...this should be viewed as a *good* thing for vaccines, as it removes a major issue with the populance at large. If there's never been an issue with mercury in vaccines, there will be no effect, and if there was an issue, the removal of same and requirement to find a different method of preservation, will be a positive thing. At very least, the people who don't get vaccinated will have one less reason.
> Thimerosal is pretty rare in vaccines. First, it's only used in vials with multiple-doses in it, so that eliminates a fair chunk already. DTaP & Tdap, polio, MMR, Hep A, Hep B, rabies, smallpox... No Thimerosal. The only vaccine that you're likely to come in to contact that MAY have some of the preservative is some seasonal influenza vaccines.
I did some research, and that is true.
Some would argue that having mercury in a shot you have to repeat once a year, as opposed to a shot (polio, smallpox) you only get once or a shot (rabies) you may never have in your lifetime, is kind-of the point.
My family doesn't bother with the influenza vaccine for several reasons, your mileage as always may vary. I honestly don't know if Thimerosal going away for good will change my mind. Back in the old days, you got the 'flu and *liked* it.[1]
All this for $592M in US tax money for a product that doesn't create a single US job.
> You're wrong.
Fair enough. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about this, are the specs for this vehicle ($100K each, 32 mile electric range, 20 MPG on gasoline) also wrong? Because with those specs, this part:
> Further, we're talking about a loan, not a grant. > So unless Fisker goes bankrupt [emphasis mine], the US won't have really lost anything.
...seems extremely likely, as this appears to be a Lada at Tesla prices. Unless the government is planning to be the primary customer.
I can't really tell from the wording... was "PR Success" meant as irony?
These specs seem to be really poor -- $100K price tag, only slightly less than the high-end Tesla sports car, 32 mile electric range, which the Roberts Electric Car built in 1896 beats by 20%, and 20 MPG on gasoline, which my F150 truck beats by 13% on the freeway. Do the people of Finland really have such low standards?
All this for $592M in US tax money for a product that doesn't create a single US job. This is a success that makes up for the failure of Solyndra?
And now we're calling the Solyndra bankruptcy, with it's loss of more than a half billion dollars of taxpayer money, a PR failure??
I don't understand the question. ESXi is a bare metal virtualization server from VMWare. KVM in it's usual meaning is a Keyboard/Video/Mouse switch. You usually use a KVM if you have several machines to which you need access. ESXi is a free (as in beer) way to virtualize several machines onto one server. This is not only usually cheaper, but it's also easier to manage.
So I guess to answer the question as asked, the difference is that ESXi has multiple instances on a few servers, and using a KVM kinda assumes you have one instance per physical server. (The ESXi console is not very interesting and I've never felt the need to access it from my office. I use the VMWare console application to manage and access the instances.)
VMWare ESX is the Enterprise bare metal solution, and has a bunch of management features that ESXi does not have. But for home you probably don't need it.
If you're practicing for VMWare certification, you can download a 30 day ESX demo and get some practice with the Enterprise features. I've never done that. ESXi works fine for me. At one time I had ten distinct web instance exposed to the outside world, plus spare instances for development, running on one server in my garage, with a second server as disaster recovery. My clients gradually moved on or went out of business, and as I had gone on to a different career I haven't pursued new clients. So the server is currently only serving my blog, daughter's blog, family web page, and a few blogs for friends and family. Currently I'm only running two instances, production and development. But creating others as needed is trivial.
Another vote for VMWare ESXi. I acquired a scrapped server-class machine (dual proc, 8 disk RAID, dual NIC, redundant PS), and run all my instances on it. I have a spare machine loaded and powered down as disaster recovery. It's a little loud (lots of fans) but I can't even hear it -- it's in the garage, close to the router. I either remote to it or use the VMWare console from my home office.
The advantage, in my opinion, of using server class machines, even if they're old and slower by today's standards, is that they're more like the hardware (and issues of same) that you're likely to encounter in a job. The built-in redundancy is nice, also. And the fact that you can acquire a few hanger queens fairly easily from which to scavenge parts for spares. You get experience (which you are looking for) and you get reliability (redundancy) and it's profoundly cheap. What's not to love?
The decision to fork on the last open version should be a natural result of an open source product going closed source. At very least, it gives users a competitive choice. And if the open source version doesn't work out, then it was not to be. But it should still be tried.
> Whilst I agree that Ballmer really has nothing to offer (Bill at least had vision despite his business and technical faults), who would you replace him with?
Well, you'd probably have to pull from the outside. Find out who's in charge of HTC. They seem to be making some really good phones these days.
That's the point, really. M$ is a PC OS company trying to make phones. They (still) don't understand that marketplace, so they (still) play to their strengths, and try to shoehorn a PC OS (which is basically all they've got) onto a 3.5 inch screen. And that's worked out really well, hasn't it?
If Microsoft wants to be relevant in that marketplace, take the keys away from Balmer and hire someone with a proven track record in the ACTUAL MARKET they're trying to sell into. It's not rocket science.
Windows tablets suffer from the same PC-centric curse. Their current "touchscreen" interface is a rebranding of the Accessibility suite. Oh, they're trying to fix that, but it looks like they're doing so by rebranding Media Center as the Windows 8 touchscreen interface. (Essentially reusing what they've got rather than thinking out of the box.) I suspect that's going to be an epic fail.
If you define "overcomplicated" as being able to do things a Windows 7 phone can't do, then sure.
And yes, you don't have to be a computer scientist to poke tiles on a Windows 7 phone. But if all the other versions of Windows are any indication, you do have to be a computer scientist to keep it running.
It so happens that yesterday we bought a new phone for my wife at the Verizon store. After looking at a variety of android, apple and blackberry phones, she ended up with the HTC Rhyme mostly because she liked the accessories. (But also partly because her daughter could act as tech support.)
I couldn't help but notice that there was exactly one (1) Windows 7 phone in the entire store. The place was crowded, and nobody was touching it. Good work Balmer. You've made a simple smartphone. Good luck with that.
My daughter (who just recently upgraded from a Galaxy to a Bionic) had an interesting point. If you're stuck on a plane for 3 hours, what do you want? Something really really simple, or something a little more complicated?
In my case, the problem is I'm not allowed to root a company phone. I'm pretty sure that's going to be true (at least technically) for most corporate users.
My understanding, though, is that you can turn the proxy on or off only globally, which means you have to dig through the settings and set up a proxy when you're on campus, and then dig back through the settings to turn it off when you're at Starbucks and want to use their wifi.
I have the same issue. Turning the proxy on or off depending on whether I'm at work or... anywhere else... is a time consuming task, so much so that I don't use wifi while at work.
What Android needs is wifi proxy settings on a per-connection basis. I pointed this out in an Android bug report and got told that it was fixed in 3.0 (honeycomb). Unfortunately, there are no phones running Honeycomb of which I am aware.
If they're talking about using a web proxy, I joined the bug report describing this, and got a note a couple months ago that it was fixed in Android 3.0. So all you have to find is an Android phone running 3.0 or above. I still haven't seen any. But it's nice to know they fixed it.
> It's sort of fascinating how, despite all our technology, we still suffer from such problems.
I think it's inevitable. Commodity items are highly competitive and have razor thin margins. The manufacturing location tends to be the lowest cost location on earth, and the problem with very low cost locations is that there is sometimes a risk involved in doing business there.
Slashdot Mirror
Performance poorer than decades-old standards, prices up in the F22 range... This almost sounds like a government project. Oh, wait...
I know, right? My Harley is rated at 55 MPG but realistically gets 42 to 49. And even Harley riders would cough at the cost of this monstrosity.
I still get the horrible feeling that we're being taken for a ride, and not in a good way.
> The relevant stat when comparing to your F150 is the mpge, and in that area it dominates your truck
I know, right? Even conservatives like him.
> Thimerosal is pretty rare in vaccines. First, it's only used in vials with multiple-doses in it, so that eliminates a fair chunk already. DTaP & Tdap, polio, MMR, Hep A, Hep B, rabies, smallpox... No Thimerosal. The only vaccine that you're likely to come in to contact that MAY have some of the preservative is some seasonal influenza vaccines.
I did some research, and that is true.
Some would argue that having mercury in a shot you have to repeat once a year, as opposed to a shot (polio, smallpox) you only get once or a shot (rabies) you may never have in your lifetime, is kind-of the point.
My family doesn't bother with the influenza vaccine for several reasons, your mileage as always may vary. I honestly don't know if Thimerosal going away for good will change my mind. Back in the old days, you got the 'flu and *liked* it.[1]
[1] Because it kept you home from school.
All this for $592M in US tax money for a product that doesn't create a single US job.
> You're wrong.
Fair enough. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about this, are the specs for this vehicle ($100K each, 32 mile electric range, 20 MPG on gasoline) also wrong? Because with those specs, this part:
> Further, we're talking about a loan, not a grant.
> So unless Fisker goes bankrupt [emphasis mine], the US won't have really lost anything.
Sarcasm. I can believe that. It's a traditional problem; tones of voice don't work in print.
I really have a bad feeling about this. It's like people are using environmental issues to launder massive amounts of cash.
I can't really tell from the wording... was "PR Success" meant as irony?
These specs seem to be really poor -- $100K price tag, only slightly less than the high-end Tesla sports car, 32 mile electric range, which the Roberts Electric Car built in 1896 beats by 20%, and 20 MPG on gasoline, which my F150 truck beats by 13% on the freeway. Do the people of Finland really have such low standards?
All this for $592M in US tax money for a product that doesn't create a single US job. This is a success that makes up for the failure of Solyndra?
And now we're calling the Solyndra bankruptcy, with it's loss of more than a half billion dollars of taxpayer money, a PR failure??
Seriously?
I don't understand the question. ESXi is a bare metal virtualization server from VMWare. KVM in it's usual meaning is a Keyboard/Video/Mouse switch. You usually use a KVM if you have several machines to which you need access. ESXi is a free (as in beer) way to virtualize several machines onto one server. This is not only usually cheaper, but it's also easier to manage.
So I guess to answer the question as asked, the difference is that ESXi has multiple instances on a few servers, and using a KVM kinda assumes you have one instance per physical server. (The ESXi console is not very interesting and I've never felt the need to access it from my office. I use the VMWare console application to manage and access the instances.)
VMWare ESX is the Enterprise bare metal solution, and has a bunch of management features that ESXi does not have. But for home you probably don't need it.
If you're practicing for VMWare certification, you can download a 30 day ESX demo and get some practice with the Enterprise features. I've never done that. ESXi works fine for me. At one time I had ten distinct web instance exposed to the outside world, plus spare instances for development, running on one server in my garage, with a second server as disaster recovery. My clients gradually moved on or went out of business, and as I had gone on to a different career I haven't pursued new clients. So the server is currently only serving my blog, daughter's blog, family web page, and a few blogs for friends and family. Currently I'm only running two instances, production and development. But creating others as needed is trivial.
I see your point, but I never really forgave M$ for acquiring Mechwarrior and killing it.
Another vote for VMWare ESXi. I acquired a scrapped server-class machine (dual proc, 8 disk RAID, dual NIC, redundant PS), and run all my instances on it. I have a spare machine loaded and powered down as disaster recovery. It's a little loud (lots of fans) but I can't even hear it -- it's in the garage, close to the router. I either remote to it or use the VMWare console from my home office.
The advantage, in my opinion, of using server class machines, even if they're old and slower by today's standards, is that they're more like the hardware (and issues of same) that you're likely to encounter in a job. The built-in redundancy is nice, also. And the fact that you can acquire a few hanger queens fairly easily from which to scavenge parts for spares. You get experience (which you are looking for) and you get reliability (redundancy) and it's profoundly cheap. What's not to love?
Time for a regime change.
> In our greedy attempt to get content into our users' hands
Um, wait I have this. Greedy attempt... get content in other's hands... greedy... others... greedy, ... access to content for others... greedy...
I got nuthin'. Can someone help me on this?
The decision to fork on the last open version should be a natural result of an open source product going closed source. At very least, it gives users a competitive choice. And if the open source version doesn't work out, then it was not to be. But it should still be tried.
> Whilst I agree that Ballmer really has nothing to offer (Bill at least had vision despite his business and technical faults), who would you replace him with?
Well, you'd probably have to pull from the outside. Find out who's in charge of HTC. They seem to be making some really good phones these days.
That's the point, really. M$ is a PC OS company trying to make phones. They (still) don't understand that marketplace, so they (still) play to their strengths, and try to shoehorn a PC OS (which is basically all they've got) onto a 3.5 inch screen. And that's worked out really well, hasn't it?
If Microsoft wants to be relevant in that marketplace, take the keys away from Balmer and hire someone with a proven track record in the ACTUAL MARKET they're trying to sell into. It's not rocket science.
Windows tablets suffer from the same PC-centric curse. Their current "touchscreen" interface is a rebranding of the Accessibility suite. Oh, they're trying to fix that, but it looks like they're doing so by rebranding Media Center as the Windows 8 touchscreen interface. (Essentially reusing what they've got rather than thinking out of the box.) I suspect that's going to be an epic fail.
If you define "overcomplicated" as being able to do things a Windows 7 phone can't do, then sure.
And yes, you don't have to be a computer scientist to poke tiles on a Windows 7 phone. But if all the other versions of Windows are any indication, you do have to be a computer scientist to keep it running.
It so happens that yesterday we bought a new phone for my wife at the Verizon store. After looking at a variety of android, apple and blackberry phones, she ended up with the HTC Rhyme mostly because she liked the accessories. (But also partly because her daughter could act as tech support.)
I couldn't help but notice that there was exactly one (1) Windows 7 phone in the entire store. The place was crowded, and nobody was touching it. Good work Balmer. You've made a simple smartphone. Good luck with that.
My daughter (who just recently upgraded from a Galaxy to a Bionic) had an interesting point. If you're stuck on a plane for 3 hours, what do you want? Something really really simple, or something a little more complicated?
> such simple technology is apparently outside of grasp of lots of IT organizations
It didn't used to be, but the local IT guys are gone now.
In my case, the problem is I'm not allowed to root a company phone. I'm pretty sure that's going to be true (at least technically) for most corporate users.
My understanding, though, is that you can turn the proxy on or off only globally, which means you have to dig through the settings and set up a proxy when you're on campus, and then dig back through the settings to turn it off when you're at Starbucks and want to use their wifi.
I have the same issue. Turning the proxy on or off depending on whether I'm at work or ... anywhere else ... is a time consuming task, so much so that I don't use wifi while at work.
What Android needs is wifi proxy settings on a per-connection basis. I pointed this out in an Android bug report and got told that it was fixed in 3.0 (honeycomb). Unfortunately, there are no phones running Honeycomb of which I am aware.
If they're talking about using a web proxy, I joined the bug report describing this, and got a note a couple months ago that it was fixed in Android 3.0. So all you have to find is an Android phone running 3.0 or above. I still haven't seen any. But it's nice to know they fixed it.
Nope, I'm saying that there are reasons why low cost locations are low cost. It's a tendency, not all-or-nothing.
> It's sort of fascinating how, despite all our technology, we still suffer from such problems.
I think it's inevitable. Commodity items are highly competitive and have razor thin margins. The manufacturing location tends to be the lowest cost location on earth, and the problem with very low cost locations is that there is sometimes a risk involved in doing business there.
> That would be a horrifying endgame for the labels.
I enjoyed the article; now I'm enjoying the discussion even more!