Everyone knows that when you get a 768kbps residential connection you're paying for "up to" that amount. Everyone with a brain knows that services are massively oversold so that not everyone can max out their connection at once.
The issue here is that ISPs should be prevented from providing preferential service to particular content providers (including themselves).
The bill also talks about also preventing discrimination between different packet types unless the subscriber asks for it. This is actually quite interesting, as it means that my VOIP packets and my streaming video packets would get the same priority unless I authorized my ISP to prioritize the VOIP packets.
Basically it looks like the ISPs could still throttle a subscriber if they're using too much bandwidth, but wouldn't be allowed to drop specific types of packets unless the subscriber allows them.
Makes sense to me. If I want to use up all of my bandwidth with netflix, my ISP shouldn't be allowed to prevent that. (Even if they'd rather I subscribe to their TV service.)
Suppose I have too much data for my internal drive, so I dump some of it to the external drive and remove it from the internal drive.
From this point until the external drive is backed up that a drive crash will result in lost information.
Using RAID1 for the primary external drive closes that window. The "backup" is another system (larger and preferably also RAID1) that contains periodic snapshots going back in time. (Ideally a combination of incremental and full.) That way both systems are protected against drive failure as well as accidental/malicious deletion of information.
The "backup" could be offsite, or there could be a third system (preferably also RAID1) at an offsite location.
Technically, a tamper resistant torx is still six-lobed, but it has a post in the middle. This isn't really an option for tiny screws like the one in the iphone.
It's not what they can afford, but what they're willing to spend. Your employer cares about money. They're going to pick something reasonably cheap with good enough performance to do the job. An enthusiast is willing to spend thousands of dollars upgrading upgrading their machine because they want the speed.
We're getting new machines at work. They're decent, but my coworker just built himself a machine with twice the cpu power, twice the I/O speed, and three times the RAM because he's interested in video editing.
People have different tastes. This way I can have a macbook, you can have a vaio, the guy around the corner can have a gaming laptop, and if you want to save money you use a repurposed old desktop...and they all connect to the server for doing "real work". Then those with laptops can take them home and watch movies, play games, surf the web, or whatever else.
The company cares about the bottom line. If your productivity is noticeably impaired, make a business case to your boss for a faster machine. A thousand bucks gets you a pretty decent machine these days.
All the real work happens on a virtual machine running on a central server farm. Everyone logs in over the network and gets a locked-down uniform corporate virtual machine.
It doesn't matter what physical device the employees use to connect to the server, since from the point of view of the employer nothing important happens on the employee's device--it's just a terminal.
Pretty much all the companies mentioned are using virtual desktops. That is, the physical device is essentially a glorified terminal for the purposes of work. The connection to the "real" corporate machine is an encrypted session to a central server.
So they don't care about viruses because there is nothing directly on the unencrypted network. They don't care about support because anyone with nonstandard hardware is responsible for their own support, and the corporate support only handles the contents of the virtual machine.
So they don't care what you're running in terms of a physical device as long as you can connect to the central server to do the "real work".
Clearly Superior Technologies has a trackball called the L-TracX. Laser optical tracking, runtime switchable resolution (in the hardware), stainless steel rollers.
And of course the ball is standard pool-ball sized, so you can do this:
Sure, if there's only one guy available you get that guy.
However, it's also the case that residents are commonly required to work 24hr (or greater) shifts, and there *is* a common expectation that medical professionals will work when tired. There's also a common expectation that medical professionals will also work when sick--to the detriment of their patients.
It needs to be a workplace standard that healthcare providers will work reasonable shifts, will book themselves off when tired, and will stay home when sick. Until this is the norm and not the exception, people will continue to suffer avoidable harm.
First of all, I was talking about the medical system. I order to have doctors working shorter hours, you need to have more doctors -> more money.
If the doctors are salaried with benefits, then certainly the loaded rate of another person could be more than paying overtime to the existing staff.
However, in many cases doctors are basically contractors. In these cases there is no reason why having more doctors would cost any more. The extra cost to the hospital to have more doctors is incidental--more records in the computer, basically.
"I don't get paid for work I did two decades ago. Why should you?"
Because the value of a work of authorship isn't necessarily known right away.
Suppose copyright didn't hold--this implies that authors would be paid by the book, or by the word, or by the hour, as a salaried employee, or some other similar mechanism. How would authors and publishers possibly arrive at some kind of fair price--especially for an author that is just starting out?
Suppose I write a work and self-publish it and it lingers in obscurity until a decade later someone rediscovers it and it goes viral. Why shouldn't I get a cut of the proceeds?
Now I *do* think that the whole "life plus X years" thing is a bit silly. There's no reason why the descendents of the authors should continue to get paid.
Not necessarily. I've been on sites that will show you your existing password, but only after jumping through many hoops to prove your identity. The fact that they have access to your unencrypted password doesn't necessarily mean that they're using it for identification--it could easily be stored in a back-end database somewhere and used only to show to people that forget it.
Maybe they actually do research there? From the Wikipedia page, they've done work on a nuke reactor that can burn uranium waste or thorium, the mosquito laser, and modeling of Malaria spread via mosquitoes, among other things.
Maybe it's something like Microsoft Research (cool) vs Microsoft (uncool).
git allows you to bisect from known-good and known-bad kernels to try and find the source of the problem. The original complaint was that some of the intermediate changes don't build.
The problem here is not necessarily branching/merging, but that maintainers and developers do something along the line of "commit bad change, notice problem, commit fix" in their own private branch. Then, rather than clean up their private branch that whole history gets merged into the main kernel tree.
This has the advantage of showing more details of development, but has the downside that a bisect that hits the "bad change" commit won't build and will require some manual action to select a "nearby" commit that will build.
As I view it, it's less about rebase/merge and more about developers/maintainers being more diligent about keeping their trees clean before merging back to the mainline.
It may be increasing over time, but it is still finite, and there is a definite cost for that increase.
Bandwidth costs real money. An ISP oversubscribes because they gamble that not all their customers will want to use it at once. They also use misleading advertising.
I'd love to have actual service level agreements with my ISP, complete with minimum and maximum speeds, allowed burst rates, etc. That way both sides could monitor the connection and ensure that the standards are being met.
The current "unlimited" plans lead to issues where the ISP isn't actually obligated to upgrade except when public pressure gets too great and people start leaving. Incidentally, riding that line (just before people actually leave) probably gives the greatest profits to the ISP.
If they bribed/coopted someone in the factory they could infect a bunch of NICs before they ever got to the end user, and they'd have backdoors all over.
A distributed system is handy because you don't need to be net-connected to do work, so you can take it on your laptop and work on it while on the plane, bus, etc. without worrying about a net connection.
You can pass half-done changes to your coworkers for evaluation without checking them in to the central server.
If doing any work with the linux kernel, git is the most efficient tool to use simply because everyone else is using it.
And of course you can still have a central server to act as the "official" repository. It's just that you can also bypass it when desired.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows that when you get a 768kbps residential connection you're paying for "up to" that amount. Everyone with a brain knows that services are massively oversold so that not everyone can max out their connection at once.
The issue here is that ISPs should be prevented from providing preferential service to particular content providers (including themselves).
The bill also talks about also preventing discrimination between different packet types unless the subscriber asks for it. This is actually quite interesting, as it means that my VOIP packets and my streaming video packets would get the same priority unless I authorized my ISP to prioritize the VOIP packets.
Basically it looks like the ISPs could still throttle a subscriber if they're using too much bandwidth, but wouldn't be allowed to drop specific types of packets unless the subscriber allows them.
Makes sense to me. If I want to use up all of my bandwidth with netflix, my ISP shouldn't be allowed to prevent that. (Even if they'd rather I subscribe to their TV service.)
Prints fade, have smaller dynamic range, and contain less information than the digital file.
Sure, having prints around is nice, but you want to keep the digital negatives as well.
Suppose I have too much data for my internal drive, so I dump some of it to the external drive and remove it from the internal drive.
From this point until the external drive is backed up that a drive crash will result in lost information.
Using RAID1 for the primary external drive closes that window. The "backup" is another system (larger and preferably also RAID1) that contains periodic snapshots going back in time. (Ideally a combination of incremental and full.) That way both systems are protected against drive failure as well as accidental/malicious deletion of information.
The "backup" could be offsite, or there could be a third system (preferably also RAID1) at an offsite location.
My bad...looks like the "Torx TS" is five-star with a post. However, the Mac "pentaglobular" drivers is different than Torx TS.
Technically, a tamper resistant torx is still six-lobed, but it has a post in the middle. This isn't really an option for tiny screws like the one in the iphone.
It's not what they can afford, but what they're willing to spend. Your employer cares about money. They're going to pick something reasonably cheap with good enough performance to do the job. An enthusiast is willing to spend thousands of dollars upgrading upgrading their machine because they want the speed.
We're getting new machines at work. They're decent, but my coworker just built himself a machine with twice the cpu power, twice the I/O speed, and three times the RAM because he's interested in video editing.
People have different tastes. This way I can have a macbook, you can have a vaio, the guy around the corner can have a gaming laptop, and if you want to save money you use a repurposed old desktop...and they all connect to the server for doing "real work". Then those with laptops can take them home and watch movies, play games, surf the web, or whatever else.
The company cares about the bottom line. If your productivity is noticeably impaired, make a business case to your boss for a faster machine. A thousand bucks gets you a pretty decent machine these days.
All the real work happens on a virtual machine running on a central server farm. Everyone logs in over the network and gets a locked-down uniform corporate virtual machine.
It doesn't matter what physical device the employees use to connect to the server, since from the point of view of the employer nothing important happens on the employee's device--it's just a terminal.
Pretty much all the companies mentioned are using virtual desktops. That is, the physical device is essentially a glorified terminal for the purposes of work. The connection to the "real" corporate machine is an encrypted session to a central server.
So they don't care about viruses because there is nothing directly on the unencrypted network. They don't care about support because anyone with nonstandard hardware is responsible for their own support, and the corporate support only handles the contents of the virtual machine.
So they don't care what you're running in terms of a physical device as long as you can connect to the central server to do the "real work".
Clearly Superior Technologies has a trackball called the L-TracX. Laser optical tracking, runtime switchable resolution (in the hardware), stainless steel rollers.
And of course the ball is standard pool-ball sized, so you can do this:
http://ajm.no-ip.info/CST/tb/img_2463.jpg
Sure, if there's only one guy available you get that guy.
However, it's also the case that residents are commonly required to work 24hr (or greater) shifts, and there *is* a common expectation that medical professionals will work when tired. There's also a common expectation that medical professionals will also work when sick--to the detriment of their patients.
It needs to be a workplace standard that healthcare providers will work reasonable shifts, will book themselves off when tired, and will stay home when sick. Until this is the norm and not the exception, people will continue to suffer avoidable harm.
First of all, I was talking about the medical system. I order to have doctors working shorter hours, you need to have more doctors -> more money.
If the doctors are salaried with benefits, then certainly the loaded rate of another person could be more than paying overtime to the existing staff.
However, in many cases doctors are basically contractors. In these cases there is no reason why having more doctors would cost any more. The extra cost to the hospital to have more doctors is incidental--more records in the computer, basically.
"I don't get paid for work I did two decades ago. Why should you?"
Because the value of a work of authorship isn't necessarily known right away.
Suppose copyright didn't hold--this implies that authors would be paid by the book, or by the word, or by the hour, as a salaried employee, or some other similar mechanism. How would authors and publishers possibly arrive at some kind of fair price--especially for an author that is just starting out?
Suppose I write a work and self-publish it and it lingers in obscurity until a decade later someone rediscovers it and it goes viral. Why shouldn't I get a cut of the proceeds?
Now I *do* think that the whole "life plus X years" thing is a bit silly. There's no reason why the descendents of the authors should continue to get paid.
Not necessarily. I've been on sites that will show you your existing password, but only after jumping through many hoops to prove your identity. The fact that they have access to your unencrypted password doesn't necessarily mean that they're using it for identification--it could easily be stored in a back-end database somewhere and used only to show to people that forget it.
Maybe they actually do research there? From the Wikipedia page, they've done work on a nuke reactor that can burn uranium waste or thorium, the mosquito laser, and modeling of Malaria spread via mosquitoes, among other things.
Maybe it's something like Microsoft Research (cool) vs Microsoft (uncool).
The equivalent glass from Nikon or Sony (formerlyMinolta) is also not cheap. Sigma/Tamron are a bit better, but often a step down in quality.
You want to talk breathtakingly expensive, look at Leica, or Hasselblad.
If you do a lot of stop-and-go urban driving, hybrids are great. Taxi drivers love them.
If you're doing a lot of highway driving, a diesel will likely do better.
git allows you to bisect from known-good and known-bad kernels to try and find the source of the problem. The original complaint was that some of the intermediate changes don't build.
The problem here is not necessarily branching/merging, but that maintainers and developers do something along the line of "commit bad change, notice problem, commit fix" in their own private branch. Then, rather than clean up their private branch that whole history gets merged into the main kernel tree.
This has the advantage of showing more details of development, but has the downside that a bisect that hits the "bad change" commit won't build and will require some manual action to select a "nearby" commit that will build.
As I view it, it's less about rebase/merge and more about developers/maintainers being more diligent about keeping their trees clean before merging back to the mainline.
It may be increasing over time, but it is still finite, and there is a definite cost for that increase.
Bandwidth costs real money. An ISP oversubscribes because they gamble that not all their customers will want to use it at once. They also use misleading advertising.
I'd love to have actual service level agreements with my ISP, complete with minimum and maximum speeds, allowed burst rates, etc. That way both sides could monitor the connection and ensure that the standards are being met.
The current "unlimited" plans lead to issues where the ISP isn't actually obligated to upgrade except when public pressure gets too great and people start leaving. Incidentally, riding that line (just before people actually leave) probably gives the greatest profits to the ISP.
If they bribed/coopted someone in the factory they could infect a bunch of NICs before they ever got to the end user, and they'd have backdoors all over.
It's aimed at 1U servers that have no free drive bays or PCI slots.
Duh....
A distributed system is handy because you don't need to be net-connected to do work, so you can take it on your laptop and work on it while on the plane, bus, etc. without worrying about a net connection.
You can pass half-done changes to your coworkers for evaluation without checking them in to the central server.
If doing any work with the linux kernel, git is the most efficient tool to use simply because everyone else is using it.
And of course you can still have a central server to act as the "official" repository. It's just that you can also bypass it when desired.
You can always use a DVCS like a centralized one. The opposite is not true.