...and then they remembered they're virtualizing all their servers, like everyone else at this point, and just logged into the [vmware|xen|kvm] console
I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous the concept of a company attempting a hostile takeover another company worth 75% of their market cap actually is. It's laughable.
Ah helpful, of course, that explains the paid advertisements. Gee, thanks Microsoft. Maybe they could send me some spam when I mistype an e-mail address too!
Let's assume Microsoft acquires google in a stock deal totalling the value of Google using the above numbers. That means that Google would now hold a 68% share in Microsoft.
Think about that for a minute.
Google is not HIPAA certified, period. ePHI is required by HIPAA to be encrypted both in transit and at rest (on disk). So unless you're encrypting your Google Docs somehow, you're violating the rule.
"A third party like your ISP? Your telephone company? The USPS? FedEx? "
That's what encryption is for, and until Google can encrypt my data at rest, they are not HIPAA compliant. Fax and telephone are specifically addressed by HIPAA -- fax is basically just given a free pass (ridiculous, I agree) and verbally relaying ePHI via the telephone requires a written consent form from the patient.
HIPAA requires ePHI to be protected both in transit and at rest (on disk). Google will tell you flat out that your data is not sufficiently protected (eg encrypted) at rest to qualify as being HIPAA compliant. Obviously you can use SSL during transit but that doesn't solve the whole equation. Google apps, flat out, are not HIPAA compliant, and google will be the first to tell you that.
"Read the GPL itself; it is very instructive. Nowhere does it require that the developer/distributor make any sorts of guarantees to the buyer/end user about how easy it will be for the end user to redistribute a re-compilation beyond the requirement that the source be provided in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.""
No one is saying it does, the original author is talking about the spirit of the GPL. Not the letter of the "law" as it were.
"Lance vanished from the project some time in 2008. Everybody needs time off from projects from time to time, so there was no real need to worry about that. What there was to worry about is the following: Lance is the only one, who can make active changes to the centos.org domain, as he âoeowns itâ. Nobody else in the team is able to add nameservers, for instance. Recently he put an anonymizing service on the domain, so that nobody from the outside can see who that domain belongs to. "
My contribution is to point out we don't have any long term data on the reliability of SSDs as opposed to saying things like "As Far As I Know" when you know absolutely nothing.
The last quote I got from EMC for 400GB 15K FC drives was $4,000 PER DRIVE. Let me repeat that, four thousand dollars per drive. EMC wanted $1,000 for a 146GB 15K FC drive. This is their "certified" drives that they've "tested and validated"
I'm sorry I dont maybe I wasn't clear enough. I totally agree it isn't for every workload, I think it works in a lot of instances, particularly if you're tiering your storage and have very very high read:write ratios. Another example that I'm seeing a lot of is database indexes on SSDs. I think as SSD prices come down and performance goes up, you'll continue to see them make inroads.
Please show me a SAN vendor that sells their certified fiber channel drives for $2/GB. Try more like $6-$10/GB. Let's also not forget that a single SSD can put out over 10 times as many random 4K IOPS than even the fastest fiber channel drives. So, if it comes down to $/IOPS (and don't forget space/power/cooling), SSDs are already blowing fiber channel out of the water. It depends on your application requirements, but I can see a lot of instances in which a couple of shelves of SSDs could come in really handy for some of a SANs workload.
Slashdot Mirror
...and then they remembered they're virtualizing all their servers, like everyone else at this point, and just logged into the [vmware|xen|kvm] console
I thought it would be clear from my response that there is more to right and wrong than RFCs.
I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous the concept of a company attempting a hostile takeover another company worth 75% of their market cap actually is. It's laughable.
No such option in IE8. Interesting how convenient they make it, isn't it? I mean, it's not like they make money off the search page or anything.
Ah helpful, of course, that explains the paid advertisements. Gee, thanks Microsoft. Maybe they could send me some spam when I mistype an e-mail address too!
"Microsoft is not shamelessly plugging Bing. It's a feature. "
hahhahahahahaha I think we've officially found Steve Ballmer's slashdot nick.
So we have to violate RFCs for something to be abhorrent, disgusting and reprehensible now?
Sure, no problem. Once again Microsoft abuses it's monopoly to drive traffic towards their search engine.
Are you familiar with the Sherman Act?
But then Microsoft would own google so .....
Let's assume Microsoft acquires google in a stock deal totalling the value of Google using the above numbers. That means that Google would now hold a 68% share in Microsoft. Think about that for a minute.
I build myself these little 4 port ethernet taps. All you need is a couple things from your local electrical supply shop and about 5 free minutes. http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/submitted/passive_ethernet_tap.html
Who's shouting? Look it's also illegal to rob banks but as long as you don't get caught, you're in the clear.
You call it smart business I call it anti-competitive (and the EU agrees).
3rd party tools like this I assume
Google is not HIPAA certified, period. ePHI is required by HIPAA to be encrypted both in transit and at rest (on disk). So unless you're encrypting your Google Docs somehow, you're violating the rule.
"A third party like your ISP? Your telephone company? The USPS? FedEx? "
That's what encryption is for, and until Google can encrypt my data at rest, they are not HIPAA compliant. Fax and telephone are specifically addressed by HIPAA -- fax is basically just given a free pass (ridiculous, I agree) and verbally relaying ePHI via the telephone requires a written consent form from the patient.
Especially a 3rd party that makes no guarantees as to their compliance with any regulatory requirements (eg HIPAA).
HIPAA requires ePHI to be protected both in transit and at rest (on disk). Google will tell you flat out that your data is not sufficiently protected (eg encrypted) at rest to qualify as being HIPAA compliant. Obviously you can use SSL during transit but that doesn't solve the whole equation. Google apps, flat out, are not HIPAA compliant, and google will be the first to tell you that.
You have classified and unclassified networks. Classified networks don't touch the Internet, ever, in any way.
"Read the GPL itself; it is very instructive. Nowhere does it require that the developer/distributor make any sorts of guarantees to the buyer/end user about how easy it will be for the end user to redistribute a re-compilation beyond the requirement that the source be provided in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.""
No one is saying it does, the original author is talking about the spirit of the GPL. Not the letter of the "law" as it were.
You need to RTFA a little better.
"Lance vanished from the project some time in 2008. Everybody needs time off from projects from time to time, so there was no real need to worry about that. What there was to worry about is the following: Lance is the only one, who can make active changes to the centos.org domain, as he âoeowns itâ. Nobody else in the team is able to add nameservers, for instance. Recently he put an anonymizing service on the domain, so that nobody from the outside can see who that domain belongs to. "
My contribution is to point out we don't have any long term data on the reliability of SSDs as opposed to saying things like "As Far As I Know" when you know absolutely nothing.
The last quote I got from EMC for 400GB 15K FC drives was $4,000 PER DRIVE. Let me repeat that, four thousand dollars per drive. EMC wanted $1,000 for a 146GB 15K FC drive. This is their "certified" drives that they've "tested and validated"
/me makes jerking-off motion
Here's an HP 146GB 15K FC drive for over $1,000.
Are you sure you don't have your prices mixed up?
I'm sorry I dont maybe I wasn't clear enough. I totally agree it isn't for every workload, I think it works in a lot of instances, particularly if you're tiering your storage and have very very high read:write ratios. Another example that I'm seeing a lot of is database indexes on SSDs. I think as SSD prices come down and performance goes up, you'll continue to see them make inroads.
Please show me a SAN vendor that sells their certified fiber channel drives for $2/GB. Try more like $6-$10/GB. Let's also not forget that a single SSD can put out over 10 times as many random 4K IOPS than even the fastest fiber channel drives. So, if it comes down to $/IOPS (and don't forget space/power/cooling), SSDs are already blowing fiber channel out of the water. It depends on your application requirements, but I can see a lot of instances in which a couple of shelves of SSDs could come in really handy for some of a SANs workload.