What if you are out camping, and someone leave you a really really long and whiny voice mail, Have you ever wanted to just read it in text?
What if the only unlimited call plan available to you cost more then you can afford? Don't you want it to forward to other phone like land line / office phone?
What if you don't want to answer every call? Never ever wanted having the ability to just delete unwanted robo call if they don't pass a simple test?
What if you are waiting for a really important call and you want no interruption except that call?
Etc etc. Show me a cell phone that can do all those without extra cost and I would agree.
The issue is that the default configuration waits 5 minutes for the full request, which is painfully to long a period of time. Drop that from 300 to 5, and the "attack" goes away. If you are running the default Apache config in production, you shouldn't be.
1) A good potion of the computing power for folding@home, are from PS3, which, according to study, are one of the most efficient CPU design along the top500.
2) Computer or Console that are running Folding@home are usually power on anyway. While increasing it's CPU utilization, the actual increased electricity use are likely lower then, say, a dedicated server just for folding.
3) It is very spread out, instead of everything running in a data center, everyone runs one at their home. Think of this as some kinda "heatsink" so less power are used to keep this system cool down, compare to, say, concentrated computing power in the same location.
4) It operate on many electricity grids. When it is ran across the global, it put less strain on forcing certain power plant to runs at higher capacity. I don't know if this make it more or less power efficient, but it would put less strain on individual power grid.
5) It give everyone a chance to contribute. They have a common enemies that killed many of their relative. They fight together, by themselve or in team. They keep people motivated on something. That count for something, right?
All fantasy, as long as no one are effected by your any of your action negatively(*). You shouldn't be discrimatized due to the type of fantasy you have. After all, it is just fantasy. It isn't real, it hurt nobody. You know, the whole point of having a fantasy instead of materializing it in real life?
After all, people don't get to pick what they grow to like. Life pick it for you.
* I'm aware that the definition of "Negative" is a whole other can of worm.
Why is this a problem anyway? You refuse to view part of their website, they should be allowed to refuse the rest of it to you. Just stop using adblock and problem resolved.
Not saying that is their original intention, but if it is, I wouldn't have any problem any site looking like crap due to me having something that block part of their site. I can always turn it off and view the site as it was intended, or use another site.
One thing I have to agree, my primary reason for blocking ad, is to decrease loading time.
Chrome appear similar, if not faster with ads then firefox without ads. Unless you just can't stands those particular flashy one (for me, I will just stop visiting the site if they don't get their habit right), I don't see why you would care. Most ads are not difficult to ignore.
Beside, it is nice to get the right repersenation of the site as it was originally intended. Yes, I considers the Ads part of the site design.
So let's get rid of insurance companies and start insuring everyone?
I know I know that is like a whole other can of worm, but while this (slashdot) is a US based website, personal genome project is a world wide project, and large majority of the world doesn't have insurance or preconsidition problem.
Why keep pointing this issue out when it fairly localized? I am a canadian, and I will be fairly happy if they know more about how to treat me.
Poor Analogy, actually. Google, in this case, is not at all like a booking agency, they are more like an international airline that serves every countries in the world. After all, they don't just book, they bring people where they want.
One of it's division should be bigger then a single hotel.
I think the underlying reason is that Google forces the newspapers outlet to compete, good for consumer, but not necessary for the people where payroll depends on the result of said competition.
I am a Chinese, I can read Chinese fluently. Not to say this is necessary fake, or any attempt to defend the Chinese Government. What I want to point out is that these document merely have names and born year, not picture attached to them, nor any actual serial numbers directly associated with the person in any way.
There are a lot of people who share the same name in Chinese, probably hundreds and thousands over the country. Before we call this evident, don't be too hasty to jump onto someone without something more solid.
By the way, the document is for country wide athele registration on 2006. Not limited to olympic.
That analogy make no god damn sense at all BadAnalo...gy...guy. Ok. Nevermind. Just nevermind.
Why the hell is this not modded "Funny" instead? What do I pay you modder for?
I'm a Chinese. I actually have relative live in china at that time who were heavily effected by the Massacre, I remember staying up 3 days straight watching the new hoping the sitution would improve. It did not, phone call were recieved that leave our family sob for months.
And you know what? Today, I ask myself which one I prefer. If I'm still in China, would I rather shows my child a website where the seach of that event simply returns no result, or would I want some prove that government still leave much work to be done, by pointing at the note in a google search page that shows me they are forced to censor something.
Which way to better let my child about the importances of freedom and the price we paid just to get make progress.
I fails to find any alternative to shows easily show prove, and easily be aware of what we are being hidden from.
It is more like saying. "Ok, someone need to sign us to get the agreement to broadcast our hugely populor show. Now... should we sign it with (insert your big broadcasting company name here) or should we give it to one of those guys on the internet...?"*
You are right if there are no new media else where, people won't move else where. But you are wrong in assuming that small player have as much power to shows producure comparing to the like of ABC/Fox/CNN etc. If I have a popular show, and I have to give it to someone, who am I going to give it to? Remember, more often then not, you can only pick one.
Until there are a big player of internet video, there are just no way internet TV will be able to compete with traditional TV, even if technologically speaking, it have the potiential to be better.
If all we want is a video clip to download. I fully agree
But the big picture is, eventually, internet will replace tradition TV, do you think a bunch of tiny players in the market can fight the Tradition TV station better, or a few bigger player?
It is debatable, but I have a feeling this will make it worst for us in the long run.
It is not good business sense that they will find it hard to earn money, but it is good business sense that they will holds onto their customers with more service.
It is not always good for consumer that there are more competition, but personally, I believe video is one of the thing that need a major player to fight the traditional broadcast company. More compeition in this field on the internet is only going to make the switch from TV broadcast to internet TV much more difficult in the long run.
I do not agree with me being head injury patient. However, I don't plan on insulting one neither. =P
Your point is well taken, but I'm talking about their motivation. Perhaps it was not fair to say they are doing this to overcrowd the market, since everyone is sdoing the same thing. MSN/Google/Yahoo are all trying to get into each other business as much as possible. And I do agree their interface is a lot better then when Google video first came out (Can anyone agree with me? Google video have the worst start of any of their products, by far?) but I disgree that they need to gathers all the customes.
I use google for search, map, and video, Yahoo for e-mail, group, and occassion games. I don't see the need of any of them need to do every of those thing, nor do I think a customer should do everyone on one of them and none on the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I have so far missed two flights this year and both time, they sent my baggage without me.
You say that like they actually need real, legitimate voter.
What if you are out camping, and someone leave you a really really long and whiny voice mail, Have you ever wanted to just read it in text? What if the only unlimited call plan available to you cost more then you can afford? Don't you want it to forward to other phone like land line / office phone? What if you don't want to answer every call? Never ever wanted having the ability to just delete unwanted robo call if they don't pass a simple test? What if you are waiting for a really important call and you want no interruption except that call? Etc etc. Show me a cell phone that can do all those without extra cost and I would agree.
I always thought proof is the same as evident.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#timeout
The issue is that the default configuration waits 5 minutes for the full request, which is painfully to long a period of time. Drop that from 300 to 5, and the "attack" goes away. If you are running the default Apache config in production, you shouldn't be.
seem like a potential fix, can anyone confirm?
Keep a few things in mind:
1) A good potion of the computing power for folding@home, are from PS3, which, according to study, are one of the most efficient CPU design along the top500.
2) Computer or Console that are running Folding@home are usually power on anyway. While increasing it's CPU utilization, the actual increased electricity use are likely lower then, say, a dedicated server just for folding.
3) It is very spread out, instead of everything running in a data center, everyone runs one at their home. Think of this as some kinda "heatsink" so less power are used to keep this system cool down, compare to, say, concentrated computing power in the same location.
4) It operate on many electricity grids. When it is ran across the global, it put less strain on forcing certain power plant to runs at higher capacity. I don't know if this make it more or less power efficient, but it would put less strain on individual power grid.
5) It give everyone a chance to contribute. They have a common enemies that killed many of their relative. They fight together, by themselve or in team. They keep people motivated on something. That count for something, right?
I always thought it stands for Dull Remade Movie
Screw that anonymous coward thing:
All fantasy, as long as no one are effected by your any of your action negatively(*). You shouldn't be discrimatized due to the type of fantasy you have. After all, it is just fantasy. It isn't real, it hurt nobody. You know, the whole point of having a fantasy instead of materializing it in real life?
After all, people don't get to pick what they grow to like. Life pick it for you.
* I'm aware that the definition of "Negative" is a whole other can of worm.
Why is this a problem anyway? You refuse to view part of their website, they should be allowed to refuse the rest of it to you. Just stop using adblock and problem resolved.
Not saying that is their original intention, but if it is, I wouldn't have any problem any site looking like crap due to me having something that block part of their site. I can always turn it off and view the site as it was intended, or use another site.
Why not go ahead and do a demonstration?
One thing I have to agree, my primary reason for blocking ad, is to decrease loading time.
Chrome appear similar, if not faster with ads then firefox without ads. Unless you just can't stands those particular flashy one (for me, I will just stop visiting the site if they don't get their habit right), I don't see why you would care. Most ads are not difficult to ignore.
Beside, it is nice to get the right repersenation of the site as it was originally intended. Yes, I considers the Ads part of the site design.
So let's get rid of insurance companies and start insuring everyone? I know I know that is like a whole other can of worm, but while this (slashdot) is a US based website, personal genome project is a world wide project, and large majority of the world doesn't have insurance or preconsidition problem. Why keep pointing this issue out when it fairly localized? I am a canadian, and I will be fairly happy if they know more about how to treat me.
no I read it as tomato for a moment too...
You don't need to meet regulation safety if you are not selling them, just for your own use, and you worked it out with your insurance company.
Poor Analogy, actually. Google, in this case, is not at all like a booking agency, they are more like an international airline that serves every countries in the world. After all, they don't just book, they bring people where they want. One of it's division should be bigger then a single hotel. I think the underlying reason is that Google forces the newspapers outlet to compete, good for consumer, but not necessary for the people where payroll depends on the result of said competition.
I think you are grossly underestimating the power of legacy and the importances of ease of entry.
I am a Chinese, I can read Chinese fluently. Not to say this is necessary fake, or any attempt to defend the Chinese Government. What I want to point out is that these document merely have names and born year, not picture attached to them, nor any actual serial numbers directly associated with the person in any way.
There are a lot of people who share the same name in Chinese, probably hundreds and thousands over the country. Before we call this evident, don't be too hasty to jump onto someone without something more solid.
By the way, the document is for country wide athele registration on 2006. Not limited to olympic.
According to their track record, Google scaled reasonably well.
That analogy make no god damn sense at all BadAnalo...gy...guy. Ok. Nevermind. Just nevermind. Why the hell is this not modded "Funny" instead? What do I pay you modder for?
I actually laughed at this, despite never watched an espidon of buffy.
I'm a Chinese. I actually have relative live in china at that time who were heavily effected by the Massacre, I remember staying up 3 days straight watching the new hoping the sitution would improve. It did not, phone call were recieved that leave our family sob for months.
And you know what? Today, I ask myself which one I prefer. If I'm still in China, would I rather shows my child a website where the seach of that event simply returns no result, or would I want some prove that government still leave much work to be done, by pointing at the note in a google search page that shows me they are forced to censor something.
Which way to better let my child about the importances of freedom and the price we paid just to get make progress.
I fails to find any alternative to shows easily show prove, and easily be aware of what we are being hidden from.
I choose google.
Not entirely true.
It is more like saying. "Ok, someone need to sign us to get the agreement to broadcast our hugely populor show. Now... should we sign it with (insert your big broadcasting company name here) or should we give it to one of those guys on the internet...?"*
You are right if there are no new media else where, people won't move else where. But you are wrong in assuming that small player have as much power to shows producure comparing to the like of ABC/Fox/CNN etc. If I have a popular show, and I have to give it to someone, who am I going to give it to? Remember, more often then not, you can only pick one.
Until there are a big player of internet video, there are just no way internet TV will be able to compete with traditional TV, even if technologically speaking, it have the potiential to be better.
If all we want is a video clip to download. I fully agree
But the big picture is, eventually, internet will replace tradition TV, do you think a bunch of tiny players in the market can fight the Tradition TV station better, or a few bigger player?
It is debatable, but I have a feeling this will make it worst for us in the long run.
I do partly agree with you. Actually.
It is not good business sense that they will find it hard to earn money, but it is good business sense that they will holds onto their customers with more service.
It is not always good for consumer that there are more competition, but personally, I believe video is one of the thing that need a major player to fight the traditional broadcast company. More compeition in this field on the internet is only going to make the switch from TV broadcast to internet TV much more difficult in the long run.
I do not agree with me being head injury patient. However, I don't plan on insulting one neither. =P
Your point is well taken, but I'm talking about their motivation. Perhaps it was not fair to say they are doing this to overcrowd the market, since everyone is sdoing the same thing. MSN/Google/Yahoo are all trying to get into each other business as much as possible. And I do agree their interface is a lot better then when Google video first came out (Can anyone agree with me? Google video have the worst start of any of their products, by far?) but I disgree that they need to gathers all the customes.
I use google for search, map, and video, Yahoo for e-mail, group, and occassion games. I don't see the need of any of them need to do every of those thing, nor do I think a customer should do everyone on one of them and none on the other.