This may be so, but on the other hand I have worked for or with far too many people in this field that have plenty of credentials but have no ability. Fortunately many of them end up eventually running afoul of management when in a crisis they fail to perform, but until that time they chiefly seem to increase the stress in the workplace through bad decisions and an inability to contribute their fair share of the workload.
A lot of these kinds of IT workers seem to have forgotten the KISS principle too, and they end up creating these convoluted messes that collapse when one piece goes bad. Not fun.
Heh. I did it as a hobby as an adolescent and teenager and then made a career out of it.
Now my hobbies are working on cars, woodworking, working on machinery, etc.
Suffice it to say, I do not agree with those that maintain making your hobby into a career will make you happy in your career. It may simply ruin your hobby.
Well, we've had ambulances called to the office complex that I work from probably three times in the last year. If I look at the map of the parking lot there are about 400 numbered parking spaces, so assuming that some workers carpool or use some other form of transportation I'd guess there are around 450 employees.
So, for my workplace for one year is 3/450 =.667%
By contrast Tesla's workplace with your numbers is (120/3.5)/10000 =.343%
Yep. When I step back and look at what's really been achieved in end-user computing in the last twenty years I am not impressed. The wheel has been reinvented dozens of times but it's still a wheel.
Anyone remember Hypercard on the early Macintoshes? It was a GUI-based markup-language tool that could do some graphics and video. Given how most people use their computers, we're really not a lot past Hypercard.
My main point of disagreement is that many Linux distributions already have better long-term-stable support. Debian as a case-in-point backports security changes to older verisions almost to a ridiculous level, and Ubuntu as a dpkg-based distribution follows suit. If a particular version of a distribution of Linux is necessary for whatever reason, it may well continue to be supported by the distrubtion maintainers for much longer than Windows, with far less reluctance.
Additionally until recently at least it was fairly easy to harden a Linux distribution at the time of install or post-install, and as variation OSes that use the Linux kernel demonstrate, it's also possible to lock-down a Linux-based OS to where the user can't inflict a lot of damage to it without that user him or herself having taken lots of steps to circumvent the security that was designed into the OS.
By contrast, Microsoft likes to stop supporting older OSes as soon as it feels it can get away with it. Microsoft OSes come out-of-the-box poorly configured for security, and it's not always clear how secure any given box is either, or what will break that security down the road. Lastly, since Microsoft has allowed lazy application developers to get away with writing software such that it needs admin privileges to install or to run, users are accustomed to either running their regular user account as a full admin on the box, or to automatically clicking accept on dialogue boxes that prompt to escalate privileges.
Microsoft's software is not the only software that's vulnerable, but it's certainly sitting in a perfect-storm of vulnerability to make it very easy to exploit in addtion to being of a wide marketshare making doing the exploitation valuable.
Eh. It's not really marketing to say that OSX is less at-risk to viruses, because there simply are less viruses and other malware for the platform since its marketshare is smaller. I've never seen marketing that actually states that it was safe from viruses, or marketing that really talks about viruses in any way really.
The, "...more elite, fashionable, and intelligent person for using one..." part is all over the place though.
The problem is now it may not be that easy to identify legitimate releases from malicious distribution.
We had this problem back in the shareware day. Renegade BBS software got this treatment, and that plus Cott Lang's unusual versioning scheme based on month as the first couple of numbers made it difficult to determine if a downloaded copy of Renegade was actually Lang's software or if it was compromised and had backdoors that the malicious party had created to later exploit when calling into one's BBS.
Perhaps this kind of thing can serve as a warning to developers, don't use your dev boxes as general purpose computers. Sure it means having to either have more than one computer or else having to use virtual machines or chroot environments etc, but if one's important work is compromised like this it can have far reaching implications. Just easier to not use the same equipment for both functions.
Seems to me that the best approach would be to get a bunch of Galaxy S3 phones and other older phones, and use those as the development platforms for mainline Android. Once whatever new reference version is developed on those, then you start looking at newer/faster phones for possible changes needed for the newer chipsets.
I don't know if it's still this way, but for a long time the business model was to based low-end stuff on yesteryear's high-end stuff, with the possibility of minor or moderate revisions. Intel's own 486 chip was produced until 2007 and eventually saw speeds of 150MHz, and clone producers like Cyrix also continued to produce 486-compatible chips long past their normal conventional PC application. I expect that CPUs and chipsets in older high-end smartphones continue to see mild revision and production for what become mid-grade and eventually low-end phones, after all, if these chips weren't still used then money spent developing them in the first place wasn't spent effectively.
It's fine for the rich consumer to spend money on the eight core phone with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage, but developers should always focus on the single core model with 512MB RAM and 32MB storage. After all, that which runs acceptably on the low-end model should be screaming fast on the high-end one.
When I bought one back in the late nineties the price was not outrageous, given what computers and mathematics software at the time cost.
If anything, that they didn't eventually adjust for price was their downfall, but original pricing was not necessarily ridiculous. Hell, my TI83+ still works.
New cars have at least kept-pace with the inflation in personal income, and on top of that there's a lot more other competing things that people feel they have to have. In the late seventies you had electricity, phone, rent or mortgage, possibly natural gas, municipal utilities like water and sewer, and probably some insurance. Now you still have all of those, plus pay-TV, Internet, cell phone in addition to or replacing regular land line phone. You've added 20% more expenses, it makes sense that somthing's gotta give, and that may well be replacing vehicles.
It's further exacerbated by competition in the auto market forcing quality to improve. More European brands appeared, Japan joined the party, and then Korea showed up with their own offerings. Cars used to be lucky to reach 100,000 miles, now a car that doesn't reach 200,000 miles is a bad car. Given that a moderately-priced car is close to $30,000 it's not unreasonable to expect cars to last a long time, so new car buyers don't need to buy them as often as they might once have.
I'm not exactly sure how this is nerd news. There's no mention of advanced technology drivetrains, or self-driving vehicles, or even robots taking our jerbs.
This is a pretty typical corporate strategy to reduce expenditures, and if it's based on things like wilful retirement bonuses and severance bonuses for those not eligible for retirement yet, then it's pretty benign and almost a non-story even in business circles. It's a way to reduce the number of top earners without generating a lot of ill-will, people get to retire early, they get some bonus for it, generally most employees aren't unhappy with the arrangement.
One of the things that has bothered me about computing developments over the last 20 or so years is that the push for easier and easier UI should have ended about fifteen years ago, and when the realization that an ever-increasingly-connected Internet was to be the future, the focus should have shifted away from UI and to backend security and testing of software products and protocols. Unfortunately that stuff isn't visual, so it's hard to sell a user on a new version of Windows without changing the look.
In my opinion GUI development peaked sometime around 1996 or 1997. Windows 95 OSR2 with IE4 debuted and integrated the web browser into the filesystem shell in a way that's basically the same as it is today, and most of the elements in Windows that we're used to were implemented. In XWindows the most important elements of each major windowmanager project had been created. Only lagging was Apple, OSX wouldn't debut for another four or five years, but again, there were UI elements similar to Microsoft's or to Common Desktop Environment (CDE) or to KDE, so there wasn't a whole lot that was truly new, and a lot of the OS was borrowed from its predecessor NeXT anyway.
Sure they've changed the colors, they've shifted back and forth between 3D-looking window frames and icons and 2D-looking window frames and icons, and they rearrange the look of the dialogue boxes or replace the Start Menu with a new menu, but the just seem to be reinventing the wheel, not actually creating anything new. But they aren't focusing on security like they should be either, even though with the UI nailed-down they really should be.
I would be surprised if they get rid of existing tools with any dispatch; they'll probably see what existing labor-saving tools fall into significant disuse and in what cases those tools do get occasionally used. The biggest risk is probably employees choosing to ignore the normal two-man lift rules for picking up some of the heavier or bulkier objects and getting hurt because of that.
At the moment they have very sturdy step-stools, very sturdy stairs, pallet-jacks, and forklifts. The step-stools and stairs do not really do much for moderately heavy objects that are low to the ground, a pallet-jack doesn't get something up on to a low-height shelf, and sometimes it's wasteful to have to use a forklift, and with internal store rules for the use of forklifts it can be a huge pain to close-off popular aisles of the store like the electrical section in order to move a large object. If this acts as that intermediate point between human muscle and a forklift then it may fill a niche that helps with store productivty.
It also threatened to dump data from banks using the SWIFT international money transfer network and from Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean nuclear and missile programs, without providing further details.
Are they attempting to ensure that there's no safe harbor for them anywhere in the whole world? Seems like if one pisses off the USA, Russia, and China, that there's no country in the entire world that wouldn't give up these people to someone if their identities are uncovered.
This makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the claims, and if they're really from a group with this kind of power or if they're just someone trolling for teh lulz.
The reason this is happening is because those who pretend to be our betters and deign to tell us what is acceptable behavior have systematically gone about destroying societal norms for the last few generations. There was a time when a group of men would have the common sense and decency to confirm discussion such as those described to the locker room, club, or some other place outside of mixed company. Of course, if you spend 50 years telling boys that girls are not different than them and that they are exactly the same, then why are you going to be surprised when boys act like boys and include girls in the conversation? I mean, girls are no different, right?
One of the problems is that you end up with structural gender discrimination when business is discussed and decided in places where one gender is excluded. I've seen it first-hand with a local fraternal organization that a boss was a member of, it was essentially an old-boys-club and they did negotiate deals where women were not admitted. Ultimately someone figured out that they accepted public money for some of the charity works they did though, and they were forced to admit women if they wanted to continue to receive public funds, and they did relent. A similar practice has been perpetuated on the golf course, in "Gentlemen's Clubs" (not the strip-club type, but probably there too), and in gender segregated smoking parlors when those were more commonplace.
I have no doubt that sexualized antics ensue in those kinds of places, and that "locker room talk" doesn't remain in the locker room. Having seen a bit of that kind of behavior firsthand, it's basically a bunch of grown men reverting to being fourteen year olds again, mostly falsely boasting like inexperienced juveniles. It's fairly pathetic to see actually.
Of course. On the other hand, if you want to isolate network traffic by type then either you have to have a lot of physical cabling infrastructure, or else you have to upgrade to more expensive equipment that's VLAN-aware. This becomes even more important when you want authentication to help you sort users into the right VLANs correctly, like to automatically put trusted computers that are part of the AD domain into (semi-)trusted group, while guests and BYOD users for whom you have no control over the hardware into other VLANs with less privileges on the LAN/WAN. It also helps to isolate all other business functions so that users cannot reach devices that they have no business connecting-to.
If I tried to run independent LANs for each function I'd need at least seven LANs overlaying the same facilities. The fiber plant and fiber optic transceiver budgets alone would dwarf the cost as-spent on VLAN-aware L2 switches. If I wanted to do it with L3 switches at each closet I'd probably spend as much as the fiber plant would cost, and I'd destroy easy wireless roaming without reauthentication and IP address changes on the clients.
Plus if Uber has to "return" files, then Waymo/Google/Alphabetsoup knows exactly which files are in question and Uber cannot claim ignorance, so if further down the road Uber shows development based on the files then Waymo has grounds for further lawsuits.
Hell, I'd argue that as a mostly-single-task device it did that one task very well and didn't do very well things that made it easy to cheat on tests.
Sure it was possible to type-in cheat sheets, but the end user of the calculator had to do a fair amount of work to create cheat sheets that were meaningful to them. That in itself helps the student learn.
Yes, there were games on the TI82/83/84, but they were not terribly good games, and they did not offer enough distraction to blow-off one's homework entirely to play the games.
Yup. One WAP per classroom so that the 30+ wireless devices per room will all be able to connect, and two cables per WAP so they can do 802.11ac, back to mid-grade L2 switches in the local IDF closet, fiber link back to the MDF with a mid-grade L3 fiber switch, out to the service provider. Plus the data drops for the VOIP phone, the printer, the WIDI and/or projector, and any remaining desktop computers that teachers might still be using.
When Cisco's Sparkboard gets education licenses that aren't ridiculously-priced like their corporate licenses are, I expect that conventional Smartboards will be replaced by Sparkboards en-masse in many school districts. There's another data drop there.
Then factor-in drops for the security cameras, the door/gate access controllers, the department photocopiers, the POS system in the cafeteria, the electronic marquee, the EMS controllers and other SCADA or building management stuff, there's a lot running on these networks.
School districts also will put out for bond for equipment, or at least for cabling.
Personally I'd rather that money borrowed against a 20 or 30 year bond pay for cabling rather than switches; cabling in-place has a decent chance of lasting 30 years while switches you're lucky to get a decade.
E-rate is nice, but it tends to encumber where the equipment can be used. A district does not get a large pot for the whole place, it's campus by campus, and it can take a couple of years to get funded such that what was put out for E-rate might not match the campus needs by the time it's fulfilled. It can be frustrating when facilities bond remodels a campus and now the switch counts don't work out quite right.
Depends on if you want to push SGT/SGACL to make use of both wired and wireless authentication with ISE. If you want to do that all of the way to the end-AP as a sort of wireless equivalent of a switch then you need to keep within the Cisco environment at least at the final access-edge. There are ways to jump across devices that don't support these features, but not at the end.
My goal is to prevent end-workstations from communicating with each other, full-stop. That would significantly reduce the effectiveness of worms and other malware, such that if there are delays patching PCs or if zero-day exploits find their way in, the damage would be much reduced.
I've worked in those kinds of environments, where we had propretary applications that were not compatible with the latest stuff. This is especially aggravating when you've got three web-delivered systems, all of which have mutually exclusive requirements. At one time users had to have Chrome, Firefox, and IE, and we had to block updates to IE so that the legacy system would work.
It's extremely labor-intensive and requires excellent recordkeeping if one wants to do updates in this kind of environment, which means that it becomes expensive. It's usually cheaper in the short-term to just turn off updates, and it's often very difficult to convince a nontechnical upper-level director of the need to spend the money before the problem hits.
Pretty much. I had to take some fairly convoluted measures to keep my wife's laptop on 8.1 or some of my various other systems on 7 without entirely disabling updates. It's not that I liked 8.1, but I did not like what I read about 10.
The easiest way to avoid having 10 forced on me would have been to just disable updates. Instead I had to read up on every individual update that would push 10, and ultimately resorted to third-party software to block or remove those specific nuggets from Microsoft so that my platforms would be left in the state I wanted them in.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be so, but on the other hand I have worked for or with far too many people in this field that have plenty of credentials but have no ability. Fortunately many of them end up eventually running afoul of management when in a crisis they fail to perform, but until that time they chiefly seem to increase the stress in the workplace through bad decisions and an inability to contribute their fair share of the workload.
A lot of these kinds of IT workers seem to have forgotten the KISS principle too, and they end up creating these convoluted messes that collapse when one piece goes bad. Not fun.
Heh. I did it as a hobby as an adolescent and teenager and then made a career out of it.
Now my hobbies are working on cars, woodworking, working on machinery, etc.
Suffice it to say, I do not agree with those that maintain making your hobby into a career will make you happy in your career. It may simply ruin your hobby.
Well, we've had ambulances called to the office complex that I work from probably three times in the last year. If I look at the map of the parking lot there are about 400 numbered parking spaces, so assuming that some workers carpool or use some other form of transportation I'd guess there are around 450 employees.
So, for my workplace for one year is 3/450 = .667%
By contrast Tesla's workplace with your numbers is (120/3.5)/10000 = .343%
Yep. When I step back and look at what's really been achieved in end-user computing in the last twenty years I am not impressed. The wheel has been reinvented dozens of times but it's still a wheel.
Anyone remember Hypercard on the early Macintoshes? It was a GUI-based markup-language tool that could do some graphics and video. Given how most people use their computers, we're really not a lot past Hypercard.
I partially agree with you.
My main point of disagreement is that many Linux distributions already have better long-term-stable support. Debian as a case-in-point backports security changes to older verisions almost to a ridiculous level, and Ubuntu as a dpkg-based distribution follows suit. If a particular version of a distribution of Linux is necessary for whatever reason, it may well continue to be supported by the distrubtion maintainers for much longer than Windows, with far less reluctance.
Additionally until recently at least it was fairly easy to harden a Linux distribution at the time of install or post-install, and as variation OSes that use the Linux kernel demonstrate, it's also possible to lock-down a Linux-based OS to where the user can't inflict a lot of damage to it without that user him or herself having taken lots of steps to circumvent the security that was designed into the OS.
By contrast, Microsoft likes to stop supporting older OSes as soon as it feels it can get away with it. Microsoft OSes come out-of-the-box poorly configured for security, and it's not always clear how secure any given box is either, or what will break that security down the road. Lastly, since Microsoft has allowed lazy application developers to get away with writing software such that it needs admin privileges to install or to run, users are accustomed to either running their regular user account as a full admin on the box, or to automatically clicking accept on dialogue boxes that prompt to escalate privileges.
Microsoft's software is not the only software that's vulnerable, but it's certainly sitting in a perfect-storm of vulnerability to make it very easy to exploit in addtion to being of a wide marketshare making doing the exploitation valuable.
Eh. It's not really marketing to say that OSX is less at-risk to viruses, because there simply are less viruses and other malware for the platform since its marketshare is smaller. I've never seen marketing that actually states that it was safe from viruses, or marketing that really talks about viruses in any way really.
The, "...more elite, fashionable, and intelligent person for using one..." part is all over the place though.
The problem is now it may not be that easy to identify legitimate releases from malicious distribution.
We had this problem back in the shareware day. Renegade BBS software got this treatment, and that plus Cott Lang's unusual versioning scheme based on month as the first couple of numbers made it difficult to determine if a downloaded copy of Renegade was actually Lang's software or if it was compromised and had backdoors that the malicious party had created to later exploit when calling into one's BBS.
Perhaps this kind of thing can serve as a warning to developers, don't use your dev boxes as general purpose computers. Sure it means having to either have more than one computer or else having to use virtual machines or chroot environments etc, but if one's important work is compromised like this it can have far reaching implications. Just easier to not use the same equipment for both functions.
Seems to me that the best approach would be to get a bunch of Galaxy S3 phones and other older phones, and use those as the development platforms for mainline Android. Once whatever new reference version is developed on those, then you start looking at newer/faster phones for possible changes needed for the newer chipsets.
I don't know if it's still this way, but for a long time the business model was to based low-end stuff on yesteryear's high-end stuff, with the possibility of minor or moderate revisions. Intel's own 486 chip was produced until 2007 and eventually saw speeds of 150MHz, and clone producers like Cyrix also continued to produce 486-compatible chips long past their normal conventional PC application. I expect that CPUs and chipsets in older high-end smartphones continue to see mild revision and production for what become mid-grade and eventually low-end phones, after all, if these chips weren't still used then money spent developing them in the first place wasn't spent effectively.
It's fine for the rich consumer to spend money on the eight core phone with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage, but developers should always focus on the single core model with 512MB RAM and 32MB storage. After all, that which runs acceptably on the low-end model should be screaming fast on the high-end one.
When I bought one back in the late nineties the price was not outrageous, given what computers and mathematics software at the time cost.
If anything, that they didn't eventually adjust for price was their downfall, but original pricing was not necessarily ridiculous. Hell, my TI83+ still works.
New cars have at least kept-pace with the inflation in personal income, and on top of that there's a lot more other competing things that people feel they have to have. In the late seventies you had electricity, phone, rent or mortgage, possibly natural gas, municipal utilities like water and sewer, and probably some insurance. Now you still have all of those, plus pay-TV, Internet, cell phone in addition to or replacing regular land line phone. You've added 20% more expenses, it makes sense that somthing's gotta give, and that may well be replacing vehicles.
It's further exacerbated by competition in the auto market forcing quality to improve. More European brands appeared, Japan joined the party, and then Korea showed up with their own offerings. Cars used to be lucky to reach 100,000 miles, now a car that doesn't reach 200,000 miles is a bad car. Given that a moderately-priced car is close to $30,000 it's not unreasonable to expect cars to last a long time, so new car buyers don't need to buy them as often as they might once have.
I'm not exactly sure how this is nerd news. There's no mention of advanced technology drivetrains, or self-driving vehicles, or even robots taking our jerbs.
This is a pretty typical corporate strategy to reduce expenditures, and if it's based on things like wilful retirement bonuses and severance bonuses for those not eligible for retirement yet, then it's pretty benign and almost a non-story even in business circles. It's a way to reduce the number of top earners without generating a lot of ill-will, people get to retire early, they get some bonus for it, generally most employees aren't unhappy with the arrangement.
One of the things that has bothered me about computing developments over the last 20 or so years is that the push for easier and easier UI should have ended about fifteen years ago, and when the realization that an ever-increasingly-connected Internet was to be the future, the focus should have shifted away from UI and to backend security and testing of software products and protocols. Unfortunately that stuff isn't visual, so it's hard to sell a user on a new version of Windows without changing the look.
In my opinion GUI development peaked sometime around 1996 or 1997. Windows 95 OSR2 with IE4 debuted and integrated the web browser into the filesystem shell in a way that's basically the same as it is today, and most of the elements in Windows that we're used to were implemented. In XWindows the most important elements of each major windowmanager project had been created. Only lagging was Apple, OSX wouldn't debut for another four or five years, but again, there were UI elements similar to Microsoft's or to Common Desktop Environment (CDE) or to KDE, so there wasn't a whole lot that was truly new, and a lot of the OS was borrowed from its predecessor NeXT anyway.
Sure they've changed the colors, they've shifted back and forth between 3D-looking window frames and icons and 2D-looking window frames and icons, and they rearrange the look of the dialogue boxes or replace the Start Menu with a new menu, but the just seem to be reinventing the wheel, not actually creating anything new. But they aren't focusing on security like they should be either, even though with the UI nailed-down they really should be.
Hey! Who turned off the lights?
I would be surprised if they get rid of existing tools with any dispatch; they'll probably see what existing labor-saving tools fall into significant disuse and in what cases those tools do get occasionally used. The biggest risk is probably employees choosing to ignore the normal two-man lift rules for picking up some of the heavier or bulkier objects and getting hurt because of that.
At the moment they have very sturdy step-stools, very sturdy stairs, pallet-jacks, and forklifts. The step-stools and stairs do not really do much for moderately heavy objects that are low to the ground, a pallet-jack doesn't get something up on to a low-height shelf, and sometimes it's wasteful to have to use a forklift, and with internal store rules for the use of forklifts it can be a huge pain to close-off popular aisles of the store like the electrical section in order to move a large object. If this acts as that intermediate point between human muscle and a forklift then it may fill a niche that helps with store productivty.
It also threatened to dump data from banks using the SWIFT international money transfer network and from Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean nuclear and missile programs, without providing further details.
Are they attempting to ensure that there's no safe harbor for them anywhere in the whole world? Seems like if one pisses off the USA, Russia, and China, that there's no country in the entire world that wouldn't give up these people to someone if their identities are uncovered.
This makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the claims, and if they're really from a group with this kind of power or if they're just someone trolling for teh lulz.
The reason this is happening is because those who pretend to be our betters and deign to tell us what is acceptable behavior have systematically gone about destroying societal norms for the last few generations. There was a time when a group of men would have the common sense and decency to confirm discussion such as those described to the locker room, club, or some other place outside of mixed company. Of course, if you spend 50 years telling boys that girls are not different than them and that they are exactly the same, then why are you going to be surprised when boys act like boys and include girls in the conversation? I mean, girls are no different, right?
One of the problems is that you end up with structural gender discrimination when business is discussed and decided in places where one gender is excluded. I've seen it first-hand with a local fraternal organization that a boss was a member of, it was essentially an old-boys-club and they did negotiate deals where women were not admitted. Ultimately someone figured out that they accepted public money for some of the charity works they did though, and they were forced to admit women if they wanted to continue to receive public funds, and they did relent. A similar practice has been perpetuated on the golf course, in "Gentlemen's Clubs" (not the strip-club type, but probably there too), and in gender segregated smoking parlors when those were more commonplace.
I have no doubt that sexualized antics ensue in those kinds of places, and that "locker room talk" doesn't remain in the locker room. Having seen a bit of that kind of behavior firsthand, it's basically a bunch of grown men reverting to being fourteen year olds again, mostly falsely boasting like inexperienced juveniles. It's fairly pathetic to see actually.
Of course. On the other hand, if you want to isolate network traffic by type then either you have to have a lot of physical cabling infrastructure, or else you have to upgrade to more expensive equipment that's VLAN-aware. This becomes even more important when you want authentication to help you sort users into the right VLANs correctly, like to automatically put trusted computers that are part of the AD domain into (semi-)trusted group, while guests and BYOD users for whom you have no control over the hardware into other VLANs with less privileges on the LAN/WAN. It also helps to isolate all other business functions so that users cannot reach devices that they have no business connecting-to.
If I tried to run independent LANs for each function I'd need at least seven LANs overlaying the same facilities. The fiber plant and fiber optic transceiver budgets alone would dwarf the cost as-spent on VLAN-aware L2 switches. If I wanted to do it with L3 switches at each closet I'd probably spend as much as the fiber plant would cost, and I'd destroy easy wireless roaming without reauthentication and IP address changes on the clients.
Plus if Uber has to "return" files, then Waymo/Google/Alphabetsoup knows exactly which files are in question and Uber cannot claim ignorance, so if further down the road Uber shows development based on the files then Waymo has grounds for further lawsuits.
Hell, I'd argue that as a mostly-single-task device it did that one task very well and didn't do very well things that made it easy to cheat on tests.
Sure it was possible to type-in cheat sheets, but the end user of the calculator had to do a fair amount of work to create cheat sheets that were meaningful to them. That in itself helps the student learn.
Yes, there were games on the TI82/83/84, but they were not terribly good games, and they did not offer enough distraction to blow-off one's homework entirely to play the games.
Yup. One WAP per classroom so that the 30+ wireless devices per room will all be able to connect, and two cables per WAP so they can do 802.11ac, back to mid-grade L2 switches in the local IDF closet, fiber link back to the MDF with a mid-grade L3 fiber switch, out to the service provider. Plus the data drops for the VOIP phone, the printer, the WIDI and/or projector, and any remaining desktop computers that teachers might still be using.
When Cisco's Sparkboard gets education licenses that aren't ridiculously-priced like their corporate licenses are, I expect that conventional Smartboards will be replaced by Sparkboards en-masse in many school districts. There's another data drop there.
Then factor-in drops for the security cameras, the door/gate access controllers, the department photocopiers, the POS system in the cafeteria, the electronic marquee, the EMS controllers and other SCADA or building management stuff, there's a lot running on these networks.
School districts also will put out for bond for equipment, or at least for cabling.
Personally I'd rather that money borrowed against a 20 or 30 year bond pay for cabling rather than switches; cabling in-place has a decent chance of lasting 30 years while switches you're lucky to get a decade.
E-rate is nice, but it tends to encumber where the equipment can be used. A district does not get a large pot for the whole place, it's campus by campus, and it can take a couple of years to get funded such that what was put out for E-rate might not match the campus needs by the time it's fulfilled. It can be frustrating when facilities bond remodels a campus and now the switch counts don't work out quite right.
Ha ha ha.
Oh wait, you're serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
Depends on if you want to push SGT/SGACL to make use of both wired and wireless authentication with ISE. If you want to do that all of the way to the end-AP as a sort of wireless equivalent of a switch then you need to keep within the Cisco environment at least at the final access-edge. There are ways to jump across devices that don't support these features, but not at the end.
My goal is to prevent end-workstations from communicating with each other, full-stop. That would significantly reduce the effectiveness of worms and other malware, such that if there are delays patching PCs or if zero-day exploits find their way in, the damage would be much reduced.
I've worked in those kinds of environments, where we had propretary applications that were not compatible with the latest stuff. This is especially aggravating when you've got three web-delivered systems, all of which have mutually exclusive requirements. At one time users had to have Chrome, Firefox, and IE, and we had to block updates to IE so that the legacy system would work.
It's extremely labor-intensive and requires excellent recordkeeping if one wants to do updates in this kind of environment, which means that it becomes expensive. It's usually cheaper in the short-term to just turn off updates, and it's often very difficult to convince a nontechnical upper-level director of the need to spend the money before the problem hits.
Pretty much. I had to take some fairly convoluted measures to keep my wife's laptop on 8.1 or some of my various other systems on 7 without entirely disabling updates. It's not that I liked 8.1, but I did not like what I read about 10.
The easiest way to avoid having 10 forced on me would have been to just disable updates. Instead I had to read up on every individual update that would push 10, and ultimately resorted to third-party software to block or remove those specific nuggets from Microsoft so that my platforms would be left in the state I wanted them in.