It's called "voting with your custom" and it's much more fair tha flashblock. Their price for the article was the obnoxious ad. GP didn't want to pay that price, and is stating he wouldn't have read the article if he knew what the price was.
If you go to a store and you don't like the price for something, you don't just walk out with it and leave what you wanted to pay unilaterally, do you?
$40 per gigabyte is more than enough to cover the lifetime cost of that data. The disk space itself is at around $0.10 per gigabyte, leaving the remaining $39.90 to cover the ongoing cost and associated capital expenditures.
Invested in 10 year treasuries at the current rate, the growth would amount to $0.40 per month, enough to add four times the original storage every month. The future cost of services is priced-in to the current price. His company thinks that that amounts to roughly $40 per gig up-front.
I would kind of like to start charging our departments something for network space. It goes unchecked at the moment. I have 16 out of 500 users that use 1/2 of our home folder storage.
If the cost is more in the staffing than the disks, why not just add more storage to accommodate those users? Presumably they need that storage for some function that the company needs done. If they're just storing their porn collection on the company's redundant, secure, backed-up servers, then maybe you have more serious things to think about than how much space they're using. Like, maybe the company doesn't really require their services all that much anyway.
It's your job as IT to find out why they need that much space, and make sure it's provisioned for, possibly making suggestions where different architectures might serve their needs better. You job isn't to shame people into conserving disk space for disk space's sake.
The grid is great. Losses are no more than about 7%.
Under a situation where most of your power production is within 100 mi of where it's going to be used, and far-off power is only used for dealing with peaks.
Wholesale transport of power across great distances is going to require a lot more infrastructure than the current grid has, or you're going to need to be able to deal with crippling losses through incredibly cheap production.
Yeah, Our current policy (Carrrterrrrrrrrrrrr!) is like buying a value meal at a fast food place, eating one fry, calling the rest "waste" and complaining about how expensive it is.
To hard at normal wavelengths. The article is about how it's easier just to paint it pink and use a somebody else's problem field, and true to form, it turns out that all you really need is to paint it pink and you get the SEP for free!
In politics, it's pretty clear that if your opponent won't come to the debate, you've gotta have the debate anyway. And you've got to advertise the hell out of it even more. Fill the room with people and they still don't show up, you win by default. Win enough like that and you'll force them to come to the next one.
Cutting congestion is the single best thing you can do to cut pollution, though, at the moment. And will continue to be for however long "green" cars cost over forty-f*king thousand dollars.
Even without the "high occupancy" bit increasing the passenger miles per gallon, simply eliminating stopping (and its consequent acceleration for those who need to finish their commute at a specific destination) improves fleet mpg dramatically.
It is a mistake to allow low-passenger vehicles into HOV lanes as a reward for being rich enough to buy the secret pass (a forty-thousand dollar steel ticket...). You'll lose all the benefit of those expensive "green" cars in the extra congestion caused by lowering the fleet passenger per vehicle density.
3D "video" is a legitimate artistic medium similar to and basically superset of 2D video, just as color video is a superset of black-and-white video, with its inherent tradeoffs. When we get past the 3D spectacles of unnecessary eye-pokery, there will be a rich medium for enhancing the experience of many kinds of films. Just as color films eventually surpassed black-and-white after it got over its own silly spectacle period (see: "The Wizard of Oz" for a seminal example...)
Please have patience with the medium as it goes through its "me, too" phase. The people underwriting films don't understand subtlety in art, they barely understand finance, and they're certainly not subtle there, either. When filmmakers realize the public is only moderately interested in gimmicks, they'll start putting them on the back burner, and use 3D for the same thing all other filmmaking techniques are used: to enhance the story.
And it'll be awesome. Please be more awesome. The future can be a wondrous place.
They all had the same idea: why travel to the past and examine an event or two, when you could go into the future where other time-travelers have already examined all the interesting events and published them in a convenient encyclopedia of everything historical? Plus, they've solved aging. And all the chicks are hot!
But the article pretty clearly demonstrates that it already is safer than the old-fashioned hub: with the old fashioned hub, every computer can hear every other computer, and nobody encrypts anything at all by default. Even with the new exploit, there are some parts of the communication that still aren't compromised by a malicious peer, which is something that wired "hub" networks really can't claim. (switched networks OTOH, if you've got enough switches...)
Also, with VPN, once someone is connected to the VPN, they're another peer, just like a wired peer. I fail to see how you get any benefit to your proposed solution to the problem.
I don't know if you're aware of this (perhaps you've only just recently gotten an internet connection, and had no friends over the previous decade), but Netflix's business model is to send polycarbonate disks by mail. They also have a download service for the impatient, but their primary business is still stocking a massively broad library of media and mailing it to people a disk at a time.
They don't kill the disks, though. It turns out it's cheaper (due to the licensing, I assume) to send return envelopes with them
The question you've got to ask yourself, then, is why the biggest supporters of communism and communist ideals seem to the the ones who have the most to lose if it were ever implemented earnestly. People with massive fortunes. Like George Soros, Warren buffet, etc.
Four of the five wealthiest members of congress voted for the health care redistribution bill.
Racist or not (and frankly, the charge is becoming tiresome), I'd at least expect republicans to be partisan.
Run this poll during the Bush administration and I'd be similarly surprised if at any point during the bush administration (even right after 9/11 when everyone was "patriotic") the number of democrats who thought Bush should be voted out of office dipped below 70%, let alone 30%.
60 years is ok, so long as the EROI is good. Power stations aren't something you're just going to get sick of in 60 years and want to get rid of. Also, for a prototype plant, I'd expect there to be a lot of waste of both manpower and horsepower in building the thing that would get trimmed over time if it was at all profitable to do.
Oh, that's too bad. When I did my back-of-envelope calculations I'd assumed they were using enough salt for a full-day buffer, and more importantly, that 5MW was the average.
At 5MW average, they'd be pulling about 50% efficiency. Certainly theoretically possible at 1000+ degrees on the hot side, but quite respectable enough, depending on what the costs to build the thing are.
But 22% of 50% is not impressive at all. Not unless land is freaky cheap.
That is why we have government, to protect the weak from the tyranny of the strong.
Hah, no. That is why we need government, but that is not why we have it. We have government to protect the few from the many. Specifically the powerful few, who would like to stay that way.
They play these class warfare games to distract you. "Regulating" this and that (notice it never seems to hurt the banks, though, when they do so....). They're never going to go after the thing that could really affect the wealth gap: boards of directors who choose from a too-small talent pool, thus artificially raising the price of top officers, and other similar scams and financial games.
CEOs are chosen by the board of directors. Which are often composed of CEOs and other high-ranking officers of other companies.
Do you see the problem here? CEO compensation is so high because the pool of talent is being artificially limited. You really think you couldn't get enough quality applicants by offering less than 400x the typical employee's salary at your company?
Interestingly, apparently graphic designer's compensation is also too high, and the current crop are trying to artificially limit the poll of talent to keep it that way....
Ahh, but then the UK government is on the hook for the results of his crimes, which changes the nature of them from "Trespassing - With a Computer" (see, it's patentable...) to "international spying on a friendly nation"
Which would tend to sour relations a little. But, it's kind of too late for that, as it's too late for secret concessions to be negotiated and keep the whole thing under the rug.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called "voting with your custom" and it's much more fair tha flashblock. Their price for the article was the obnoxious ad. GP didn't want to pay that price, and is stating he wouldn't have read the article if he knew what the price was.
If you go to a store and you don't like the price for something, you don't just walk out with it and leave what you wanted to pay unilaterally, do you?
$40 per gigabyte is more than enough to cover the lifetime cost of that data. The disk space itself is at around $0.10 per gigabyte, leaving the remaining $39.90 to cover the ongoing cost and associated capital expenditures.
Invested in 10 year treasuries at the current rate, the growth would amount to $0.40 per month, enough to add four times the original storage every month. The future cost of services is priced-in to the current price. His company thinks that that amounts to roughly $40 per gig up-front.
I would kind of like to start charging our departments something for network space. It goes unchecked at the moment. I have 16 out of 500 users that use 1/2 of our home folder storage.
If the cost is more in the staffing than the disks, why not just add more storage to accommodate those users? Presumably they need that storage for some function that the company needs done. If they're just storing their porn collection on the company's redundant, secure, backed-up servers, then maybe you have more serious things to think about than how much space they're using. Like, maybe the company doesn't really require their services all that much anyway.
It's your job as IT to find out why they need that much space, and make sure it's provisioned for, possibly making suggestions where different architectures might serve their needs better. You job isn't to shame people into conserving disk space for disk space's sake.
The grid is great. Losses are no more than about 7%.
Under a situation where most of your power production is within 100 mi of where it's going to be used, and far-off power is only used for dealing with peaks.
Wholesale transport of power across great distances is going to require a lot more infrastructure than the current grid has, or you're going to need to be able to deal with crippling losses through incredibly cheap production.
Yeah, Our current policy (Carrrterrrrrrrrrrrr!) is like buying a value meal at a fast food place, eating one fry, calling the rest "waste" and complaining about how expensive it is.
To hard at normal wavelengths. The article is about how it's easier just to paint it pink and use a somebody else's problem field, and true to form, it turns out that all you really need is to paint it pink and you get the SEP for free!
In politics, it's pretty clear that if your opponent won't come to the debate, you've gotta have the debate anyway. And you've got to advertise the hell out of it even more. Fill the room with people and they still don't show up, you win by default. Win enough like that and you'll force them to come to the next one.
Cutting congestion is the single best thing you can do to cut pollution, though, at the moment. And will continue to be for however long "green" cars cost over forty-f*king thousand dollars.
Even without the "high occupancy" bit increasing the passenger miles per gallon, simply eliminating stopping (and its consequent acceleration for those who need to finish their commute at a specific destination) improves fleet mpg dramatically.
It is a mistake to allow low-passenger vehicles into HOV lanes as a reward for being rich enough to buy the secret pass (a forty-thousand dollar steel ticket...). You'll lose all the benefit of those expensive "green" cars in the extra congestion caused by lowering the fleet passenger per vehicle density.
Dear boring luddite:
3D "video" is a legitimate artistic medium similar to and basically superset of 2D video, just as color video is a superset of black-and-white video, with its inherent tradeoffs. When we get past the 3D spectacles of unnecessary eye-pokery, there will be a rich medium for enhancing the experience of many kinds of films. Just as color films eventually surpassed black-and-white after it got over its own silly spectacle period (see: "The Wizard of Oz" for a seminal example...)
Please have patience with the medium as it goes through its "me, too" phase. The people underwriting films don't understand subtlety in art, they barely understand finance, and they're certainly not subtle there, either. When filmmakers realize the public is only moderately interested in gimmicks, they'll start putting them on the back burner, and use 3D for the same thing all other filmmaking techniques are used: to enhance the story.
And it'll be awesome. Please be more awesome. The future can be a wondrous place.
Within your own life, but other people's bodies, for some reason...
Where are all the time travelers?
They all had the same idea: why travel to the past and examine an event or two, when you could go into the future where other time-travelers have already examined all the interesting events and published them in a convenient encyclopedia of everything historical? Plus, they've solved aging. And all the chicks are hot!
But the article pretty clearly demonstrates that it already is safer than the old-fashioned hub: with the old fashioned hub, every computer can hear every other computer, and nobody encrypts anything at all by default. Even with the new exploit, there are some parts of the communication that still aren't compromised by a malicious peer, which is something that wired "hub" networks really can't claim. (switched networks OTOH, if you've got enough switches...)
Also, with VPN, once someone is connected to the VPN, they're another peer, just like a wired peer. I fail to see how you get any benefit to your proposed solution to the problem.
If the power fails, the state isn't "zero." It's indeterminate. Therefore his next project is actually called, 'Maybe'
So.. its the same as the wired ethernet, then? Except that instead of just plugging in a wire and sniffing away, it takes a small amount of effort?
I guess "WiFi is slightly safer than wired networks, when it comes to malicious peers" isn't quite as attention grabbing a headline.
Yeah, but you have to remember to add your key to known_hosts *before* you visit the coffee shop, though.
I don't know if you're aware of this (perhaps you've only just recently gotten an internet connection, and had no friends over the previous decade), but Netflix's business model is to send polycarbonate disks by mail. They also have a download service for the impatient, but their primary business is still stocking a massively broad library of media and mailing it to people a disk at a time.
They don't kill the disks, though. It turns out it's cheaper (due to the licensing, I assume) to send return envelopes with them
The question you've got to ask yourself, then, is why the biggest supporters of communism and communist ideals seem to the the ones who have the most to lose if it were ever implemented earnestly. People with massive fortunes. Like George Soros, Warren buffet, etc.
Four of the five wealthiest members of congress voted for the health care redistribution bill.
Racist or not (and frankly, the charge is becoming tiresome), I'd at least expect republicans to be partisan.
Run this poll during the Bush administration and I'd be similarly surprised if at any point during the bush administration (even right after 9/11 when everyone was "patriotic") the number of democrats who thought Bush should be voted out of office dipped below 70%, let alone 30%.
Obviously, their audience is not engineers, but "feelies."
60 years is ok, so long as the EROI is good. Power stations aren't something you're just going to get sick of in 60 years and want to get rid of. Also, for a prototype plant, I'd expect there to be a lot of waste of both manpower and horsepower in building the thing that would get trimmed over time if it was at all profitable to do.
Oh, that's too bad. When I did my back-of-envelope calculations I'd assumed they were using enough salt for a full-day buffer, and more importantly, that 5MW was the average.
At 5MW average, they'd be pulling about 50% efficiency. Certainly theoretically possible at 1000+ degrees on the hot side, but quite respectable enough, depending on what the costs to build the thing are.
But 22% of 50% is not impressive at all. Not unless land is freaky cheap.
That is why we have government, to protect the weak from the tyranny of the strong.
Hah, no. That is why we need government, but that is not why we have it. We have government to protect the few from the many. Specifically the powerful few, who would like to stay that way.
They play these class warfare games to distract you. "Regulating" this and that (notice it never seems to hurt the banks, though, when they do so....). They're never going to go after the thing that could really affect the wealth gap: boards of directors who choose from a too-small talent pool, thus artificially raising the price of top officers, and other similar scams and financial games.
CEOs are chosen by the board of directors. Which are often composed of CEOs and other high-ranking officers of other companies.
Do you see the problem here? CEO compensation is so high because the pool of talent is being artificially limited. You really think you couldn't get enough quality applicants by offering less than 400x the typical employee's salary at your company?
Interestingly, apparently graphic designer's compensation is also too high, and the current crop are trying to artificially limit the poll of talent to keep it that way....
Ahh, but then the UK government is on the hook for the results of his crimes, which changes the nature of them from "Trespassing - With a Computer" (see, it's patentable...) to "international spying on a friendly nation"
Which would tend to sour relations a little. But, it's kind of too late for that, as it's too late for secret concessions to be negotiated and keep the whole thing under the rug.
It's much harder to tell right from wrong once you're freed from any personal consequences...