster, and not Apple, has the distribution model of tomorrow. Napster may not be the winnerm, but their model will be.
>When life gives you a USD$3,000 computer for free, it's a crime to not use it.
I'd accept it, but I wouldn't use it.
I'd sell it and buy a PC.
In light of these events, I strongly believe those who were NOT going to be accepted should have received a similar punishment.
I propose that those who illegally checked status of their application and who were originally refused, be now ACCEPTED to the school and hence financially punished to the full extent of applicable tuition and other fees.
>Google's business model DOES NOT rely on trapping users and forcing - practically blackmailing - it's victims to make exorbant payments for upgrades
And WHICH search engine exactly forces you to make upgrades? Is this some kind of attempt to complain about Microsoft? Although I don't understand what possible "upgrade" can a search engine require.
>the page in question does not further any political, social, business, economic, or other goals.
Yes it does, it furthers Google's economic goals. And everyone else gets fucked up. Before some advertiser ranked (say) 5th, now he is probably 6th and makes X dollars a month less. Why? Why? Because Google stole those X dollars by illegally (and quietly, mind you) tuning their own index.
>By the same logic which you have applied here, what would you be feeling if the names "Mother Teresa" and "Osama Bin Laden" were transposed?
In an article about religious zealots, I wouldn't be surprised.
RTA (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1774) - the same pages used to be normal, now they're stuffed with keywords.
> I haven't seen that reliability of SATA over SCSI is a problem.
And did you know that rebuilding a SATA RAID can take ages (which overlaps with times when you need every bit of performance you can get)?
> Who know (sic!) what kind of cable you're supposed to use with that external SCSI device.
How many companies have a single disk or JBOD (or RAID without enclosure) on an external SCSI connection without enclosure?
> SCSI, in its current form, is just opening itself up to becoming antiquated.
Everything it its current form is, including SATA.
Imagine how stupid would it be to still have SATA storage in 2015? I hope disk drives and all current interfaces will be out of fashion...
>> motherboard based off of this chip and put it into a standard case,
> You can just buy a $499 mini and get done with it.
uhm, did you notice the word **motherboard**?
and how about a **standard** case?
the grandparent is right - it's open but not actually.
buy a bladecenter loaded with IBM's PowerPC blades now and pray to dear god you'll have anyone but IBM and their partners give you quotations for maintenance agreement in 2006.
"makes you think twice who you invite to your house"
> 50% is a pretty significant number. At what point would you consider it worthy of concern?
As more or less everyone is exposed, even a 100% figure wouldn't concern me too much.
If everyone gets screwed up together, that's okay.
If only I was using some radioactive phone, I might pay more attention to the findings.
The same thing is with smoking - if the whole world smoked, would I worry about myself being a smoker? Of course not.
I'd have as much (or as little) chance to get sick as the next guy. Then, if he's not worried, why would I be?
And, by the way, it was said before that findings that (for example, as I don't remember well) 40% of smokers get cancer didn't worry most smokers because that was quite a low chance and most people would find 60:40 to be a "good deal".