I watched the video and didn't see where a full sized hard drive could fit. The tablet itself is slightly longer and wider, but thinner than a full sized hard drive. Aside from fitting the form, just putting that size of hard drive in the tablet would make it heavy too -- as well as eat up power and give off a lot of heat.
Maybe the article's author meant a full sized *notebook* hard drive, but there is quite a difference. Maybe he meant full as in disk capacity, but what would that mean... 80GB, 120GB, 200GB, 500GB?
It seems like a nitpicking, but it's a substantial detail to get wrong (or be misleadingly vague about) when one's talking about a paperback sized computer.
This is excellent advice. However, I would go one step further:
Keep all your personal stuff off company computers.
The submitter is correct in keeping his personal items on his own server that he can pack up on a moment's notice. This cuts down on any potential administrative conflicts.
Also keep in mind that your data is flowing over your company's network, so don't be surprised if any non-public connection gets sniffed at some point by a bored admin.
It's better to just keep your computer away from the company you work for, in general, but I know outside hosting or co-location costs money.
Remember, any data on your company's network or servers is theirs, so if you don't feel comfortable with them knowing your personal issues, store your data elsewhere. Even just having a separate computer doesn't stop them from accidentally taking it (or worse).
Think this is paranoia? Consider that the law is on your employer's side. Is it worth it?
According to your source: "There were a good many of these, since the Ludlow experienced the highest sea levels of the Paleozoic, and shallow seas covered many continental areas. Carbon dioxide levels were still quite high, perhaps 10 times today's concentrations."
1) For this question, assuming the data is true: Is this an environment hospitible to humans?
2) Where were the carbon dioxide measurements taken? Can you point that out please?
It looks like this would be disastrous to mammals such as humans. The biosphere may survive, somewhat, but we would not.
And, assuming we managed to save some type of food source from the quick radical environmental changes, are people suggesting we live on platforms and underwater structures?
Sarcasm aside, do you think an environment with explosive tree and other plant growth (the kind you're recommending to correct the situation) leaves room for humans?
Not only did that person use a company event to espouse a personal belief, that person left off the most important part of the data just to make that person's opinion look better.
You say you want inexpensive. Yet you want fibre channel. I think you're looking in the wrong direction. FC is cute to experiment with, but not really feasible for your purposes.
In your question, you said you don't want a whole lot of redundancy or high availability. You can do nearly the same with an inexpensive computer with a large raid, gigabit ethernet, and NFS or Samba.
If there's money riding on this (i.e. you will lose big money each second the connection is down), then you need FC and service contracts (and if it's that important, a data center, etc.). Otherwise, FC's overkill.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with the very small amount of coverage, but it's not just international, it's local news too. The coverage is mainly about murder, pets dialing 9-1-1, and whatever's trendy: shark attacks or mothers killing children or teachers screwing pupils, etc. I find more about local matters on the Internet, than I do on local TV.
OJ? I used to walk by (around) the trucks every morning and evening. There were semi-permanent press boxes and a camp erected across the street from the courthouse. I had to stop watching the TV news because they stopped running actual local news stories. TV news today is purely entertainment now.
"Did you know that in the 1990's CNN WorldNews once went for 13 weeks without actually providing any news of events beyond the American border?"
Where are your sources? Are you claiming yourself? If so, did you watch 24 hours a day for 13 weeks? And which year was it? Specifically, which 13 weeks was it? Do you have a log of the stories that were run?
Or is this some anecdote you pulled from your ass?
It's hard to believe not one single international event was mentioned in a 13 week timespan.
Microsoft's source code is *not* available to the extent you believe it is. It is in fact only available in bits and pieces, and then, only to those who sign an exhaustive non-disclosure agreement. And, what little is available, has only been around for a short time.
Why would you think that Microsoft would pull its pants down and bend over? That you do demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
So you believe that MS has nothing to lose by telling the truth? Boy, are you in for a wake-up call.
If MS can lie and keep it covered up, or merely explain it as an accident, MS loses nothing. Even if it comes out later, MS will merely blame it on a disgruntled employee whom they no longer have. MS loses nothing.
Tell the truth and the whole world is in a huge uproar. MS loses face, sales, and a new antitrust lawsuit.
This isn't about conspiracies. This isn't about Gibson. Who in their right mind would admit wrongdoing on a scale such as this? There is only a downside. Your reliance on people's consciences is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Post bad "underpants gnome" style joke on /.
2) Karma!
Antarctic Ice Core Data
a nning/New_Data/
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pl
Enjoy!
I watched the video and didn't see where a full sized hard drive could fit. The tablet itself is slightly longer and wider, but thinner than a full sized hard drive. Aside from fitting the form, just putting that size of hard drive in the tablet would make it heavy too -- as well as eat up power and give off a lot of heat.
Maybe the article's author meant a full sized *notebook* hard drive, but there is quite a difference. Maybe he meant full as in disk capacity, but what would that mean... 80GB, 120GB, 200GB, 500GB?
It seems like a nitpicking, but it's a substantial detail to get wrong (or be misleadingly vague about) when one's talking about a paperback sized computer.
"Fiber Channel only runs at 2Gb/sec"
Currently seen:
10Gb/s ISL
4Gb/s host and storage.
You can also aggregate fibres and get more bandwidth.
This is excellent advice. However, I would go one step further:
Keep all your personal stuff off company computers.
The submitter is correct in keeping his personal items on his own server that he can pack up on a moment's notice. This cuts down on any potential administrative conflicts.
Also keep in mind that your data is flowing over your company's network, so don't be surprised if any non-public connection gets sniffed at some point by a bored admin.
It's better to just keep your computer away from the company you work for, in general, but I know outside hosting or co-location costs money.
Remember, any data on your company's network or servers is theirs, so if you don't feel comfortable with them knowing your personal issues, store your data elsewhere. Even just having a separate computer doesn't stop them from accidentally taking it (or worse).
Think this is paranoia? Consider that the law is on your employer's side. Is it worth it?
According to your source:
"There were a good many of these, since the Ludlow experienced the highest sea levels of the Paleozoic, and shallow seas covered many continental areas. Carbon dioxide levels were still quite high, perhaps 10 times today's concentrations."
1) For this question, assuming the data is true: Is this an environment hospitible to humans?
2) Where were the carbon dioxide measurements taken? Can you point that out please?
It looks like this would be disastrous to mammals such as humans. The biosphere may survive, somewhat, but we would not.
And, assuming we managed to save some type of food source from the quick radical environmental changes, are people suggesting we live on platforms and underwater structures?
Why doesn't anybody talk about that?
Watch for *rising* cell phone repeaters.
Who's to say the balloon wouldn't get sucked into a jet engine on its way upward?
Perhaps this company has a lot of liability insurance since it's a smaller object we're dealing with.
But, more likely, the idea of this causing bodily harm directly or indirectly has been ignored and any discussion squelched.
"And yet the Earth has seen *far* higher CO2 levels if you broaden your timespan."
Hi,
Can you provide a link to the scientific data? I'm interested in reading it.
Thanks.
'It's called a "tree."'
Sarcasm aside, do you think an environment with explosive tree and other plant growth (the kind you're recommending to correct the situation) leaves room for humans?
and read the text with it:
Antarctic Ice Core Data
and
A Closer Look
"Why isn't that enough?"
Because people see and hear only what they want.
I recently watched a company representative make a speech against global warming during an unrelated meeting using a chart from this site except that this person conveniently left out the chart that would have disproved the whole rant: the chart showing CO2 is significantly higher than it has ever been.
Not only did that person use a company event to espouse a personal belief, that person left off the most important part of the data just to make that person's opinion look better.
"News flash: The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now, even within the span of human history, and the biosphere survived."
The earth, however, for the last few hundred thousand years has not seen these levels of CO2, ever. Also, the temperature lags CO2 levels.
Antarctic Ice Core Data
Be sure to look at the graph on the second page.
It does make it more accessible. However, the issue here has more to do with the problems of RFID rather than machine-readable biometrics.
The "crack" involved reading the chip wirelessly.
FYI: *ALL* passports are biometric, unless yours for some reason doesn't have a photograph and a description.
You say you want inexpensive. Yet you want fibre channel. I think you're looking in the wrong direction. FC is cute to experiment with, but not really feasible for your purposes.
In your question, you said you don't want a whole lot of redundancy or high availability. You can do nearly the same with an inexpensive computer with a large raid, gigabit ethernet, and NFS or Samba.
If there's money riding on this (i.e. you will lose big money each second the connection is down), then you need FC and service contracts (and if it's that important, a data center, etc.). Otherwise, FC's overkill.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with the very small amount of coverage, but it's not just international, it's local news too. The coverage is mainly about murder, pets dialing 9-1-1, and whatever's trendy: shark attacks or mothers killing children or teachers screwing pupils, etc. I find more about local matters on the Internet, than I do on local TV.
OJ? I used to walk by (around) the trucks every morning and evening. There were semi-permanent press boxes and a camp erected across the street from the courthouse. I had to stop watching the TV news because they stopped running actual local news stories. TV news today is purely entertainment now.
Actually they're not. Read the front page of slashdot recently?
"Did you know that in the 1990's CNN WorldNews once went for 13 weeks without actually providing any news of events beyond the American border?"
Where are your sources? Are you claiming yourself? If so, did you watch 24 hours a day for 13 weeks? And which year was it? Specifically, which 13 weeks was it? Do you have a log of the stories that were run?
Or is this some anecdote you pulled from your ass?
It's hard to believe not one single international event was mentioned in a 13 week timespan.
Microsoft's source code is *not* available to the extent you believe it is. It is in fact only available in bits and pieces, and then, only to those who sign an exhaustive non-disclosure agreement. And, what little is available, has only been around for a short time.
Why would you think that Microsoft would pull its pants down and bend over? That you do demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
So you believe that MS has nothing to lose by telling the truth? Boy, are you in for a wake-up call.
If MS can lie and keep it covered up, or merely explain it as an accident, MS loses nothing. Even if it comes out later, MS will merely blame it on a disgruntled employee whom they no longer have. MS loses nothing.
Tell the truth and the whole world is in a huge uproar. MS loses face, sales, and a new antitrust lawsuit.
This isn't about conspiracies. This isn't about Gibson. Who in their right mind would admit wrongdoing on a scale such as this? There is only a downside. Your reliance on people's consciences is flawed.
No, it's not irrelevant. I want to hear the answer to my question.
Gibson's analysis is irrelevant to this question.
Answer my question. Why would you think MS would ever admit intentional, malicious behavior?
Why the hell would you think that Microsoft would say that its bug was intentional?
What a tweest!