Satellite internet has its own problems besides low latency due to having to deal with distance issues to geosync orbit.
It's got downsides such as high latency, but it works.
All you have to do is have the satellite owner shut the transponder down for a bit, and the sat link is gone, for instance.
Now do that for every transponder pointing to the country that might be used by that country's government: every internet access provider, every non-internet data provider, every satellite phone system, etc. In a theoretical situation where all fiber/copper/microwave links are taken out to a location, there are still going to be numerous commerical satellite services. Now would a country's government subscribe to a bunch of services on different satellites? Probably not, but companies, wealthy individuals, and foreign organizations residing within might.
Around here, for years, the only available high speed internet was satellite. Even the so-called 56K voiceline connections were reliable only to about 14.4K. They only acknowledged the existance of the fiber pipe that runs 6 miles from here to Vegas in the last year & a half, though the pipe was in place for almost a decade. Still no T1 into town, and T3 is a dream we might see sometime in 2050...
Who only acknowledged the existance of a fiber pipe? Did you actually try to order ISDN or T1 service?
But we'd also wanna cut off Iran's leaders, especially its military, from cheap, easy, and fast sources of information
Then they could switch to a source of information that is a little bit more expensive, a little bit more difficult, and a little slower... such as satellite Internet.
Xen and Hyper-V both depend on a modified guest OS with special privileges for hardware access. This is typically Linux in Xen, although you can use other OSes as well. Hyper-V uses Windows 2008.
VMware ESX Server uses its own vmkernel that uses modified Linux drivers to perform device access.
Well, let's consider a few virtualization platforms.
VMware ESX Server's "vmkernel" is supposed to be a custom microkernel that happens to use drivers from Linux (all device drivers run inside the vmkernel). Guest OSes (including the Linux-based service console used to manage the server) run on top of the vmkernel and access all hardware though it.
The Xen hypervisor does less than VMware's vmkernel; it loads a "dom0" guest that manages the system and performs I/O. With few exceptions, this guest is the only guest that directly interfaces with hardware. The hypervisor manages memory, schedules the CPU, and manages communication between guests.
Microsoft's Hyper-V appears to operate in a similar fashion to Xen.
In the case of Xen and Hyper-V, it's still different than a microkernel; the guest instance that is performing I/O is still a monolithic kernel - usually Linux with Xen and currently Windows 2008 with Hyper-V.
In all three systems, you've got one special guest that handles important system functions and one kernel handling I/O (be it a guest as in Xen/Hyper-V or be it the vmkernel in VMware). There's no "filesystem" process/VM, no "network driver" process/VM, etc.
They could, but C# developers would crucify them. The community has been very vocal that they DON'T want that feature.
"The community" is a pretty big group of people. I'm sure there are people that would like the functionality, and as long as you can enable/disable it, what's the issue?
VB.net has been plagued with problems related to the "on the fly" compliation and letting you change code while the program is running.
Visual Studio 2005's C# functionality has on-the-fly code editing for minor changes.
I don't know what you consider a very long time but at least for VS 2005 you're wrong. It highlights your errors after you try to run your code. That's in no way closer to "real time" error highlighting than compiling my code manually.
Visual Studio highlights errors in Visual Basic.NET code and has done this since at least 2003.
I'm not sure why they can't extend this functionality to C#; the languages are very similar.
But you can erase the magnetic stripe rather easily. And it's plausible for it to get erased accidentally. Are they going to manually copy your information down / scan the card / refuse service because someone's card won't scan?
One thing I'd recommend doing is sticking with NFS for file sharing if you have a choice. All major platforms now support it (well I can't speak for Vista, but XP works so I presume it would as well). If you need to share to Windows XP, you need to download the (now free) Services for Unix 3.5 from MS to get their NFS client. I'm not a Mac person, but I know you can mount NFS on those out of the box (at least from the CLI). I use amd (Auto Mount Daemon) for my other Linux systems to auto mount. The performance of NFS blows Samba out of the water, I can stream Xvid on 802.11B with NFS with virtually no issues (can't do that with Samba).
If NFS is faster than SMB on Windows, something is seriously wrong. I regularly reach the peak expected speeds (~25mbit/sec on 802.11g, ~480mbit/sec on 1000BaseT) using Samba as a server on Linux and Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X as clients.
1. linux+raid5+lvm but the only problem is with more hdd's the more power, then you'll need to upgrade the psu, etc.
If you have more than 4 or so drives, you're better off getting some sort of backplane / externally powered enclosure instead of dealing with PC power supplies (many of which are designed to support overclocked CPUs and dual video cards instead of hard drives). External SATA enclosures often implement staggered spinup and support hotplugging, whereas a typical PC power supply might have difficulties. Plus, it makes things much more manageable.
I use 5-drive eSATA enclosures ($46/drive + 1 controller port per 5 drives), and I may use 12-drive SATA over InfiniBand enclosures in the future ($48.33/drive + either 3 SATA over InfiniBand ports, 12 SATA ports, or 3 port multipliers and 3 SATA ports).
Since Apple went intel the costs have been pretty much on par, sometimes a little cheaper and sometimes a little more, compared to competing systems from Dell and etc.
Costs might be on par if you try to make the closest specification comparison possible, especially if you take the effort to price out a custom configuration.
However, these kinds of comparisons are flawed because they pit one brand's products (Apple) against some other arbitrarily chosen product line in an attempt to make one side look better, usually Apple. And if you want something less than 5lbs, something smaller than 13.3", or something bigger than 13.3" for less than $1,999, you won't find any luck with Apple without going for used / refurbished products.
I beg to differ.. OSX 10.4.10 (Which I'm running now..) Plays fine with Win2k3 - With SMB anyhow - I'm yet to try and/or need to setup an AD domain.
Windows 2003 required that SMB clients support SMB signing features by default, at least in domain configurations. Since 2003, the Mac OS X workaround was to disable the quirements on the server. This was the case until the recent release of OS X 10.5. Apple could have easily included this in any version of OS X during that time or even backported the new SMB driver after it was completed in Leopard.
The cifs file system driver for Linux has supported packet signing and enabled it by default since 2003. (Note that smbfs has been deprecated in favor of cifs, and does not have SMB signing capaibility.)
And then there's Apple's Bonjour and its.local domain. Apple didn't even bother to do something about this in 10.5. The directory utility times out if you try to join to a domain ending in.local and share access often fails as well.
Your customers use email; your coworkers use email
And if you use a email client like Lotus Notes (which has replication) or Microsoft Outlook (which has offline folder storage), you can still access your calendar, email, address book, etc. without the network. You can write emails and have them sent when you're connected again; you can delete/move things and have the changes synchronized when you're reconnected.
Actual throughput over GigE is only going to be 400Mbps anyways
Oh, come on. I get 55 mbytes/sec (440 mbits/sec + overhead) easily with OS X 10.5 from a Linux box running Samba. Throw in RAID on the OS X side and I'm sure I could get more.
These stimulants (Adderall, Ritalin, other amphetamine/amphetamine-like drugs) have an effect as soon as the chemicals reach your brain. Much like caffeine or nicotine, the effects last for awhile and taper off. They can be consumed whenever without any withdrawal (at normal doses). For example, someone might take these drugs twice a year for finals.
Prozac and other antidepressants tend to take a few weeks before results are felt at all. Those kinds of drugs rely on altering brain chemistry and generally must be taken on a schedule to remain effective, and can even have negative effects if you miss a dose. You can't just take them whenever you're feeling upset and get an effect 20 minutes later.
Many of these devices (and many software RAID5 implementations for Windows) can't even reach single-drive maximum speeds in RAID5, which is well below the maximum throughput of Gigabit Ethernet.
You can actually do all of those things on AT&T. Whether they want you to is the issue at hand. The idea is that those who are more likely to use more "unlimited" data will pay more for it.
you can't stream music to your phone.
My AT&T phone came with XM Radio streaming software. I can use the included Windows Media Player to stream just about any mp3/wma stream, or download third-party software to do so. And I can download third-party software to stream Sirius if I desire.
Or access the iTunes store from your iPhone.
Definitely not AT&T's fault. My phone also came with a music store.
The Q6600's are faster and more efficient because Intel has more money to throw at manufacturing.
Manufacturing is an important part of any high-tech industry. Improved manufacturing leads to lower costs and improved products. In the end, it doesn't really matter to Intel's big accounts and PC enthusiasts how they made their products better, but on more relevant measures (price, performance, efficency being the big ones.)
but from everything I've read, AMD's chips have been much more elegantly designed since going Dual Core
But who makes purchasing decisions based on which CPU has the "more elegant design" instead of something quantifiable like performance and/or efficiency?
whereas Intel can just throw money at the problem, like buying the company that designed the Core 2 architecture and shrinking their fab process.
The current Core microarchitecture can be traced back to the original P6 microarchitecture first released in 1995. It was developed in Israel, a country where Intel has had a presence for over thirty years - and where the Pentium M was developed. While technologies acquired companies may have contributed to the success of the Core microarchitecture, it's still an Intel design.
And in this case, throwing money at problems gets them solved. It means that I can throw money at products I want today.
but once AMD is down to a 45nm etch, they will easily be back in the game since they'll be able to clock those chips way past where they currently are.
If AMD's new 65nm CPUs can't compete with Intel's year-old 65nm CPUs, what makes you think AMD's 45nm CPUs will be better than Intel's 45nm CPUs (once both are generally available)? They don't even offer a decent competitor for Intel's LV and ULV dual-core mobile chips, which are 65nm.
Just wondering - if a new customer buys a quad core phenom, just to run some super elite gamerz rig running Vista.... does it really matter if the CPU is going to generate bad results, or crash at some point ? Its not like the operating system and other code running on the buggy processor isnt equally likely to break something as well.
Who wants to buy an unsafe / defective product? Even if the bug is unlikely to occur, I would not want to purchase a product with a known performance-impacting (fixed) or crash-causing (not fixed) CPU unless it was priced competitively to make up for the disadvantage. And right now, the AMD CPUs are simply not priced competitively.
It doesn't really matter how buggy you percieve the software running on "super elite gamerz rig"s to be - whether the software is extremely reliable or extremely buggy, running it on buggy hardware will only increase the chances of failure.
With HFC (hybrid fiber coax) networks where the "coax" part is shared with more than one customer, you've got one more leg of the connection that's subject to problems -- and not as easy to upgrade. Cable companies already pack as much as they can into their limited bandwidth, balancing analog, digital, and HD channels; they can't just add more bandwidth on the coax for data services without rearraning other things. So they either have to upgrade infrastructure to DOCSIS 2/3 or expand their fiber out so that each HFC node serves less customers.
DSL / Fios services do not share this issue. If congestion happens between the cable/DSL/Fios node and the Internet, operators need only increase the bandwidth available between those locations - which shouldn't be nearly as hard to do, since they'd be adding another connection alongside or better utilizing an existing fiber connection.
The part of the signal used for voice is always plain standard GSM.
That could be true for some networks, but not the GSM/UMTS network I use. I set my phone to use only 3G service; consequently, all voice calls go over the UMTS network. Even without forcing the phone to use 3G, the majority of my calls went over 3G. By default, UMTS/HSDPA service is preferred and GSM/EDGE is used when UMTS is unavailable.
A GSM phone from 10 years ago is just as usable today for voice.
And this is going to be the case on any network that expands GSM and UMTS coverage alongside each other (well, if you discount advances in radios, new frequency allocations, and new codecs.) However, there's nothing preventing an operator from expanding coverage with 3G only.
I can't speak for the Australia market, but it's not unheard of for carriers to transition from one technology to another incompatible one over the course of a few years - the US's largest carrier being one example, with most of its customers using technologies other than GSM ten years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
$30 for 1.5 megabit? AT&T advertises $20 for 768 kbit; $25 for 1.5 megabit; 3.0 megabit at $30, and 6.0 megabit at $35.
Then they could switch to a source of information that is a little bit more expensive, a little bit more difficult, and a little slower... such as satellite Internet.
Xen and Hyper-V both depend on a modified guest OS with special privileges for hardware access. This is typically Linux in Xen, although you can use other OSes as well. Hyper-V uses Windows 2008.
VMware ESX Server uses its own vmkernel that uses modified Linux drivers to perform device access.
Well, let's consider a few virtualization platforms.
VMware ESX Server's "vmkernel" is supposed to be a custom microkernel that happens to use drivers from Linux (all device drivers run inside the vmkernel). Guest OSes (including the Linux-based service console used to manage the server) run on top of the vmkernel and access all hardware though it.
The Xen hypervisor does less than VMware's vmkernel; it loads a "dom0" guest that manages the system and performs I/O. With few exceptions, this guest is the only guest that directly interfaces with hardware. The hypervisor manages memory, schedules the CPU, and manages communication between guests.
Microsoft's Hyper-V appears to operate in a similar fashion to Xen.
In the case of Xen and Hyper-V, it's still different than a microkernel; the guest instance that is performing I/O is still a monolithic kernel - usually Linux with Xen and currently Windows 2008 with Hyper-V.
In all three systems, you've got one special guest that handles important system functions and one kernel handling I/O (be it a guest as in Xen/Hyper-V or be it the vmkernel in VMware). There's no "filesystem" process/VM, no "network driver" process/VM, etc.
"The community" is a pretty big group of people. I'm sure there are people that would like the functionality, and as long as you can enable/disable it, what's the issue?
Visual Studio 2005's C# functionality has on-the-fly code editing for minor changes.
Visual Studio highlights errors in Visual Basic.NET code and has done this since at least 2003.
I'm not sure why they can't extend this functionality to C#; the languages are very similar.
In all of those examples, one end of the copy was a single desktop drive.
But you can erase the magnetic stripe rather easily. And it's plausible for it to get erased accidentally. Are they going to manually copy your information down / scan the card / refuse service because someone's card won't scan?
If NFS is faster than SMB on Windows, something is seriously wrong. I regularly reach the peak expected speeds (~25mbit/sec on 802.11g, ~480mbit/sec on 1000BaseT) using Samba as a server on Linux and Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X as clients.
If you have more than 4 or so drives, you're better off getting some sort of backplane / externally powered enclosure instead of dealing with PC power supplies (many of which are designed to support overclocked CPUs and dual video cards instead of hard drives). External SATA enclosures often implement staggered spinup and support hotplugging, whereas a typical PC power supply might have difficulties. Plus, it makes things much more manageable.
I use 5-drive eSATA enclosures ($46/drive + 1 controller port per 5 drives), and I may use 12-drive SATA over InfiniBand enclosures in the future ($48.33/drive + either 3 SATA over InfiniBand ports, 12 SATA ports, or 3 port multipliers and 3 SATA ports).
MS Hearts shipped with an Acer computer I got in 1995, a month or two after Windows's release.
Costs might be on par if you try to make the closest specification comparison possible, especially if you take the effort to price out a custom configuration.
However, these kinds of comparisons are flawed because they pit one brand's products (Apple) against some other arbitrarily chosen product line in an attempt to make one side look better, usually Apple. And if you want something less than 5lbs, something smaller than 13.3", or something bigger than 13.3" for less than $1,999, you won't find any luck with Apple without going for used / refurbished products.
Windows 2003 required that SMB clients support SMB signing features by default, at least in domain configurations. Since 2003, the Mac OS X workaround was to disable the quirements on the server. This was the case until the recent release of OS X 10.5. Apple could have easily included this in any version of OS X during that time or even backported the new SMB driver after it was completed in Leopard.
The cifs file system driver for Linux has supported packet signing and enabled it by default since 2003. (Note that smbfs has been deprecated in favor of cifs, and does not have SMB signing capaibility.)
And then there's Apple's Bonjour and its
And if you use a email client like Lotus Notes (which has replication) or Microsoft Outlook (which has offline folder storage), you can still access your calendar, email, address book, etc. without the network. You can write emails and have them sent when you're connected again; you can delete/move things and have the changes synchronized when you're reconnected.
If you're using gmail, good luck.
Oh, come on. I get 55 mbytes/sec (440 mbits/sec + overhead) easily with OS X 10.5 from a Linux box running Samba. Throw in RAID on the OS X side and I'm sure I could get more.
There is a difference, mainly in operation.
These stimulants (Adderall, Ritalin, other amphetamine/amphetamine-like drugs) have an effect as soon as the chemicals reach your brain. Much like caffeine or nicotine, the effects last for awhile and taper off. They can be consumed whenever without any withdrawal (at normal doses). For example, someone might take these drugs twice a year for finals.
Prozac and other antidepressants tend to take a few weeks before results are felt at all. Those kinds of drugs rely on altering brain chemistry and generally must be taken on a schedule to remain effective, and can even have negative effects if you miss a dose. You can't just take them whenever you're feeling upset and get an effect 20 minutes later.
Many of these devices (and many software RAID5 implementations for Windows) can't even reach single-drive maximum speeds in RAID5, which is well below the maximum throughput of Gigabit Ethernet.
A lot of the drugs *are* amphetamines, including Adderall (generic form - mixed amphetamine salts) and Desoxyn (methamphetamine).
Others (Ritalin, Concerta & generics) are methylphenidate, which is very similar to amphetamine.
Desoxyn is methamphetamine, in pill form. Methamphetamine is a strong stimulant, but in this form safe under controlled doses.
My AT&T phone came with XM Radio streaming software. I can use the included Windows Media Player to stream just about any mp3/wma stream, or download third-party software to do so. And I can download third-party software to stream Sirius if I desire.
Definitely not AT&T's fault. My phone also came with a music store.
Manufacturing is an important part of any high-tech industry. Improved manufacturing leads to lower costs and improved products. In the end, it doesn't really matter to Intel's big accounts and PC enthusiasts how they made their products better, but on more relevant measures (price, performance, efficency being the big ones.)
But who makes purchasing decisions based on which CPU has the "more elegant design" instead of something quantifiable like performance and/or efficiency?
The current Core microarchitecture can be traced back to the original P6 microarchitecture first released in 1995. It was developed in Israel, a country where Intel has had a presence for over thirty years - and where the Pentium M was developed. While technologies acquired companies may have contributed to the success of the Core microarchitecture, it's still an Intel design.
And in this case, throwing money at problems gets them solved. It means that I can throw money at products I want today.
If AMD's new 65nm CPUs can't compete with Intel's year-old 65nm CPUs, what makes you think AMD's 45nm CPUs will be better than Intel's 45nm CPUs (once both are generally available)? They don't even offer a decent competitor for Intel's LV and ULV dual-core mobile chips, which are 65nm.
Who wants to buy an unsafe / defective product? Even if the bug is unlikely to occur, I would not want to purchase a product with a known performance-impacting (fixed) or crash-causing (not fixed) CPU unless it was priced competitively to make up for the disadvantage. And right now, the AMD CPUs are simply not priced competitively.
It doesn't really matter how buggy you percieve the software running on "super elite gamerz rig"s to be - whether the software is extremely reliable or extremely buggy, running it on buggy hardware will only increase the chances of failure.
With HFC (hybrid fiber coax) networks where the "coax" part is shared with more than one customer, you've got one more leg of the connection that's subject to problems -- and not as easy to upgrade. Cable companies already pack as much as they can into their limited bandwidth, balancing analog, digital, and HD channels; they can't just add more bandwidth on the coax for data services without rearraning other things. So they either have to upgrade infrastructure to DOCSIS 2/3 or expand their fiber out so that each HFC node serves less customers.
DSL / Fios services do not share this issue. If congestion happens between the cable/DSL/Fios node and the Internet, operators need only increase the bandwidth available between those locations - which shouldn't be nearly as hard to do, since they'd be adding another connection alongside or better utilizing an existing fiber connection.
That could be true for some networks, but not the GSM/UMTS network I use. I set my phone to use only 3G service; consequently, all voice calls go over the UMTS network. Even without forcing the phone to use 3G, the majority of my calls went over 3G. By default, UMTS/HSDPA service is preferred and GSM/EDGE is used when UMTS is unavailable.
And this is going to be the case on any network that expands GSM and UMTS coverage alongside each other (well, if you discount advances in radios, new frequency allocations, and new codecs.) However, there's nothing preventing an operator from expanding coverage with 3G only.
I can't speak for the Australia market, but it's not unheard of for carriers to transition from one technology to another incompatible one over the course of a few years - the US's largest carrier being one example, with most of its customers using technologies other than GSM ten years ago.