Montana in general and Bozeman in specific has a lot more depth than you imagine (fifth largest, not largest - that'd be Billings). Gibson manufactures acoustic guitars here. Numerous laser and optics businesses have headquarters here. High tech software/service companies have headquarters here. And yes, we're well-served by tourist, agricultural, and ranching interests as well. It's not a job potpourri (few places are in this economy), but it's reasonably prosperous, educated, and varied in terms of both employment and culture. (it's still no defense for the hiring background check policy - working to get that changed now)
Bozemanite replying here. I spoke with our city's HR department this morning concerning this. I don't think anyone's crazy here, even though this policy certainly is. Everyone I spoke with was (as is normal in Bozeman) utterly courteous, friendly and respectful. Given the overwhelming local sentiment against this policy, it's clear that someone made an error here (and then unfortunately, defended that error on local TV). I believe a quick course correction will occur shortly (fervently hope so, in any event; it'll be an interesting city election next year otherwise)
Clearly, issues of privacy was the point of our local CBS affiliate's story this morning (the linked article). This issue has snowballed within the community, and it's still very early yet. EVERYONE I am speaking with is outraged and questioning the legality and constitutionality of this. I suspect this will be raised at our City Commission meeting. My immediate concern this morning with Bozeman HR was to get somebody to wake up to the conflagration this was going to cause in privacy circles, and the very time-sensitive nature of responding effectively to these concerns. Ultimately, I can't imagine that the background check form won't be amended shortly, as this is definitely not in keeping with our city's character.
I'm living in Bozeman, great community - and believe me, there's a ton of uproar here about this. I spoke this morning with the city's HR department, trying to get a hold of our city attorney.
This has certainly done a lot of damage to our credibility as a tech friendly city (there are strong optics and software/service companies already operating here).
There are all manner of tests, and sooner or later, you do have to test in production. It's important to know that in cloud computing, there are certain kinds of tests that are only possible in production; production load is the surest way to characterize your application and platform. Who knows where in the deployment lifecycle this happened? Someone at Google, certainly, but not us.
... abusing your monopoly is. I read the article hoping to see some indication of how Google is keeping other competitors down or acting against the public good; didn't find it. My conclusion: not yet an issue.
quoth warren.oates (luved ya in Stripes), "Anything you really want to actually work with, you have to maintain yourself: PHP, Apache, rsync, ffmpeg, Perl -- all the seriously useful stuff like that you put into/usr/local and set your $PATH accordingly. You _cannot_ trust Apple not to break things."
That is definitely true under just about any distribution, as well. If you build your python or perl app against distro-provided packages, you can definitely expect breakage at some time in the future. If you've an application you need stability on, build and deploy your own just as you say.
While Microsoft has many problems, understanding basic components of operating system design pertaining to virtual memory and priority scheduling is not one of them.
My gentle point is that while your ideas aren't bad, they are not new or unconsidered.
Ah, that's such an interesting qualifier - "lately". Mostly, if you have multi-year experience, you'll come across bum drive models across all manufacturers and all technologies. I find my worst reliability to be, not surprisingly, laptop drives, and best reliability to be SCSI or FC drives. I don't have enough installed plant with SAS yet, though I expect that'll change in the next couple years.
Presently, most of the +10,000 spindles I am responsible for are either SCSI or SATA, with SCSI being far more reliable. A snapshot on a machine with an uptime of 1215 days (an incoming mail server - handles between 300 and 500k mails a day, so it's rarely idle:
I usually have one or two drives fail a day overall; I'd say 70% of the time, they are SATA Western Digital Drives, 20% of the time they are Seagate SCSI, and the remaining 10% of the time they are FC (usually Fujitsu or Seagate), and yes, those are just WAGs. I'd say the mix presently is 50% SATA and 50% SCSI/FC.
Bit of a non-sequitur there - MS' choice to build an R+D facility I'm sure had much more to do with low cost of skilled and specialized labor than by how many copies of MS Office were sold in Baking.
I'm no fan of DRM - but - Apple's doesn't annoy me . It doesn't get in the way of what I want to do - I can listen to the music or watch the videos I purchased. When it becomes an annoyance, then I'll be a bit more strident about this issue.
This is really interesting software, but I think it makes a mistake in making the assumption that the one picture being made "prettier" will result in a prettier face if the subject smiles. Imagine each of these faces if they were smiling, the before and after.
Interesting followup research maybe.... though practical application... hmmmm.
Actually, today was the first time I saw blu-ray HD content that really blew me away. No idea what it was, some farce with that girl who played in Little Miss Sunshine, but okay, the quality was really stunning - so sharp, without any of that dithering crap that I see in SpiderMan and Pirates of the Carribean. I'm not tracking the technology too closely, so I don't know if the actual issue with graininess are rendering algorithms in the players or the screen, or if they're encoding artifacts.
Anyway, this was one of the 120Hz Sony 46" screens. The sharpness was really seductive, and the first time I could say that yes, quality was FAR superior to DVD.
Well, it makes sense. Normal PCs run on essentially ambient air, and live for years even under heavy loads (games put a lot of load on systems) despite all the dust and cruft. Servers aren't that different in their hardware, so it makes sense they'd behave similarly.
It's true that a gaming PC is similar to a server PC in terms of load. However, you don't generally run 40 gaming PCs at a time. It's not the load or reliability of one machine - a room of ambient air can probably deal with one PC pretty well. When you've got a room the size of one's living room with 400 servers going, ambient air temp is a bit different.
I have purchased (amongst standard datacenter fare) Rackable Systems equipment. To a point, they address each issue that you make.
- DC power, central AC/DC rectifiers. Reduces heat output a lot - Cooled by cabinet. Rackable takes a bit of a hybrid approach - each server has its own fans, but the back (middle) of the cabinet (they are half depth servers) are louvered and the hot "aisle" effectively vents via the air of the servers itself. Not quite what you're talking about. - cabinets are effectively shallower. Since the servers are half-depth, they are run back-to-back. Server density of 80 to 84 servers per rack are common in these units. All the servers need on the back end is access to their power bus - I/O connections are all done on the front of the unit.
What kills you in a high-density environment here, even with DC power savings (which is substantial - approximately 25%), is power required.
I'm not saying that Rackable Systems are the end-all/be-all, but they are interestingly engineered systems.
No, it isn't. Parent was right - if physical access is there, at least on Unix/Linux variants, restoring admin privs to whomever you want is trivial.
Boot off Ubuntu, get yourself a shell, mkdir/mnt2 && mount/dev/sda/mnt2 && chroot/mnt2/bin/bash; passwd # change password
Now, I wouldn't trust that he didn't put all kinds of little "gifts" all over the system, so it'd be just as well that, if their architecture supports it, careful post-mortem investigation takes place, and an eventual reinstall.
Slashdot Mirror
Montana in general and Bozeman in specific has a lot more depth than you imagine (fifth largest, not largest - that'd be Billings). Gibson manufactures acoustic guitars here. Numerous laser and optics businesses have headquarters here. High tech software/service companies have headquarters here. And yes, we're well-served by tourist, agricultural, and ranching interests as well. It's not a job potpourri (few places are in this economy), but it's reasonably prosperous, educated, and varied in terms of both employment and culture. (it's still no defense for the hiring background check policy - working to get that changed now)
Bozemanite replying here. I spoke with our city's HR department this morning concerning this. I don't think anyone's crazy here, even though this policy certainly is. Everyone I spoke with was (as is normal in Bozeman) utterly courteous, friendly and respectful. Given the overwhelming local sentiment against this policy, it's clear that someone made an error here (and then unfortunately, defended that error on local TV). I believe a quick course correction will occur shortly (fervently hope so, in any event; it'll be an interesting city election next year otherwise)
Clearly, issues of privacy was the point of our local CBS affiliate's story this morning (the linked article). This issue has snowballed within the community, and it's still very early yet. EVERYONE I am speaking with is outraged and questioning the legality and constitutionality of this. I suspect this will be raised at our City Commission meeting. My immediate concern this morning with Bozeman HR was to get somebody to wake up to the conflagration this was going to cause in privacy circles, and the very time-sensitive nature of responding effectively to these concerns. Ultimately, I can't imagine that the background check form won't be amended shortly, as this is definitely not in keeping with our city's character.
I'm living in Bozeman, great community - and believe me, there's a ton of uproar here about this. I spoke this morning with the city's HR department, trying to get a hold of our city attorney. This has certainly done a lot of damage to our credibility as a tech friendly city (there are strong optics and software/service companies already operating here).
No, but presumably uslegal.com does make a legal argument. It's theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/
No. It's theft, just more accurately, theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/
I'd prefer my brokerage be honest, regardless of how their customers treat them when receiving bad news.
There are all manner of tests, and sooner or later, you do have to test in production. It's important to know that in cloud computing, there are certain kinds of tests that are only possible in production; production load is the surest way to characterize your application and platform. Who knows where in the deployment lifecycle this happened? Someone at Google, certainly, but not us.
From what I understand, it was a bookmarking service. How hard could it be to implement THAT database? Not very.
sloth jr
... abusing your monopoly is. I read the article hoping to see some indication of how Google is keeping other competitors down or acting against the public good; didn't find it. My conclusion: not yet an issue.
quoth warren.oates (luved ya in Stripes), "Anything you really want to actually work with, you have to maintain yourself: PHP, Apache, rsync, ffmpeg, Perl -- all the seriously useful stuff like that you put into /usr/local and set your $PATH accordingly. You _cannot_ trust Apple not to break things."
That is definitely true under just about any distribution, as well. If you build your python or perl app against distro-provided packages, you can definitely expect breakage at some time in the future. If you've an application you need stability on, build and deploy your own just as you say.
Press here.
While Microsoft has many problems, understanding basic components of operating system design pertaining to virtual memory and priority scheduling is not one of them.
My gentle point is that while your ideas aren't bad, they are not new or unconsidered.
It really and truly doesn't matter; ultimately, the cause of this are misanthropes, regardless of the platform used to amplify this attack.
Ah, that's such an interesting qualifier - "lately". Mostly, if you have multi-year experience, you'll come across bum drive models across all manufacturers and all technologies. I find my worst reliability to be, not surprisingly, laptop drives, and best reliability to be SCSI or FC drives. I don't have enough installed plant with SAS yet, though I expect that'll change in the next couple years.
Presently, most of the +10,000 spindles I am responsible for are either SCSI or SATA, with SCSI being far more reliable. A snapshot on a machine with an uptime of 1215 days (an incoming mail server - handles between 300 and 500k mails a day, so it's rarely idle:
Attached devices:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST336605LC Rev: 2200
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST336605LC Rev: 2200
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 02 Lun: 00
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST336605LC Rev: 2200
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03
I usually have one or two drives fail a day overall; I'd say 70% of the time, they are SATA Western Digital Drives, 20% of the time they are Seagate SCSI, and the remaining 10% of the time they are FC (usually Fujitsu or Seagate), and yes, those are just WAGs. I'd say the mix presently is 50% SATA and 50% SCSI/FC.
Bit of a non-sequitur there - MS' choice to build an R+D facility I'm sure had much more to do with low cost of skilled and specialized labor than by how many copies of MS Office were sold in Baking.
I'm no fan of DRM - but - Apple's doesn't annoy me . It doesn't get in the way of what I want to do - I can listen to the music or watch the videos I purchased. When it becomes an annoyance, then I'll be a bit more strident about this issue.
or ironically, the components used to make those mice.
It's mentioned in the first page of the article.
This is really interesting software, but I think it makes a mistake in making the assumption that the one picture being made "prettier" will result in a prettier face if the subject smiles. Imagine each of these faces if they were smiling, the before and after.
Interesting followup research maybe.... though practical application... hmmmm.
No, I don't remember this. Given that you can buy a Dell without an OS whatsoever, and still have it warrantied, I do indeed call bullshit.
sloth jr
Actually, today was the first time I saw blu-ray HD content that really blew me away. No idea what it was, some farce with that girl who played in Little Miss Sunshine, but okay, the quality was really stunning - so sharp, without any of that dithering crap that I see in SpiderMan and Pirates of the Carribean. I'm not tracking the technology too closely, so I don't know if the actual issue with graininess are rendering algorithms in the players or the screen, or if they're encoding artifacts.
Anyway, this was one of the 120Hz Sony 46" screens. The sharpness was really seductive, and the first time I could say that yes, quality was FAR superior to DVD.
It's true that a gaming PC is similar to a server PC in terms of load. However, you don't generally run 40 gaming PCs at a time. It's not the load or reliability of one machine - a room of ambient air can probably deal with one PC pretty well. When you've got a room the size of one's living room with 400 servers going, ambient air temp is a bit different.
sloth jr
I have purchased (amongst standard datacenter fare) Rackable Systems equipment. To a point, they address each issue that you make.
- DC power, central AC/DC rectifiers. Reduces heat output a lot
- Cooled by cabinet. Rackable takes a bit of a hybrid approach - each server has its own fans, but the back (middle) of the cabinet (they are half depth servers) are louvered and the hot "aisle" effectively vents via the air of the servers itself. Not quite what you're talking about.
- cabinets are effectively shallower. Since the servers are half-depth, they are run back-to-back. Server density of 80 to 84 servers per rack are common in these units. All the servers need on the back end is access to their power bus - I/O connections are all done on the front of the unit.
What kills you in a high-density environment here, even with DC power savings (which is substantial - approximately 25%), is power required.
I'm not saying that Rackable Systems are the end-all/be-all, but they are interestingly engineered systems.
sloth jr
No, it isn't. Parent was right - if physical access is there, at least on Unix/Linux variants, restoring admin privs to whomever you want is trivial.
Boot off Ubuntu, get yourself a shell, mkdir /mnt2 && mount /dev/sda /mnt2 && chroot /mnt2 /bin/bash; passwd # change password
Now, I wouldn't trust that he didn't put all kinds of little "gifts" all over the system, so it'd be just as well that, if their architecture supports it, careful post-mortem investigation takes place, and an eventual reinstall.
I assume there is a Microsoft solution as well.
sloth jr