Skype tries to NAT bust. But it still works MUCH faster without it. Also, many, many home routers choke when keeping up with bittorrent connections. The point is two computers are behind NAT there has be a third-party (non-NAT) involved to negotiate for us. And even then, depending on the "routers" involved it might not work for creating a direct connection.
Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent. And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently. You need IPV6. Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.
Time to resolution is a perfectly acceptable metric for a help desk department. For services some of the important metrics are availability (including performance!), mean-time-between-failure, number of new releases, percent of successful releases, etc. For specific processes you should have metrics for example for how long the new employee on-boarding process takes, or how long it takes to bring additional capacity online, etc.
I recommend you talk to someone that are experts in IT Business Service Management. If you're in the US one of my previous employers (www.maryville.com) could help you.
The article goes into detail about the trim command, etc. I thought this whole issue could be avoided by just setting the beginning block to align with the SSD and then setting the FS block size to the same as the erase block on the SSD. This way, every time it gets a request to write a block it always writes the whole thing and doesn't have to worry about reading it or doing any copying.
I would argue its not a consumable resource like gas or water. That's why at the commercial level it sold as MB/sec connections not "Gigabytes" (of course, web hosting can be a bit different).
What I would like to see is prioritization of packets based on usage. The more you use, the less priority you have during peak times. Slightly more advanced than basic QOS, but should be pretty to implement.
Make no doubt about it, though, the argument you made is the argument against net-neutrality. In the world of caps it gives telcos the ability to charge youtube, google, facebook, et al the ability to charge to be in the unmetered category which is exactly what they want.
Then you against net-neutrality. The whole point of non-neutrality is to force sites like hulu and itunes to pay Comcast and ATT. This is what the caps will end up producing as they continue to slide the caps downward.
True. But they won't meter all traffic the same way. Movies on "ATT Movies" won't count against the tier. They will partner with lets say Amazon for unmetered music downloads. In all practicality,, this is the end of net-neutrality.
Net Neutrality already doesn't exist in Australia. You have a monthly cap, say $100 for a 25GB cap if you're on Bigpond Cable. Now, now apple has an agreement with Bigpond where itunes doesn't count against the cap (I'm guessing by paying Telstra). Bigpond movies, no cap. There is a list of affiliate sites, without the cap. Presumably these sites are paying telstra for the that right.
Bandwidth caps are the beginning of the tiered, non-neutrality internet. Here in Australia, its already a reality.
I once had a college professor with a similar rule. At the end of the semester, I realized I could literally do NOTHING for the final paper and still get an A. As such, I asked the professor if was OK if I just skipped it. Whoah. Big mistake. He flew off his handle swearing about people using the system.. etc. etc... of course I was asking to find out if it was acceptable, so I did the paper (and did it pretty well honestly). Of course, it comes back with a grade of %50. And.. he gave me an overall grade in the class of a B.
I decided to fight it and took to the Dean of the department.. and he actually overrode the teacher on the grade and told me to be careful because professors can be temperamental. Ha.
At that resolution, the best way to see if you're going to get rain is pretty much to look out the window. A new radar tower is supposedly in the works, I hope they hurry up!
As someone who has come the other way (US -> Australia). Use OzForex.com.au it will save you a small bundle in foreign exchange fees and offers better exchange rates.
Actually squirrelling it away in the bank makes a lot of sense from a tax perspective. If they distribute it as a dividend it gets taxed as dividend and as income. If they squirrel it away in the bank it raises the price of the stock by a reasonable amount represented by the expected return they are receiving. That gain is taxed at the capital gains rate which is substantially lower. Of course, this is one good reason to not have dividends tax as it encourages squirreling instead of releasing profits to shareholders.
You aren't protected from zero day expliots by anti-virus either. The new virus won't have a definition. Even some existing viruses can get past anti-virus using encryption. I saw a computer not long ago infected with a nasty Zlob variant with new definitions. I then tried to use several different vendors to remove it. Guess what, not symantec, mcafee, or nod32 could get rid of it. It took me using hijackthis along with mounting the file system from a linux live CD to get rid of the bugger.
Yes there is a risk of getting a virus on the internet. However, in my opinion, it only helps people who are prone to clicking omgponies.exe.
Any computer expert doesn't need anti-virus. As a matter of a fact, anyone remotely computer savvy doesn't need anti-virus. As long as you keep your patches up to date you're basically as secure as you can be from viruses assuming you don't allow the virus in.
If a virus is sophisticated enough to spread without user interaction chances are it spreads faster than definition files (e.g. SQL Slammer).
I have run without anti-virus for about 15 years or so and I have only been infected with two viruses. One from the MS-DOS days by leaving a disk in a computer and another that wasn't strictly a virus but malware from mistyping a domain. Malware that anti-virus wouldn't have detected or prevented anyway.
It seems like there are only two cases both of which anti-virus is pretty much useless for sophisticated users: 1) The virus is old. In which case it would require manual intervention to install into your system since a patch has been released. or 2) The virus is new. In which case the definition files won't catch it anyway. (yeah, I know heuristics.. but come on they never really work beside throwing false positives).
Not because I think the patent isn't obvious or is right. But, I HATE the whole amazon one-click thing. It's way too easy to accidently order something while just trying to get a total price including shipping. So I'm glad they've patented it so no one else implements that annoying system.
All they did was patent taking the safety checks out of online transactions.
From a market value perspective ala carte just makes no sense at all. Yes you get a lot of channels you don't, no you're not paying for them. Whoever is appropiating value from them is paying for them. Remember: it costs NOTHING to provide you a channel of cable. The content and distribution network is already there. Marginal cost is truly zero.
Everyone has different value amounts on each channel. It can be arguably assumed the value of no channel is negative. So what do you do? You try to come up with a bundle of channels that presents approximately the same amount of value to most customers. It simplifies billing and tends to work out pretty well for all parties involved.
Yeah because pretty gold rocks have so much intrinsic value. Get real. If gold wasn't a world currency it wouldn't be worth jack.
Why should our money policy be based on gold mining rather than being controlled by the fed? At least they try to adjust it to meet the business cycles.
Returning to the gold standard would be the Worst Idea Ever. That said.. I thought Ron Paul was a complete nut job until I saw him on the debates. He's just a little nut job. He wants isolationism because that's what the founding fathers wanted. I think if it was 1900.. that'd be a good policy. Technology has made the world far too small for that type of thinking, though. We learned that in WWI.
I loved how he absolutely treated Colmes like the idiot he is over the abortion issue. Colmes said something like "Since you seem to support freedom, how do you justify restricting the women's right to choose?" and he said in a totally dismissive voice, "That's absurd. I support the baby's freedom to live." IMHO, that just made him electable. Though, not my first pick.
Whatever the intelligence was, the democrats had the same exact intelligence. They have the same amount of blame. Bush lied doesn't cut it when you are on the senate and house intelligence committees.
And you think the CIA just fabricated the whole story to deceive congress? The director of the CIA at the time (George Tenet) was appointed by Clinton.
Of course, like any good conspiracy theory, you can't prove George Tenet didn't become an political tool of the almighty Bush administration.
Alternately, one can hope that as they continue to embrace capitalism, eventually the people will overthrow the government and start wanting "rights".
It's a bit of a farce to say the chinese are "keeping our currency afloat." What the heck does that mean? It would become weaker relative to other world currencies? Yes, that's true. So what? It also would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. That's why China is trying to "depress" their own currency.
It's not like we went out and were like CHINA.. please finance our debt. No, their currency was getting stronger.. exports were declining so they devalued their currency to keep exports up. Of course, this also means their people cannot buy much abroad with their dollars.
People get way, way too hung up on wanting a "strong currency." Its not necessarily a good thing to have a strong currency if your goal is to bring jobs to your country. Strong and weak currencies really just describe the ebb-and-flow of purchase power parity.
Umm.. no.. actually relative to the US Dollar if it wasn't artifically deflated the currency would skyrocket. That's why they have nearly a trillion dollars in U.S. Government debt. They are trying to make the US Dollar stronger and their own currency weaker. Why do they want to do that? Because a weaker currency means your exports are cheaper.
Personally I think its a very poor currency policy, but there you have it.
As I've known a number of people near the CEO level, it becomes VERY obvious why they are paid what they are. These people are very skilled at management, motivation, and setting corporate vision. Think about this.. your VP of Operations for a Fortune 500.. making $500,000 a year and the CEO spot opens up (normally because of problems), you take it you have a good chance of failure. Thus you have to offer them vast sums of money to get them move. The worse shape your company is in, the more you have to pay to get anyone. This is why you often see the highest paid CEOs are running the most unprofitable companies. They are being paid a lot to not leave and turn the company around.
These people are also more than capable of starting their own companies and making a lot of money. Ifthey weren't paid appropiately, they would leave. CEOs are really unfairly maligned. Their skills and more than that experience really does make them quite valuable to a company.
AFAIK, they don't have to lie. They just can't say that they received any kind of gag-order. If asked, did you receive a gag order, they can quite legally say "No Comment." When telling his girlfriend where he is going, he can quite legally say he is going to his lawyer to discuss a confidential legal matter that he cannot discuss. Of course, I am not a lawyer:)
Slashdot Mirror
Skype tries to NAT bust. But it still works MUCH faster without it. Also, many, many home routers choke when keeping up with bittorrent connections. The point is two computers are behind NAT there has be a third-party (non-NAT) involved to negotiate for us. And even then, depending on the "routers" involved it might not work for creating a direct connection.
Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent. And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently. You need IPV6. Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.
Time to resolution is a perfectly acceptable metric for a help desk department. For services some of the important metrics are availability (including performance!), mean-time-between-failure, number of new releases, percent of successful releases, etc. For specific processes you should have metrics for example for how long the new employee on-boarding process takes, or how long it takes to bring additional capacity online, etc.
I recommend you talk to someone that are experts in IT Business Service Management. If you're in the US one of my previous employers (www.maryville.com) could help you.
The article goes into detail about the trim command, etc. I thought this whole issue could be avoided by just setting the beginning block to align with the SSD and then setting the FS block size to the same as the erase block on the SSD. This way, every time it gets a request to write a block it always writes the whole thing and doesn't have to worry about reading it or doing any copying.
I would argue its not a consumable resource like gas or water. That's why at the commercial level it sold as MB/sec connections not "Gigabytes" (of course, web hosting can be a bit different).
What I would like to see is prioritization of packets based on usage. The more you use, the less priority you have during peak times. Slightly more advanced than basic QOS, but should be pretty to implement.
Make no doubt about it, though, the argument you made is the argument against net-neutrality. In the world of caps it gives telcos the ability to charge youtube, google, facebook, et al the ability to charge to be in the unmetered category which is exactly what they want.
Then you against net-neutrality. The whole point of non-neutrality is to force sites like hulu and itunes to pay Comcast and ATT. This is what the caps will end up producing as they continue to slide the caps downward.
True. But they won't meter all traffic the same way. Movies on "ATT Movies" won't count against the tier. They will partner with lets say Amazon for unmetered music downloads. In all practicality,, this is the end of net-neutrality.
Net Neutrality already doesn't exist in Australia. You have a monthly cap, say $100 for a 25GB cap if you're on Bigpond Cable. Now, now apple has an agreement with Bigpond where itunes doesn't count against the cap (I'm guessing by paying Telstra). Bigpond movies, no cap. There is a list of affiliate sites, without the cap. Presumably these sites are paying telstra for the that right.
Bandwidth caps are the beginning of the tiered, non-neutrality internet. Here in Australia, its already a reality.
I once had a college professor with a similar rule. At the end of the semester, I realized I could literally do NOTHING for the final paper and still get an A. As such, I asked the professor if was OK if I just skipped it. Whoah. Big mistake. He flew off his handle swearing about people using the system.. etc. etc... of course I was asking to find out if it was acceptable, so I did the paper (and did it pretty well honestly). Of course, it comes back with a grade of %50. And.. he gave me an overall grade in the class of a B.
I decided to fight it and took to the Dean of the department.. and he actually overrode the teacher on the grade and told me to be careful because professors can be temperamental. Ha.
Being an American in Australia, I was blown away to see that the highest resolution radar available for sydney is this:
http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR033.loop.shtml
At that resolution, the best way to see if you're going to get rain is pretty much to look out the window. A new radar tower is supposedly in the works, I hope they hurry up!
As someone who has come the other way (US -> Australia). Use OzForex.com.au it will save you a small bundle in foreign exchange fees and offers better exchange rates.
Actually squirrelling it away in the bank makes a lot of sense from a tax perspective. If they distribute it as a dividend it gets taxed as dividend and as income. If they squirrel it away in the bank it raises the price of the stock by a reasonable amount represented by the expected return they are receiving. That gain is taxed at the capital gains rate which is substantially lower. Of course, this is one good reason to not have dividends tax as it encourages squirreling instead of releasing profits to shareholders.
You aren't protected from zero day expliots by anti-virus either. The new virus won't have a definition. Even some existing viruses can get past anti-virus using encryption. I saw a computer not long ago infected with a nasty Zlob variant with new definitions. I then tried to use several different vendors to remove it. Guess what, not symantec, mcafee, or nod32 could get rid of it. It took me using hijackthis along with mounting the file system from a linux live CD to get rid of the bugger.
Yes there is a risk of getting a virus on the internet. However, in my opinion, it only helps people who are prone to clicking omgponies.exe.
Any computer expert doesn't need anti-virus. As a matter of a fact, anyone remotely computer savvy doesn't need anti-virus. As long as you keep your patches up to date you're basically as secure as you can be from viruses assuming you don't allow the virus in.
If a virus is sophisticated enough to spread without user interaction chances are it spreads faster than definition files (e.g. SQL Slammer).
I have run without anti-virus for about 15 years or so and I have only been infected with two viruses. One from the MS-DOS days by leaving a disk in a computer and another that wasn't strictly a virus but malware from mistyping a domain. Malware that anti-virus wouldn't have detected or prevented anyway.
It seems like there are only two cases both of which anti-virus is pretty much useless for sophisticated users: 1) The virus is old. In which case it would require manual intervention to install into your system since a patch has been released. or 2) The virus is new. In which case the definition files won't catch it anyway. (yeah, I know heuristics.. but come on they never really work beside throwing false positives).
Not because I think the patent isn't obvious or is right. But, I HATE the whole amazon one-click thing. It's way too easy to accidently order something while just trying to get a total price including shipping. So I'm glad they've patented it so no one else implements that annoying system.
All they did was patent taking the safety checks out of online transactions.
From a market value perspective ala carte just makes no sense at all. Yes you get a lot of channels you don't, no you're not paying for them. Whoever is appropiating value from them is paying for them. Remember: it costs NOTHING to provide you a channel of cable. The content and distribution network is already there. Marginal cost is truly zero.
Everyone has different value amounts on each channel. It can be arguably assumed the value of no channel is negative. So what do you do? You try to come up with a bundle of channels that presents approximately the same amount of value to most customers. It simplifies billing and tends to work out pretty well for all parties involved.
Yeah because pretty gold rocks have so much intrinsic value. Get real. If gold wasn't a world currency it wouldn't be worth jack.
Why should our money policy be based on gold mining rather than being controlled by the fed? At least they try to adjust it to meet the business cycles.
Returning to the gold standard would be the Worst Idea Ever. That said.. I thought Ron Paul was a complete nut job until I saw him on the debates. He's just a little nut job. He wants isolationism because that's what the founding fathers wanted. I think if it was 1900.. that'd be a good policy. Technology has made the world far too small for that type of thinking, though. We learned that in WWI.
I loved how he absolutely treated Colmes like the idiot he is over the abortion issue. Colmes said something like "Since you seem to support freedom, how do you justify restricting the women's right to choose?" and he said in a totally dismissive voice, "That's absurd. I support the baby's freedom to live." IMHO, that just made him electable. Though, not my first pick.
Whatever the intelligence was, the democrats had the same exact intelligence. They have the same amount of blame. Bush lied doesn't cut it when you are on the senate and house intelligence committees.
And you think the CIA just fabricated the whole story to deceive congress? The director of the CIA at the time (George Tenet) was appointed by Clinton.
Of course, like any good conspiracy theory, you can't prove George Tenet didn't become an political tool of the almighty Bush administration.
Alternately, one can hope that as they continue to embrace capitalism, eventually the people will overthrow the government and start wanting "rights".
It's a bit of a farce to say the chinese are "keeping our currency afloat." What the heck does that mean? It would become weaker relative to other world currencies? Yes, that's true. So what? It also would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. That's why China is trying to "depress" their own currency.
It's not like we went out and were like CHINA.. please finance our debt. No, their currency was getting stronger.. exports were declining so they devalued their currency to keep exports up. Of course, this also means their people cannot buy much abroad with their dollars.
People get way, way too hung up on wanting a "strong currency." Its not necessarily a good thing to have a strong currency if your goal is to bring jobs to your country. Strong and weak currencies really just describe the ebb-and-flow of purchase power parity.
Ah yes, handwaving. I wonder if they use IP over SFSS at all in this patent. ;)
Umm.. no.. actually relative to the US Dollar if it wasn't artifically deflated the currency would skyrocket. That's why they have nearly a trillion dollars in U.S. Government debt. They are trying to make the US Dollar stronger and their own currency weaker. Why do they want to do that? Because a weaker currency means your exports are cheaper.
Personally I think its a very poor currency policy, but there you have it.
As I've known a number of people near the CEO level, it becomes VERY obvious why they are paid what they are. These people are very skilled at management, motivation, and setting corporate vision. Think about this.. your VP of Operations for a Fortune 500.. making $500,000 a year and the CEO spot opens up (normally because of problems), you take it you have a good chance of failure. Thus you have to offer them vast sums of money to get them move. The worse shape your company is in, the more you have to pay to get anyone. This is why you often see the highest paid CEOs are running the most unprofitable companies. They are being paid a lot to not leave and turn the company around.
These people are also more than capable of starting their own companies and making a lot of money. Ifthey weren't paid appropiately, they would leave. CEOs are really unfairly maligned. Their skills and more than that experience really does make them quite valuable to a company.
AFAIK, they don't have to lie. They just can't say that they received any kind of gag-order. If asked, did you receive a gag order, they can quite legally say "No Comment." When telling his girlfriend where he is going, he can quite legally say he is going to his lawyer to discuss a confidential legal matter that he cannot discuss. Of course, I am not a lawyer :)
John Keynes, is that you?