How to fight usage caps: go somewhere else, use multiple providers, conserve what you do (that's you TorFreaks), don't upload every stupid cat photo you own, actually think about what you're doing before you upload/download, complain vociferously and frequently to management.
My suggestion: use another rational provider. If captive, look to conserve. If you hack: (text deleted by the NSA)
Eager sales people that don't have to do the actual work play into this, too. But coders are the worst sales people, I've found. Somehow, there has to be a bridge for that gap.
You think like the people that use Windows XP. There are literally thousands of patches to it. It's about as stable as toothpicks, and just as fireproof.
Iteratively, each patch fixed a problem, or added a new feature, or overcame something underneath. Built-correctly with a solid spec, good code lasts a long time, and rarely exists in the real world.
What happens is that the dependencies on the foundation become more removed from the core functions, and digress to the point where much effort is spent patching patches and branches that must relate somehow. There is a point where the door you cite is intolerable, not because of the creakiness, but because the foundation has shifted sufficiently that the door doesn't function because the building is either damaged, or has been subject to sufficient entropy that it no longer does its job safely or cost-efficiently as an asset.
The asset, having been fully depreciated, needs re-investment. If you don't, your stability and saftey-- a core issue-- now arises to the point of prominence: it needs attention.
Coders working on teams have a responsibility to themselves and their teams to interact with others in such a way that the job gets done. There are lots of management problems, PHBs, and others that can get in the way, but ultimately, code is crafted by coders. If you can't do a resonable job, get out and keep your integrity. Yeah, you have to eat. I'd rather eat sparsely and sleep at night than the reverse.
If you don't interact successfully with analysts, the same problem occurs. If you're a coder with reasonable skills, and you understand your code's place within infrastructure, than you have the nexus to tell analysts where they're wrong or need improvement. Lacking that, it's also irresponsible to, having warned, to render the expectation that results will work.
And you might be wrong. But without voicing this legitimately, projects become blackholes, code doesn't fit the efforts of others, QA gets testing roadblocks, and the timeline creeps ever more.
There are big differences between solo efforts and team efforts. Team efforts require a lot of flexibility, but importantly, keeping an eye on the goal. Do that, and the end result is more easily calculated and executed by all, rather the mercurial results often achieved-- if they are, at all.
I'll concede that management expectations can be ludicrous. But if you tell the truth, you'll also achieve it.
Most projects are overdue and over budget because of two reasons: mission creep, and poor systems analysis in the first place. When have you heard of one that was on-time and under-budget? People would look at it with furrowed eyebrows, like-- what's wrong with it? When's it going to break? Are we throwing good money after bad?
Who's to blame? We are. We as coders and analysts let people get their way, rather than making them pay for 20-20 hindsight. We do poor QA, and things break and require fixing. We make things complex and hard to sustain workloads, while other teams sit on their thumbs and play online.
But this mission is about your health and mine. The date will continue to sag until someone says (probably a Federal judge): this date or $100,000/day. Until then, each date is squishy, and the code is squishy, and everyone will wring their hands about what to do. No one wants to report a bad couple of quarters while they burned serious money on systems upgrades. But eventually, everyone has to do it. Will it make cloud brokerage better? Someone designs a killer app and OEMs it to insurance companies so they can comply?
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft, but powershell has evolved dramatically and bash has only a tiny fraction of the breadth within Microsoft's administrative context. The sheer number of commands and their capacity to be driven by command-line argument and environmental variables makes bash look very 1974.
That said, Microsoft is only now catching up with the myriad Linux/BSD commands-- and the uniformity of the varying branches of Linux is bad on a good day. This is why many admins settle on a branch/distro, then evolve scripts to do routine work. You get three main branches until you get into puppet or chef or other management telemetries.
That said, powershell is just another school of thought, if also a business plan from Microsoft.
As much as I'd like to see the bad guys punished and justice served, there is no justice when you run roughshod over half of the Bill of Rights. The NSA data, IMHO, was not theirs to take in the first place. The use of it by other agencies not only compounds the damages, perhaps exponentiating the damage, but also sets the precedent that we're not protected from the boorishness of illegal search.
Soon the shakedowns will start. The big campaign contributors, already in control of the legislatures, will help vicariously fund their own "blood" wars.
Here are the downsides: you're attacked at every IPv4 address about 100x a day by the bots, and much more densely if you look interesting. Without an air gap, you expose all your stuff to a bunch of hackers ranging from script-kiddies to those with power tools. None of them wants your PLC to run after they tweak a few knobs.
Multiple authentication and encryption methods (see the https attacks 'announced' at Black Hat) are becoming child's play. All of the incredible engineering that these things have gone through haven't had the funds needed/expended towards making them brutally difficult to crack. It's always an afterthought after the sales guy leaves.
It's also my biggest problem with the IEEE-- lots of wonderful protocols. Security is an afterthought, rather than being built from the onset into each platform. Look at the ludicrousness of WEP and WPA1. Tell me these guys were thinking. Sure, glorious and fast, and with security as paper-thin as can be.
Read them and weep. Google owns your information. Best reason to find a VDI or proxy provider, ever.
The fools that believe in Google's majesty will live to regret it, IMHO. Not that AT&T is anything nore than Southwestern Bell with lipstick and a stuffed jock.
And more to the point: the allocations right now are pretty generous in the 5Ghz region. It takes only new and more interesting modulation techniques to double and double and double the data rates for those allocations. This has been done in WiFi and its antecedents many times now. It'll happen again.
Your sense of history is mistaken. Frequencies have differing propogation characteristics. In 1935 when the first FCA was signed, the FCC did what it could. Microwaves were a dream back then, and color TV as we knew it until HD was in the test stages.
Various channels were laid out with space in between because receivers used tubes, and had thermal drifting problems. There were many kinds of television broadcasters and there still are. Certain segments allocated to TV require licenses that do broadcast without the need for descramblers. Then HD changed all that, we shrank the available spectrum for TV broadcast licenses, and tried to free up frequencies in the valuable UHF region. It didn't quite work as planned.
That Congress is trying to monetize the allocation falls in with the current attitude towards selling all sorts of assets in a mad-dash to cut the national debt. I'll leave the goodness of that to another time.
But your basic premise is incorrect, and is historically incorrect. You might want to read up on the Federal Communications Act of 1935, and then look at the history of broadcasting for more astute answers.
Branding is branding. Yes, they still killed Sun Ray a couple of weeks ago, and more Sun products will be renamed. This is about revenue, however, and you don't screw with Oracle revenue.
For the longest time, Oracle has wanted a vertically integrated stack from the plug to your play. Now they're starting to achieve that, and won't have to mess around with hardware vendors, as hardware vendors are changing from a server model to a services model. Oracle wants that services revenue, too. HP, once their odd friend, is now their sworn enemy and IBM eats Oracle's lunch. If you're Google, you know the taste of their silly legal department. They don't have many friends left. Products, like at Google, have only a chance so long as they make revenue numbers. Otherwise, goodbye. And the less dependence there is on outsiders, the better.
These are all natural courses of events for them. To the outside world, if you're not a stockholder or customer or very favored vendor, please self-fornicate and expire.
If you're looking for mirth, industrial leadership, and warmth, turn left, please.
You might be ok. You can also turn it off, or put it into a radio isolation device (a shielded case) so as to not link your location to the room where the call is being made.
1. Maybe there won't be the quid pro quo of all of your private information so you can use the "free" apps
2. Perhaps your carrier won't be able to dive into your phone and change any old setting they desire
3. With luck, maybe your apps won't have obscene data needs that can be sold on the open market for bigdamndata engines
4. And maybe we can have apps that just do something, rather then the crippled-til-you-pay model.
But Canonical hasn't guaranteed anything, and the carriers won't love them unless Canonical allows them to feed their shareholders, so it's unlikely as a result that carriers will want the devices to market in the first place.
And worse, the test methodology linked from the post is based on a three-year-old sketchy (and perhaps wheezing vacuum cleaner) and doesn't point to validation as a cumulative measurement. In other words, a bit suspect.
The list of possibilities is infinite. The reality that I've seen over the past 35yrs or so of being in the techbiz says: you're full of beans.
A smaller org, maybe. But there is a point where all the kings horses can't do it because they'd fight among themselves over such a wad of cash.
No, they're not quite totally immune. But they're immune: enough. They're a cash cow, have a cash wad, and have a tremendous rep in the marketplace. Nothing is forever, but frankly, you're dreaming. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. What makes it so, is hard work.
What they are worth is exactly market cap. That's the number.
Free cash is stupid, IMHO, but we'll put that aside for a moment and look at the statement, "attractive for a buyout".
Reread what you just said, look at the numbers, and tell me you're serious. No one, as in zero people on this earth, can buy-out Apple. Not gonna happen. Although an otherwise reasonable platitude, there is a place where you cannot leverage sufficiently to buy out an organization this large, no matter who you are on this planet. But a few get to this size, but Apple is one of them.
From your link: Here Apple is still well ahead, with a market cap of $378 billion versus Googleâ(TM)s $286 billion. You can subtract cash, look at debt, do may things. But Apple in this measure is larger than any tech company whether you like it, or not. That doesn't mean smarter or any other characteristic. For a corporation, however, this is a very powerful measure.
I won't disagree that Apple seems to be blowing it.
But you cannot ignore their marketcap, and it's statistically relevant as an exception. I'm not a fanboi of almost anything. Still, incorrect empirical citations need to be challenged with the truth: Microsoft invested in Apple, but so far, no Black Widow effect, unlike many "investments" before. Like it or not, they are bigger than you, unless you're Exxon.
Slashdot Mirror
How to fight usage caps: go somewhere else, use multiple providers, conserve what you do (that's you TorFreaks), don't upload every stupid cat photo you own, actually think about what you're doing before you upload/download, complain vociferously and frequently to management.
My suggestion: use another rational provider. If captive, look to conserve. If you hack: (text deleted by the NSA)
It's been happening for years in more and less intelligent forms. There's nothing new here. You either stop Madison Avenue, or go off the ad grid.
Oh, wait.....
Eager sales people that don't have to do the actual work play into this, too. But coders are the worst sales people, I've found. Somehow, there has to be a bridge for that gap.
You think like the people that use Windows XP. There are literally thousands of patches to it. It's about as stable as toothpicks, and just as fireproof.
Iteratively, each patch fixed a problem, or added a new feature, or overcame something underneath. Built-correctly with a solid spec, good code lasts a long time, and rarely exists in the real world.
What happens is that the dependencies on the foundation become more removed from the core functions, and digress to the point where much effort is spent patching patches and branches that must relate somehow. There is a point where the door you cite is intolerable, not because of the creakiness, but because the foundation has shifted sufficiently that the door doesn't function because the building is either damaged, or has been subject to sufficient entropy that it no longer does its job safely or cost-efficiently as an asset.
The asset, having been fully depreciated, needs re-investment. If you don't, your stability and saftey-- a core issue-- now arises to the point of prominence: it needs attention.
Let me address your thoughts:
Coders working on teams have a responsibility to themselves and their teams to interact with others in such a way that the job gets done. There are lots of management problems, PHBs, and others that can get in the way, but ultimately, code is crafted by coders. If you can't do a resonable job, get out and keep your integrity. Yeah, you have to eat. I'd rather eat sparsely and sleep at night than the reverse.
If you don't interact successfully with analysts, the same problem occurs. If you're a coder with reasonable skills, and you understand your code's place within infrastructure, than you have the nexus to tell analysts where they're wrong or need improvement. Lacking that, it's also irresponsible to, having warned, to render the expectation that results will work.
And you might be wrong. But without voicing this legitimately, projects become blackholes, code doesn't fit the efforts of others, QA gets testing roadblocks, and the timeline creeps ever more.
There are big differences between solo efforts and team efforts. Team efforts require a lot of flexibility, but importantly, keeping an eye on the goal. Do that, and the end result is more easily calculated and executed by all, rather the mercurial results often achieved-- if they are, at all.
I'll concede that management expectations can be ludicrous. But if you tell the truth, you'll also achieve it.
Most projects are overdue and over budget because of two reasons: mission creep, and poor systems analysis in the first place. When have you heard of one that was on-time and under-budget? People would look at it with furrowed eyebrows, like-- what's wrong with it? When's it going to break? Are we throwing good money after bad?
Who's to blame? We are. We as coders and analysts let people get their way, rather than making them pay for 20-20 hindsight. We do poor QA, and things break and require fixing. We make things complex and hard to sustain workloads, while other teams sit on their thumbs and play online.
But this mission is about your health and mine. The date will continue to sag until someone says (probably a Federal judge): this date or $100,000/day. Until then, each date is squishy, and the code is squishy, and everyone will wring their hands about what to do. No one wants to report a bad couple of quarters while they burned serious money on systems upgrades. But eventually, everyone has to do it. Will it make cloud brokerage better? Someone designs a killer app and OEMs it to insurance companies so they can comply?
Nah, no one's that smart.
Hey Benioff-- ya listening?
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft, but powershell has evolved dramatically and bash has only a tiny fraction of the breadth within Microsoft's administrative context. The sheer number of commands and their capacity to be driven by command-line argument and environmental variables makes bash look very 1974.
That said, Microsoft is only now catching up with the myriad Linux/BSD commands-- and the uniformity of the varying branches of Linux is bad on a good day. This is why many admins settle on a branch/distro, then evolve scripts to do routine work. You get three main branches until you get into puppet or chef or other management telemetries.
That said, powershell is just another school of thought, if also a business plan from Microsoft.
Yeah, the road to hell is paved with statistical good intentions.
As much as I'd like to see the bad guys punished and justice served, there is no justice when you run roughshod over half of the Bill of Rights. The NSA data, IMHO, was not theirs to take in the first place. The use of it by other agencies not only compounds the damages, perhaps exponentiating the damage, but also sets the precedent that we're not protected from the boorishness of illegal search.
Soon the shakedowns will start. The big campaign contributors, already in control of the legislatures, will help vicariously fund their own "blood" wars.
Summary: We agree. Mod parent up.
Yeah! Fun! Saves money!
Here are the downsides: you're attacked at every IPv4 address about 100x a day by the bots, and much more densely if you look interesting. Without an air gap, you expose all your stuff to a bunch of hackers ranging from script-kiddies to those with power tools. None of them wants your PLC to run after they tweak a few knobs.
Multiple authentication and encryption methods (see the https attacks 'announced' at Black Hat) are becoming child's play. All of the incredible engineering that these things have gone through haven't had the funds needed/expended towards making them brutally difficult to crack. It's always an afterthought after the sales guy leaves.
It's also my biggest problem with the IEEE-- lots of wonderful protocols. Security is an afterthought, rather than being built from the onset into each platform. Look at the ludicrousness of WEP and WPA1. Tell me these guys were thinking. Sure, glorious and fast, and with security as paper-thin as can be.
Read them and weep. Google owns your information. Best reason to find a VDI or proxy provider, ever.
The fools that believe in Google's majesty will live to regret it, IMHO. Not that AT&T is anything nore than Southwestern Bell with lipstick and a stuffed jock.
And more to the point: the allocations right now are pretty generous in the 5Ghz region. It takes only new and more interesting modulation techniques to double and double and double the data rates for those allocations. This has been done in WiFi and its antecedents many times now. It'll happen again.
Your sense of history is mistaken. Frequencies have differing propogation characteristics. In 1935 when the first FCA was signed, the FCC did what it could. Microwaves were a dream back then, and color TV as we knew it until HD was in the test stages.
Various channels were laid out with space in between because receivers used tubes, and had thermal drifting problems. There were many kinds of television broadcasters and there still are. Certain segments allocated to TV require licenses that do broadcast without the need for descramblers. Then HD changed all that, we shrank the available spectrum for TV broadcast licenses, and tried to free up frequencies in the valuable UHF region. It didn't quite work as planned.
That Congress is trying to monetize the allocation falls in with the current attitude towards selling all sorts of assets in a mad-dash to cut the national debt. I'll leave the goodness of that to another time.
But your basic premise is incorrect, and is historically incorrect. You might want to read up on the Federal Communications Act of 1935, and then look at the history of broadcasting for more astute answers.
Branding is branding. Yes, they still killed Sun Ray a couple of weeks ago, and more Sun products will be renamed. This is about revenue, however, and you don't screw with Oracle revenue.
For the longest time, Oracle has wanted a vertically integrated stack from the plug to your play. Now they're starting to achieve that, and won't have to mess around with hardware vendors, as hardware vendors are changing from a server model to a services model. Oracle wants that services revenue, too. HP, once their odd friend, is now their sworn enemy and IBM eats Oracle's lunch. If you're Google, you know the taste of their silly legal department. They don't have many friends left. Products, like at Google, have only a chance so long as they make revenue numbers. Otherwise, goodbye. And the less dependence there is on outsiders, the better.
These are all natural courses of events for them. To the outside world, if you're not a stockholder or customer or very favored vendor, please self-fornicate and expire.
If you're looking for mirth, industrial leadership, and warmth, turn left, please.
You might be ok. You can also turn it off, or put it into a radio isolation device (a shielded case) so as to not link your location to the room where the call is being made.
This is what hadoop is for.
Most orgs that have 800#s have ANI. Look it up-- like caller-id but more choice.
Your cellphone put you in the conference room. You can be tracked easily to very confined geometry.
So it was you. You don't even have to confess, we hacked the VoIP PBX long ago.
Consider that if you call, the NSA will know you called. One more metadata tag in some disk drive in Utah.
Posted without sarcasm:
1. Maybe there won't be the quid pro quo of all of your private information so you can use the "free" apps
2. Perhaps your carrier won't be able to dive into your phone and change any old setting they desire
3. With luck, maybe your apps won't have obscene data needs that can be sold on the open market for bigdamndata engines
4. And maybe we can have apps that just do something, rather then the crippled-til-you-pay model.
But Canonical hasn't guaranteed anything, and the carriers won't love them unless Canonical allows them to feed their shareholders, so it's unlikely as a result that carriers will want the devices to market in the first place.
Oh, wait.....
Not necessarily so.
And worse, the test methodology linked from the post is based on a three-year-old sketchy (and perhaps wheezing vacuum cleaner) and doesn't point to validation as a cumulative measurement. In other words, a bit suspect.
The list of possibilities is infinite. The reality that I've seen over the past 35yrs or so of being in the techbiz says: you're full of beans.
A smaller org, maybe. But there is a point where all the kings horses can't do it because they'd fight among themselves over such a wad of cash.
No, they're not quite totally immune. But they're immune: enough. They're a cash cow, have a cash wad, and have a tremendous rep in the marketplace. Nothing is forever, but frankly, you're dreaming. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. What makes it so, is hard work.
What they are worth is exactly market cap. That's the number.
Free cash is stupid, IMHO, but we'll put that aside for a moment and look at the statement, "attractive for a buyout".
Reread what you just said, look at the numbers, and tell me you're serious. No one, as in zero people on this earth, can buy-out Apple. Not gonna happen. Although an otherwise reasonable platitude, there is a place where you cannot leverage sufficiently to buy out an organization this large, no matter who you are on this planet. But a few get to this size, but Apple is one of them.
From your link: Here Apple is still well ahead, with a market cap of $378 billion versus Googleâ(TM)s $286 billion. You can subtract cash, look at debt, do may things. But Apple in this measure is larger than any tech company whether you like it, or not. That doesn't mean smarter or any other characteristic. For a corporation, however, this is a very powerful measure.
I won't disagree that Apple seems to be blowing it.
But you cannot ignore their marketcap, and it's statistically relevant as an exception. I'm not a fanboi of almost anything. Still, incorrect empirical citations need to be challenged with the truth: Microsoft invested in Apple, but so far, no Black Widow effect, unlike many "investments" before. Like it or not, they are bigger than you, unless you're Exxon.
There's that little Apple exception you'll have to note.....