No, even if you don't believe things the city buys for itself somehow don't belong to the city, but to the workers who are tasked to use them, Childs was one admin among many. He's not being "railroaded", but he dug his own grave. It will only affect you if you take similar illegal actions.
From a quick google search: "He [Childs] has already served four years in Kansas prison on aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary charges..."
Actually I have worked for such a boss, and dealt with the situation professionally. I warned him of the action he wanted to take, he wanted to anyway, and so I went to his boss, who wasn't a "dangerous flaming asshole". Problem solved.
Lucky you didn't work in my IT department. I would have fired you on day one.
As an employee it's your responsibility to alert/inform your supervisor of the risks of his/her requests/demands. That's commendable, but it's your duty to accept what you feel might be a bad decision, and to follow orders.
No, it was NEVER "his" network, even if he paid taxes. It continues to belong to the City/County of San Francisco, where I MYSELF pay taxes. Terry Childs was NOT a resident of San Francisco (his home is in the East Bay). Even though I am an SF taxpayer -- I don't claim ownership of city property.
I can't believe how you people defend this guy--it's ridiculous. The man has a history of VIOLENT criminal activity (not that that has bearing on his recent criminal activity), he should never have been TRUSTED with this position.
I am an IT professional (not a hacker with an IT job) who is fed up with the Mordachs and the IT Nazis that seem to be so pervasive amongst my colleagues. Childs had a dispute with his bosses (competent or not) and his reaction was to hold the city hostage. HE BELONGS IN JAIL.
Uh, that's why I wrote "support" in quotes -- the sites are effectively BLOCKING linux by not simply passing through their streams. They're trying to use some fancy auto-selection, which never works well on the "supported" platforms anyway. My linux box is well-configured to show just about any stream they could throw at me--if I could get at it. Instead I have to do some light hacking if I want to view it at all. (Starting with the user-agent string...)
I still don't know why web sites "support" video on specific browser/OS combinations -- why not just show us the format options and leave it up to us to deal with it?
You suckers in Europe are expecting regular people to subsidize your mobile phones. To call a mobile phone in Europe you have to pay exorbitant rates, just to subsidize the mobile phone carriers.
To people in the US a system like the one in Europe would be totally ridiculous...
In this sense, Open Source is actually rather close to communism, in the sense that a GPL tool is free for all to use, share and modify.
Not at all -- the GPL has never meant "free" in a monetary sense. You may have to pay for the software, but you will be able to modify it yourself, disseminate your modifications, etc.
Ok, I get it, but I am assuming your "50" is a guess. Even if it is exactly correct for one chip, I assume it is likely that simultaneous access to multiple chips would still be feasible without n×50 total lines. For example, I would assume it would be acceptable to tie together all +5V lines, GRND, etc. Taken to the other extreme, one would inherently need only n×w + 50 - w lines, where w is the data bus width. Given n = 3, w = 8, total lines is only 66...
Of course there are probably additional lines beyond the data bus that can't be shared, but in reality the number is certainly somewhere in between w and "50"...
But aren't we addressing multiple flash chips in parallel? What about local DRAM caching? Mechanical drives have this, as well as multiple platters/heads...
2- just make your new device emulate the old device, with maybe a few optional extensions to current standards and work with the entire existing eco-system
Right, so I guess my original question is, is this (bridging) solution holding us back in some way (in terms of performance)?
Thanks for the information and insight, but I wonder, why wouldn't we want a (maybe not "absurdly") wide address bus? A 16-bit wide bus seems a bit underscaled, considering core memory buses are 128 bit, and with block addressing we're obviously reading/writing much more than that. The core memory bus is already 16 times bigger than the smallest addressable unit. Granted, with say a 512-byte block, I'm not suggesting a 64k bit wide bus (16 * 512 * 8), but it would seem that 16 bit is simply not a good choice...
Am I the only one questioning why these devices are implemented using a mechanical drive interface? Maybe it's a negligible cost, but to me it would seem that a memory bus optimized for flash memory would be a better way to go, than trying to piggy-back a mechanical drive's bus. How much faster could these be if their existence was planned into, say Intel's chipsets?
Slashdot Mirror
No, even if you don't believe things the city buys for itself somehow don't belong to the city, but to the workers who are tasked to use them, Childs was one admin among many. He's not being "railroaded", but he dug his own grave. It will only affect you if you take similar illegal actions.
From a quick google search: "He [Childs] has already served four years in Kansas prison on aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary charges..."
Actually I have worked for such a boss, and dealt with the situation professionally. I warned him of the action he wanted to take, he wanted to anyway, and so I went to his boss, who wasn't a "dangerous flaming asshole". Problem solved.
Lucky you didn't work in my IT department. I would have fired you on day one.
As an employee it's your responsibility to alert/inform your supervisor of the risks of his/her requests/demands. That's commendable, but it's your duty to accept what you feel might be a bad decision, and to follow orders.
No, it was NEVER "his" network, even if he paid taxes. It continues to belong to the City/County of San Francisco, where I MYSELF pay taxes. Terry Childs was NOT a resident of San Francisco (his home is in the East Bay). Even though I am an SF taxpayer -- I don't claim ownership of city property.
I can't believe how you people defend this guy--it's ridiculous. The man has a history of VIOLENT criminal activity (not that that has bearing on his recent criminal activity), he should never have been TRUSTED with this position.
I am an IT professional (not a hacker with an IT job) who is fed up with the Mordachs and the IT Nazis that seem to be so pervasive amongst my colleagues. Childs had a dispute with his bosses (competent or not) and his reaction was to hold the city hostage. HE BELONGS IN JAIL.
I prefer splatter porn...
C234567
Well, it does indeed refrain from BSOD'ing my XP Pro... It does however lock up the USB subsystem whenever my iPhone is *NOT* plugged in!
Uh, that's why I wrote "support" in quotes -- the sites are effectively BLOCKING linux by not simply passing through their streams. They're trying to use some fancy auto-selection, which never works well on the "supported" platforms anyway. My linux box is well-configured to show just about any stream they could throw at me--if I could get at it. Instead I have to do some light hacking if I want to view it at all. (Starting with the user-agent string...)
I still don't know why web sites "support" video on specific browser/OS combinations -- why not just show us the format options and leave it up to us to deal with it?
What are you crazy? This is first response to pointy-haired bosses' "Yeah, we're gonna need you to come in on Sunday..."
While their video sales business is DOA, this is what they're up to: http://www.bittorrent.com/devices/
Yeah, and consider it has a certain stability problem at higher speeds -- it is the "WOB-L1"...
Ignorance is bliss, apparently.
You suckers in Europe are expecting regular people to subsidize your mobile phones. To call a mobile phone in Europe you have to pay exorbitant rates, just to subsidize the mobile phone carriers.
To people in the US a system like the one in Europe would be totally ridiculous...
Maybe you're in the wrong lane...
This is what I really hate about these stories--I am now obligated to go and read this crap!
This is simply the case of the developers arguing themselves into a hole, and deciding to dig deeper.
I really hope the forkers (and I write that lovingly) go through with it, and are as successful as others have been... Anyone remember XFree86?
Ok, I get it, but I am assuming your "50" is a guess. Even if it is exactly correct for one chip, I assume it is likely that simultaneous access to multiple chips would still be feasible without n×50 total lines. For example, I would assume it would be acceptable to tie together all +5V lines, GRND, etc. Taken to the other extreme, one would inherently need only n×w + 50 - w lines, where w is the data bus width. Given n = 3, w = 8, total lines is only 66...
Of course there are probably additional lines beyond the data bus that can't be shared, but in reality the number is certainly somewhere in between w and "50"...
WILL THE PUNDITS OF THE WORLD PLEASE STOP EQUATING "OPEN SOURCE" WITH "COMMUNISM"!!!
(and yes, I am intentionally shouting--I don't even own a "caps lock" key, <adding some filler here to get past the lameness filter...>)
But aren't we addressing multiple flash chips in parallel? What about local DRAM caching? Mechanical drives have this, as well as multiple platters/heads...
2- just make your new device emulate the old device, with maybe a few optional extensions to current standards and work with the entire existing eco-system
Right, so I guess my original question is, is this (bridging) solution holding us back in some way (in terms of performance)?
Well, not for addressability, but for parallelism...
Thanks for the information and insight, but I wonder, why wouldn't we want a (maybe not "absurdly") wide address bus? A 16-bit wide bus seems a bit underscaled, considering core memory buses are 128 bit, and with block addressing we're obviously reading/writing much more than that. The core memory bus is already 16 times bigger than the smallest addressable unit. Granted, with say a 512-byte block, I'm not suggesting a 64k bit wide bus (16 * 512 * 8), but it would seem that 16 bit is simply not a good choice...
Am I the only one questioning why these devices are implemented using a mechanical drive interface? Maybe it's a negligible cost, but to me it would seem that a memory bus optimized for flash memory would be a better way to go, than trying to piggy-back a mechanical drive's bus. How much faster could these be if their existence was planned into, say Intel's chipsets?