No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.
No company worth *your* salt.... That's what you're saying essentially. And it won't happen, because those companies either stick with you, or they will find somebody else to handle their data.
All those comments about using LAMP may be true, but when you're comfortable with Windows and not with Linux, stick with Windows. When the application you're going to run *can* run on Linux, then you may want to keep it that way, so you can move to Linux later on. When you're making money you could hire a Linux admin and then move. It may be cheaper in the end.
What is "the cloud" for you? I would think of Azure or Amazon EC2. I don't know of the fees that Azure has, but I believe Amazon has reasonable small servers (micro instances) that can be "scaled" (moved to larger instances) quite easily. At work we use Amazon, and I think it is great with the instant backup snapshots and all options that you have. But do you need it, and do you need it now?
My advice is this. Stay on your server at home, and use that as long as possible, unless you know that it's more expensive because of power and internet and license costs. In the mean time, start up an instance at Amazon. Configure it, get used to it. Run it, test your application on it. Set it up like another staging environment. Then shut it down, and start it up when you need to test more.
The most important thing about Amazon is that you need to set it up right. If you do it right, a big problem like Amazon had last month (4 days down) won't be a problem for you. If you mess up, it can mean disaster. So stick to what you know, and what works for you.
My understanding is that USB3 has a max theoretical transfer rate of 4 GB/s while Thunderbolt is at 10 GB/s per channel giving 20 GB/s total. Also overhead limits USB3 having a peak of 3.2 GB/s. Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.
If USB is like it always was, it's not only 1/3 of the speed of Thunderbolt, it's probably much less than that. More than ten years ago I had a 8-speed SCSI cd-burner, and a 32-speed IDE burner. The IDE cdrom should have been 4x faster, it was about 2x slower. I've seen the same with USB2.0 and Firewire, although less extreme. If Thunderbolt is said to be 3x faster than USB3, then in real life it will probably be 6x or even 10x faster. Thunderbolt will have its place, but like SCSI and Firewire, it will probably be limited to video or high speed freaks who are prepared to pay for it.
I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.
The summary claims that one rule is to pay for more RAM over better processor. That sounds like poor advice for at least three reasons: 1) RAM can usually be user-upgraded later, while the processor usually can't be; 2) RAM is cheaper than the processor; 3) some OEMs overcharge for RAM upgrades (cough, Apple). Plus, it is dubious to claim processors are usually fast enough for most people. All told, whoever offered that suggestion wasn't thinking very soundly.
I disagree. A better processor means you get a 2.7 instead of a 2.4, and for that you pay $300 (Apple Macbook Pro 13"). That's a waste of money for 10% speed increase. Then I would use that money to buy more RAM, which is probably a much better way to speed up a machine.
Epub is the only serious alternative, as many books are offered with DRM (OCR-scanned books are horrible in my experience). This means you need an ebook reader that supports epub+drm, which is not limited to one brand.
Noscript is only an antidote for vulnerabilities that need Javascript. If it uses something else, like in the HTML or JPEG parser, than Noscript is no protection.
What the iPod did was make MP3 players cool, it made them a fashion accessory.
What a tired, stupid, cliche. What the iPod did was make carrying our music around easier and remove lots of moving parts that are no longer necessary.
You are claiming the headphone cord hanging in front is some sort of statement? That would make virtually all headphones a statement. I personally use ones that go behind the head for running, but sitting on a commuter train, I don't really care what color the headphone cord is or where it dangles.
Only the most vapid teenager cares about white headphones. Foremost, the iPod is successful because it's a good product.
Lastly, how impressive is it to "proclaim ownership" of a mass marketed and relatively cheap product? It's not a badge of honor to own a $120 device that millions of other people also own.
Technology was the driving factor for its success, especially in the early Mac + iTunes only ecosystem. Once it opened up to PC and changed to USB, it really took off.
The Ipod is a good product because of its ecosystem and the ease of use, like you say.
However, besides that, it is fashionable as well, as are most Apple products like iMacs, iBooks (a long time ago), MacBooks and the iPhone or iPad. It simply looks great, and that is part of the user experience. And I agree with the parent poster that white headphones were fashionable. Look right now at those crazy headphones teenagers have, in all kinds of colors, crazy design and logos. The white ipod headphones set the trend. It was cool, because it showed you had an ipod. And now maybe it's so common that it isn't fashionable anymore, but still many people use it because they think they are okay and don't want to spend any more money.
But the original selling point of Ubuntu was that it was the distro that "just worked". You didn't have to spend days tracking down hardware problems, or hours figuring out how to change all defaults to something that worked. That meant the defaults were set to those that would be most familiar and comfortable to most computer users.
It is nice to have a distro like that to recommend to Linux Newbies, but Ubuntu is moving in a direction where it no longer is that distro.
It is nice to have a distro like that to recommend to Linux Newbies, but Ubuntu is moving in a direction where it no longer is that distro for you.
I would recommend it without a doubt to Linux Newbies, and I don't understand why you would object, except that you yourself are maybe uncomfortable with a change like this. You are talking about newbies, so they don't have expectations. Would you say the same when they move to OSX? I think moving from Windows to Unity is similar to moving to OS X or Gnome2.
Techies may one be a very small percentage of Sonys base customers, however, I've noticed as a group that when they talk loudly and badly enough about stuff, it eventually gets through to the masses, witness the falling market share of Internet Explorer if you doubt what Im saying. The masses tend to listen to techies....when they talk about tech, because the masses *don't* know any better.
Techies might have a bigger impact on browser use than on game console preferences. It's very simple. As a "techie", I configured my parents PC, and have set Firefox as default browser. They don't know better. I do the same with every other PC I install, for someone who doesn't know 0 from 1 in tech-country.
I'm getting rather tired of everyone paying more attention to release dates, version numbers, and now the names of production and testing phases than the quality of the actual product/program.
I think this is a pretty useful one - for developers at least. Now it's much easier to keep two copies of Firefox next to eachother. One is the normal release, stable, like FF4 now. The other is in alpha or beta, and shows where it's going. Firefox developers can use and test it, website developers can see how their site looks in the upcoming release.
There is only one problem that I see, you cannot run them next to eachother, and that is because they both have the same process name (I suppose). I have Firefox 4 running, tried to start Aurora, and it refused. Of course I could close FF4, but that is annoying if you read your mail in it, if you need to unlock the master key etc. So I hope they can manage to rename the process name.
I am not just referring to Wordpress, however, and I find some other systems like Joomla equally disastrous. Yet plenty of smart people are choosing these systems every day.
I'm not trying to start a war, I genuinely think I am missing something. What makes Drupal perfect for those other jobs?
Wordpress is great if it suits your needs. I use it a lot. When a friend asks to install a website, I'm prepared to install it, but only Wordpress. It's simple to learn for them, and this keeps it simple for me as well.
Drupal has several advantages. It has version control, so you look back at older versions, and you can even publish different versions at the same time. Another great feature is rights control. You can give sections or pages or elements of pages rights, and limit what users can see or do depending on their user role. For big websites, drupal is better suited.
At work we use it. We have one base installation, and hundreds of sites use that same base. Per site you can change what you like. I believe Wordpress is multisite as well, but I don't know exactly what it offers.
Destroying the reactors beyond repair. Turning to seawater cooling means they have given up all hope of salvaging the reactors in a working state, and will settle for just non-exploding.
Whether using sea water will destroy these reactors or not is a non-discussion, as these reactors were scheduled to retire by the end of this month. Tim van der Hagen, Dutch nuclear scientist has said so last Sunday on Dutch tv.
Mostly because any good software engineer could put a hard-to-find bug in the code. Thank goodness it takes a good social engineer to make money off it - and the two skills don't often overlap in real life (as much as software engineers seem to think they do).
The other reason programmers will never rule the world - eventually the whack-a-person machines will require Marvin to come fix them.
Programmers will never rule the world, because by then they have been promoted to software engineers, managers, etc. It's the same with toddlers.
Slashdot Mirror
No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.
No company worth *your* salt.... That's what you're saying essentially. And it won't happen, because those companies either stick with you, or they will find somebody else to handle their data.
At 6:35 the sky is falling, literally, astounding.......
Of course it was. She's Australian!
I wonder what would have happened if she was Chinese!
They were hoping electrons were shaped like Pac-man. This would where the antimatter went.
Yeah and then sue the electrons for copyright violation!
Visual basic actually.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247
Yeah but can it run in IE6?
All those comments about using LAMP may be true, but when you're comfortable with Windows and not with Linux, stick with Windows. When the application you're going to run *can* run on Linux, then you may want to keep it that way, so you can move to Linux later on. When you're making money you could hire a Linux admin and then move. It may be cheaper in the end.
What is "the cloud" for you? I would think of Azure or Amazon EC2. I don't know of the fees that Azure has, but I believe Amazon has reasonable small servers (micro instances) that can be "scaled" (moved to larger instances) quite easily. At work we use Amazon, and I think it is great with the instant backup snapshots and all options that you have. But do you need it, and do you need it now?
My advice is this. Stay on your server at home, and use that as long as possible, unless you know that it's more expensive because of power and internet and license costs. In the mean time, start up an instance at Amazon. Configure it, get used to it. Run it, test your application on it. Set it up like another staging environment. Then shut it down, and start it up when you need to test more.
The most important thing about Amazon is that you need to set it up right. If you do it right, a big problem like Amazon had last month (4 days down) won't be a problem for you. If you mess up, it can mean disaster. So stick to what you know, and what works for you.
My understanding is that USB3 has a max theoretical transfer rate of 4 GB/s while Thunderbolt is at 10 GB/s per channel giving 20 GB/s total. Also overhead limits USB3 having a peak of 3.2 GB/s. Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.
If USB is like it always was, it's not only 1/3 of the speed of Thunderbolt, it's probably much less than that. More than ten years ago I had a 8-speed SCSI cd-burner, and a 32-speed IDE burner. The IDE cdrom should have been 4x faster, it was about 2x slower. I've seen the same with USB2.0 and Firewire, although less extreme. If Thunderbolt is said to be 3x faster than USB3, then in real life it will probably be 6x or even 10x faster. Thunderbolt will have its place, but like SCSI and Firewire, it will probably be limited to video or high speed freaks who are prepared to pay for it.
I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.
Just close your macbook and you're done!
The summary claims that one rule is to pay for more RAM over better processor. That sounds like poor advice for at least three reasons: 1) RAM can usually be user-upgraded later, while the processor usually can't be; 2) RAM is cheaper than the processor; 3) some OEMs overcharge for RAM upgrades (cough, Apple). Plus, it is dubious to claim processors are usually fast enough for most people. All told, whoever offered that suggestion wasn't thinking very soundly.
I disagree. A better processor means you get a 2.7 instead of a 2.4, and for that you pay $300 (Apple Macbook Pro 13"). That's a waste of money for 10% speed increase. Then I would use that money to buy more RAM, which is probably a much better way to speed up a machine.
Where do people go when they give up Amazon?
Epub is the only serious alternative, as many books are offered with DRM (OCR-scanned books are horrible in my experience). This means you need an ebook reader that supports epub+drm, which is not limited to one brand.
NoScript.
Noscript is only an antidote for vulnerabilities that need Javascript. If it uses something else, like in the HTML or JPEG parser, than Noscript is no protection.
have you tried WINE?
Seriously - you run Java under Wine?
What the iPod did was make MP3 players cool, it made them a fashion accessory.
What a tired, stupid, cliche. What the iPod did was make carrying our music around easier and remove lots of moving parts that are no longer necessary.
You are claiming the headphone cord hanging in front is some sort of statement? That would make virtually all headphones a statement. I personally use ones that go behind the head for running, but sitting on a commuter train, I don't really care what color the headphone cord is or where it dangles.
Only the most vapid teenager cares about white headphones. Foremost, the iPod is successful because it's a good product.
Lastly, how impressive is it to "proclaim ownership" of a mass marketed and relatively cheap product? It's not a badge of honor to own a $120 device that millions of other people also own.
Technology was the driving factor for its success, especially in the early Mac + iTunes only ecosystem. Once it opened up to PC and changed to USB, it really took off.
The Ipod is a good product because of its ecosystem and the ease of use, like you say.
However, besides that, it is fashionable as well, as are most Apple products like iMacs, iBooks (a long time ago), MacBooks and the iPhone or iPad. It simply looks great, and that is part of the user experience. And I agree with the parent poster that white headphones were fashionable. Look right now at those crazy headphones teenagers have, in all kinds of colors, crazy design and logos. The white ipod headphones set the trend. It was cool, because it showed you had an ipod. And now maybe it's so common that it isn't fashionable anymore, but still many people use it because they think they are okay and don't want to spend any more money.
But the original selling point of Ubuntu was that it was the distro that "just worked". You didn't have to spend days tracking down hardware problems, or hours figuring out how to change all defaults to something that worked. That meant the defaults were set to those that would be most familiar and comfortable to most computer users.
It is nice to have a distro like that to recommend to Linux Newbies, but Ubuntu is moving in a direction where it no longer is that distro.
It is nice to have a distro like that to recommend to Linux Newbies, but Ubuntu is moving in a direction where it no longer is that distro for you.
I would recommend it without a doubt to Linux Newbies, and I don't understand why you would object, except that you yourself are maybe uncomfortable with a change like this. You are talking about newbies, so they don't have expectations. Would you say the same when they move to OSX? I think moving from Windows to Unity is similar to moving to OS X or Gnome2.
Techies may one be a very small percentage of Sonys base customers, however, I've noticed as a group that when they talk loudly and badly enough about stuff, it eventually gets through to the masses, witness the falling market share of Internet Explorer if you doubt what Im saying. The masses tend to listen to techies....when they talk about tech, because the masses *don't* know any better.
Techies might have a bigger impact on browser use than on game console preferences. It's very simple. As a "techie", I configured my parents PC, and have set Firefox as default browser. They don't know better. I do the same with every other PC I install, for someone who doesn't know 0 from 1 in tech-country.
did you try -no-remote or FoxTester?
Thanks for the tip! On my mac (at home) it doesn't work, but at work I use Ubuntu, and I think it'll be very useful there.
I'm getting rather tired of everyone paying more attention to release dates, version numbers, and now the names of production and testing phases than the quality of the actual product/program.
I think this is a pretty useful one - for developers at least. Now it's much easier to keep two copies of Firefox next to eachother. One is the normal release, stable, like FF4 now. The other is in alpha or beta, and shows where it's going. Firefox developers can use and test it, website developers can see how their site looks in the upcoming release.
There is only one problem that I see, you cannot run them next to eachother, and that is because they both have the same process name (I suppose). I have Firefox 4 running, tried to start Aurora, and it refused. Of course I could close FF4, but that is annoying if you read your mail in it, if you need to unlock the master key etc. So I hope they can manage to rename the process name.
I am not just referring to Wordpress, however, and I find some other systems like Joomla equally disastrous. Yet plenty of smart people are choosing these systems every day.
I'm not trying to start a war, I genuinely think I am missing something. What makes Drupal perfect for those other jobs?
Wordpress is great if it suits your needs. I use it a lot. When a friend asks to install a website, I'm prepared to install it, but only Wordpress. It's simple to learn for them, and this keeps it simple for me as well.
Drupal has several advantages. It has version control, so you look back at older versions, and you can even publish different versions at the same time. Another great feature is rights control. You can give sections or pages or elements of pages rights, and limit what users can see or do depending on their user role. For big websites, drupal is better suited.
At work we use it. We have one base installation, and hundreds of sites use that same base. Per site you can change what you like. I believe Wordpress is multisite as well, but I don't know exactly what it offers.
This is stupid in light of the fact that Facebook is openly hostile to idea of user privacy and Google actually seems to care, at least a little bit.
It's not stupid. It's a feature! And this time it's a good one. And it's one that Google can use: Privacy guaranteed by FTC approval!
Yeah, but, can it run Linux?
Now you can run in Linux, how about that?
Destroying the reactors beyond repair. Turning to seawater cooling means they have given up all hope of salvaging the reactors in a working state, and will settle for just non-exploding.
Whether using sea water will destroy these reactors or not is a non-discussion, as these reactors were scheduled to retire by the end of this month. Tim van der Hagen, Dutch nuclear scientist has said so last Sunday on Dutch tv.
The lawyers forget that Sweden is not a state of USA./quote>
Here in Europe we are not sure about that anymore.
At Indy, all you need to know is "Turn Left"
Yeah right!
It's a thinner, faster, more expensive iPhone - sans the phone?
Plus a TV.
Mostly because any good software engineer could put a hard-to-find bug in the code. Thank goodness it takes a good social engineer to make money off it - and the two skills don't often overlap in real life (as much as software engineers seem to think they do).
The other reason programmers will never rule the world - eventually the whack-a-person machines will require Marvin to come fix them.
Programmers will never rule the world, because by then they have been promoted to software engineers, managers, etc. It's the same with toddlers.