That was made so independent planes don't crash in to each other. In theory planes flying in this formation will be working in concert and may have computer/radar control over each other. It's likely a whole new set of rules would need to be drafted for this kind of operation. Honestly it makes the most sense for cargo planes flying over the open ocean to use a system like this. They stand to get the biggest gains, and present the least amount of danger to others that way.
Is it bad when reading this gave me an idea of caching the first $X meg of each file on a NAS in memory or SSD so serving would start quickly while the disk caught up and fed the rest?
Linux has a license (GPL) that states some requirements on what you can and can't do with it, this license is wrote that way so the code will remain free. This is an ideological ideal and not a business ideal, therefore they clash. It protects against companies like Microsoft doing 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Evidently you like the idea of a world where a few patent holders control our computing technology. True freedom is also allowing the biggest, baddest, and meanest to set the law. True freedom is allowing business interests to take chunks of Linux wrap them up in binaries and keep them hidden away from everyone the community that built it. True freedom is a person busting in to a house with a gun, killing everybody, and taking what they want without any worry of law.
The GPL is preventing that corporate psychopath from taking what he wants with his power and instead establishes a level playing field.
It seems odd you want 'Linux' to become Microsoft to beat Microsoft, I don't see how anybody gains anything in the end.
Even if each user had metric shittons of mail, Exchange, or any other mail server should handle 20 users without stressing even a weak server. Start getting hundreds of connections at the same time, that's when you see what a server is made out of.
Might have to call bullshit on you instead. If you are in IT you're not an average person when it comes to computers. Averages are best gathered from millions of purchases that occur over the years. And what the averages are saying is PC sales are flat. New PCs sit around and idle nine hundred and ninety nine million ticks out of a billion. These dream applications you talk about aren't hear yet, and believe me, all the big PC makers want them to exist so they sell more boxes. For now the PC market will shrink as a whole of the technology market (even if it stays the same size) because a computer you buy now can easily last 5+ years. In the mean time they'll be buying tables that they can take and use where they need to, and break them along the way leading to more sales.
PC's are no longer a growth market, non-growth markets don't make they headlines, CEO's don't get big bonuses for non-growth markets, stocks don't make people rich in non-growth markets. Maybe sometime in the future when Magic Technology 2.0 comes out and opens a new horizon in the market then getting a new desktop will be the trendy thing to spend lots of R&D on. Between now and then a lot of development time will be spent on the portable side of computing, analysts will talk non-stop about it, headlines will toll their virtues, etc, etc.
Other then ignoring all the benefits of centralized management of course. Err, and ignoring the insane speeds of SSD arrays coupled with deduplication. Err, and the fact processors aren't getting faster but getting more cores that normally sit idle on a desktop. Err, and ignoring much faster network speeds and inexpensive switches. You're right it's exactly like it was in the past. Which is why VDI and terminal servers are a disappearing market.
Anyone that had a 386 desktop then is likely to have a desktop now. Desktops aren't going away for power users and businesses in any time frame that needs worrying about either.
That said there are a lot of casual users that don't need the power of a desktop and are served well enough by a tablet. I have had a lot of customers replace (by attrition) their desktop machines with 17" laptops and a smaller amount get rid of an old desktop and go with an iPad. What we are starting to see in the market now is a shakeout of people that have a PC but don't really need one.
>All that is happening is that PCs won't be replaced until they die,
This right here is what manufactures are afraid of. Selling a device you make almost no profit on, that lasts a decade, and is reliable is the antithesis of the computer market up till recently. This is why all the big names are looking for a place in the commonly replaced and commonly broken tablet market. Maybe this whole post-PC thing is manufactures trying to scare people away from low profit sectors in to higher profit sectors.
“To all the revolutionaries fighting to throw off the yoke of tyranny around the world: look at British democracy. Is that what you want?”
Andy Zaltzman
“We may indeed in counsel point to the higher road, but we cannot compel any free creature to walk upon it. That leadeth to tyranny, which disfigureth good and maketh it seem hateful.”
J.R.R. Tolkien
“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Making meat consumption illegal is not a likely consequence of making tobacco illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. Once you give the government the ability to ban something because it is harmful for you personally there is less legal resistance to banning anything any other thing that could be bad for ones health. We call this a judicial precedent. For example if I say
The banning of MDMA can be traced back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
the history of the war on drugs can be traced back from our current laws to a point where the laws began.
Can you please explain how banning smoking would increase government efficiency? I am at a loss. I am thinking you have the dangers and costs of smoking far higher then they actually are.
Haha! Now you have to choose whether to continue your filthy, digusting, annoying and unhealthy habit or be unemployed. You fatties are next!
First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker so I did not care. Then they came for the fatties, but I was thin and did not care. Then they came for a the trolls, oh shit, you're fucked.
You're wanting it wrong. Put all the old people on their own health plan, they cost far more then smokers. Your typical smoker just tends to stroke out and die, yes some linger with terrible lung conditions and other ailments, but it's nothing like that other group of people... Yes healthy people, they get old and start suffering from shit that can't be fixed yet costs enormous amounts to treat over decades.
Anyway your entire premise of smokers driving up insurance rates sounds like bullshit, since per capita cigarette use has been dropping since the '80s in the U.S.
It's been proven that eating shit tons of fatty food is bad for you too, but the fact is the government is not actually there to protect you from yourself. Ban liquor and people make stills, ban weed and people grow the plants, ban cigarets and I'm sure people will find a way to get them. If it is not obvious by now it should be, people 'enjoy' doing all kinds of shit that is harmful to themselves.
The vast majority of the systems I setup are using the SIPSTATION module, you just buy as many virtual trunks (how many simultaneous calls you can handle) as you need, and if you need more then one number, you add additional DIDs. I've not messed with many analog to SIP setups with freepbx.
Once a call is in your system you have all kinds of options on what to do with it. You can have an IVR where they choose a number from a menu, 1 for sales, 2 for tech,etc etc. You can forward it based on what number they called in to. Setup time of day rules to forward to other departments or to voicemail or to a cell phone.
I have one touch recording with my pbx system, I'll have to remember to use it the next time one of these loosers calls. Most of the time they are on hacked VOIP, or out of country internet on VOIP so the quality is pretty crappy.
Maybe, but a lot of important information was left out of the question, like what kind of small office it was. If this is a 4 hours a day on the phone kind of business, cell phones would be a bad idea. If two or three people could call the main office at once, cell phones are a bad idea. If people are commonly going to be out of the office, yet need to be reachable, then cell phones are a good idea.
It seems strange that everyone so far in this thread is put off by PBX's. Systems like FreePBX's images are really, really easy and very flexible. As long as you have a decent internet connection the sip service has been great. Tie the voicemail back in to the email, route extensions to cell phones, handle faxes all in one system.
Truth is not an ironclad defense against being arrested and bankrupting yourself trying to prove the truth when the opponent has far more resources then you, anywhere.
That is the danger of these laws, a state where dissent is a dangerous proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
That was made so independent planes don't crash in to each other. In theory planes flying in this formation will be working in concert and may have computer/radar control over each other. It's likely a whole new set of rules would need to be drafted for this kind of operation. Honestly it makes the most sense for cargo planes flying over the open ocean to use a system like this. They stand to get the biggest gains, and present the least amount of danger to others that way.
Is it bad when reading this gave me an idea of caching the first $X meg of each file on a NAS in memory or SSD so serving would start quickly while the disk caught up and fed the rest?
Linux has a license (GPL) that states some requirements on what you can and can't do with it, this license is wrote that way so the code will remain free. This is an ideological ideal and not a business ideal, therefore they clash. It protects against companies like Microsoft doing 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Evidently you like the idea of a world where a few patent holders control our computing technology. True freedom is also allowing the biggest, baddest, and meanest to set the law. True freedom is allowing business interests to take chunks of Linux wrap them up in binaries and keep them hidden away from everyone the community that built it. True freedom is a person busting in to a house with a gun, killing everybody, and taking what they want without any worry of law.
The GPL is preventing that corporate psychopath from taking what he wants with his power and instead establishes a level playing field.
It seems odd you want 'Linux' to become Microsoft to beat Microsoft, I don't see how anybody gains anything in the end.
Even if each user had metric shittons of mail, Exchange, or any other mail server should handle 20 users without stressing even a weak server. Start getting hundreds of connections at the same time, that's when you see what a server is made out of.
Might have to call bullshit on you instead. If you are in IT you're not an average person when it comes to computers. Averages are best gathered from millions of purchases that occur over the years. And what the averages are saying is PC sales are flat. New PCs sit around and idle nine hundred and ninety nine million ticks out of a billion. These dream applications you talk about aren't hear yet, and believe me, all the big PC makers want them to exist so they sell more boxes. For now the PC market will shrink as a whole of the technology market (even if it stays the same size) because a computer you buy now can easily last 5+ years. In the mean time they'll be buying tables that they can take and use where they need to, and break them along the way leading to more sales.
PC's are no longer a growth market, non-growth markets don't make they headlines, CEO's don't get big bonuses for non-growth markets, stocks don't make people rich in non-growth markets. Maybe sometime in the future when Magic Technology 2.0 comes out and opens a new horizon in the market then getting a new desktop will be the trendy thing to spend lots of R&D on. Between now and then a lot of development time will be spent on the portable side of computing, analysts will talk non-stop about it, headlines will toll their virtues, etc, etc.
Other then ignoring all the benefits of centralized management of course. Err, and ignoring the insane speeds of SSD arrays coupled with deduplication. Err, and the fact processors aren't getting faster but getting more cores that normally sit idle on a desktop. Err, and ignoring much faster network speeds and inexpensive switches. You're right it's exactly like it was in the past. Which is why VDI and terminal servers are a disappearing market.
Anyone that had a 386 desktop then is likely to have a desktop now. Desktops aren't going away for power users and businesses in any time frame that needs worrying about either.
That said there are a lot of casual users that don't need the power of a desktop and are served well enough by a tablet. I have had a lot of customers replace (by attrition) their desktop machines with 17" laptops and a smaller amount get rid of an old desktop and go with an iPad. What we are starting to see in the market now is a shakeout of people that have a PC but don't really need one.
>All that is happening is that PCs won't be replaced until they die,
This right here is what manufactures are afraid of. Selling a device you make almost no profit on, that lasts a decade, and is reliable is the antithesis of the computer market up till recently. This is why all the big names are looking for a place in the commonly replaced and commonly broken tablet market. Maybe this whole post-PC thing is manufactures trying to scare people away from low profit sectors in to higher profit sectors.
“To all the revolutionaries fighting to throw off the yoke of tyranny around the world: look at British democracy. Is that what you want?”
Andy Zaltzman
“We may indeed in counsel point to the higher road, but we cannot compel any free creature to walk upon it. That leadeth to tyranny, which disfigureth good and maketh it seem hateful.”
J.R.R. Tolkien
“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Brilliant Blue FCF Honey and Ketchup Yay!
MITT ROMNEY IS THAT YOU???
*I kid, I kid. sadly I've heard people use your sarcastic arguments in real life. Makes me shudder to thing what's going on in their minds.
Making meat consumption illegal is not a likely consequence of making tobacco illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. Once you give the government the ability to ban something because it is harmful for you personally there is less legal resistance to banning anything any other thing that could be bad for ones health. We call this a judicial precedent. For example if I say
The banning of MDMA can be traced back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
the history of the war on drugs can be traced back from our current laws to a point where the laws began.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.msp
Can you please explain how banning smoking would increase government efficiency? I am at a loss. I am thinking you have the dangers and costs of smoking far higher then they actually are.
Haha! Now you have to choose whether to continue your filthy, digusting, annoying and unhealthy habit or be unemployed. You fatties are next!
First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker so I did not care.
Then they came for the fatties, but I was thin and did not care.
Then they came for a the trolls, oh shit, you're fucked.
You're wanting it wrong. Put all the old people on their own health plan, they cost far more then smokers. Your typical smoker just tends to stroke out and die, yes some linger with terrible lung conditions and other ailments, but it's nothing like that other group of people... Yes healthy people, they get old and start suffering from shit that can't be fixed yet costs enormous amounts to treat over decades.
Anyway your entire premise of smokers driving up insurance rates sounds like bullshit, since per capita cigarette use has been dropping since the '80s in the U.S.
News Flash! Prohibition was revived by Nixon. See the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Yes, and we see exactly how well that's worked too.
It's been proven that eating shit tons of fatty food is bad for you too, but the fact is the government is not actually there to protect you from yourself. Ban liquor and people make stills, ban weed and people grow the plants, ban cigarets and I'm sure people will find a way to get them. If it is not obvious by now it should be, people 'enjoy' doing all kinds of shit that is harmful to themselves.
The vast majority of the systems I setup are using the SIPSTATION module, you just buy as many virtual trunks (how many simultaneous calls you can handle) as you need, and if you need more then one number, you add additional DIDs. I've not messed with many analog to SIP setups with freepbx.
Once a call is in your system you have all kinds of options on what to do with it. You can have an IVR where they choose a number from a menu, 1 for sales, 2 for tech,etc etc. You can forward it based on what number they called in to. Setup time of day rules to forward to other departments or to voicemail or to a cell phone.
I have one touch recording with my pbx system, I'll have to remember to use it the next time one of these loosers calls. Most of the time they are on hacked VOIP, or out of country internet on VOIP so the quality is pretty crappy.
Maybe, but a lot of important information was left out of the question, like what kind of small office it was. If this is a 4 hours a day on the phone kind of business, cell phones would be a bad idea. If two or three people could call the main office at once, cell phones are a bad idea. If people are commonly going to be out of the office, yet need to be reachable, then cell phones are a good idea.
You have just explained government spending in a nutshell.
It seems strange that everyone so far in this thread is put off by PBX's. Systems like FreePBX's images are really, really easy and very flexible. As long as you have a decent internet connection the sip service has been great. Tie the voicemail back in to the email, route extensions to cell phones, handle faxes all in one system.
Truth is not an ironclad defense against being arrested and bankrupting yourself trying to prove the truth when the opponent has far more resources then you, anywhere.
That is the danger of these laws, a state where dissent is a dangerous proposition.