Thank you. I did read the article and as you pointed out they did not specify what the oil used is but said it is similar to mineral oil as you stated. Therefore, I think it is quite appropriate to assume the chemical structure of the unknown oil used in their design is modeled after mineral oil and hence the appropriate subject of my post.
A lot of products and materials you wouldn't think twice about have to be handled properly in large quantities and come with all kinds of warnings. A giant server farm immersed in mineral oil I think would qualify as a large quantity user of mineral oil. Check out the MSDS on caffeine or ethanol for example.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/c0165.htmhttp://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/89308.htm
A mineral oil or liquid petroleum is a liquid by-product of the distillation of petroleum to produce gasoline and other petroleum based products from crude oil. And it isn't exactly non-toxic nor non-flammable (see link below). Not to mention all the heavy metals still found in many servers. Inevitably some of those metals will be picked up by the circulating oil so disposal might become an issue as well. Don't get me wrong, I like new ideas that save energy but touting it is "totally green" is skipping a few steps.
I completely agree and you question is well directed. So I did a little research just to see myself. This is about 1/3rd of the top level executives of a 70k person tech company.
CEO - JD, MBA Finance
SVP - BS Engineering
SVP - BS Engineering
SVP - MS CS
SVP - MS CS
SVP - MS Economics, Phd
EVP CFO - MBA
SVP - JD
SVP - MBA
SVP - MBA
SVP - No degree at all
SVP - BS EE, MS EE
As I mentioned it isn't going to get you the job but it can't hurt as you plan you way up the food chain.
MBAs are a dime a dozen but sometimes a foot note required to advance in management. In the 80's and early 90's they were in vogue. We have tons of MBAs here where I work and it doesn't mean a whole lot. I would say close to half of the MBAs I worth with have an additional masters in CS or EE and got the MBA because it was offered for free by the company. I have an ugrad in business, a masters is CIS, and working on my second masters in CS. I cannot overstate how much easier business classes are than most science classes (in general). That doesn't mean business classes are not helpful or worthwhile. It just means that if you try to equate difficult in course material to job pay that correlation generally doesn't hold.
The Universities grind out so many MBAs in so many different forms (part-time MBA, on-line MBA, executive MBA, etc) it is kind of like a certificate course almost unless you get an MBA from Harvard. I am not saying that your don't learn anything from obtaining an MBA but don't expect your MBA to equal cash like the colleges try to market it - even if you get one from the ivy league as my wife did and her BioChem + MBA wasn't worth it. MBAs, JDs, and terminal Masters programs are revenue machines for a lot of universities. Higher education is a worthy goal but many get these degrees looking for a pay day and that may not always be the case. Now with the for-profits also involved in the diploma mill grind, the MBAs have lost even more weight.
That is akin to the "what about the artists?" statement the industry always uses. What about the artists? They make most of their money from live performances since they don't have to pay the record industry to perform their songs live (usually).
"Artists are paid royalties usually somewhere between 3% and 25% of the suggested retail price of the recording. Exactly where it falls depends on the clout of the artist (a brand new artist might receive less than a well-known artist). From this percentage, a 25% deduction for packaging is taken out (even though packaging rarely costs 25% of the total price of the CD)."
The US Supreme Court recently refused to hear the Eminem/Universal case upon which the lower courts had ruled in Eminem's favor that he should receive 50% of revenue from downloaded songs versus the 3 to 5% he was receiving based on CD licensing agreements. That's a big deal and really does put money back in the artists pocket. If the record industry was really concerned about the poor artists they would not be fighting to keep their 95-97%.
http://www.prefixmag.com/news/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-eminemuniversal-case/50487/
And can you cite an example of a coal plant that has forced tens of thousands to leave their homes for decades due to high levels of radioactive isotopes? I can't. But I can certainly cite one for the nuclear industry and perhaps a second that is unfolding before our eyes. I am no fan of coal but comparing the risks of nuclear to coal isn't practical. A public company cannot survive the monetary losses they will incur with a large nuclear power plant disaster. The losses are so huge it will break them and then guess who has to step in and pay. That is what scares people about nuclear power plants - not dying of the radiation immediately but what it does to people's lives. Forcing thousands of people from their homes cannot be understated and scare the heck out of people with children particularly. If you don't have a child yet you really can't fully appreciate that aspect.
In the US we rate drivers based on statistical data about that individual driver and any other drivers in the household that might drive the vehicle. Most states allow insurance companies to take in consideration where the driver lives, the age of the driver, how many children the driver has, how many claims the driver has filed, the marital status of the driver, how many accidents the driver has been in within a time period, arrests the driver has had, the type of vehicle the driver is driving and how many miles the driver puts on the car as well as the driver's credit score. This all goes into a algebraic formula and out pops a premium number. The insurance company then uses their own loss data to determine rate filings submitted to the state in which you are a resident requesting certain increases or decreases in premiums for drivers of specific demographics. If the insurance companies determine a self-driving car greatly reduces the risk of accident then they will with out a doubt either give you a substantial discount or press for a different rating table with respect to self-driving cars. Existing discounts people receive today are for lights that always stay on or vehicles with anti-lock brakes and air-bags and advanced theft control systems. I could see them institute this as a discount. I could also see it go the other way where insurance companies refuse to insure such vehicles due to unknown liability risks. As a former actuary I can state the assessments and assignment of these risks are not trivial and will not be easily solved. I would predict new laws that have to be written but laws do not always tell the final story until those laws are tested in court. And until that happens insurance companies are not in the business of taking on the unknown with respect to liability.
Therein still lies the liability. If your robotic car strikes and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk then who is at fault? Is it the owner of the car that was simple a passenger or is it the manufacturer of the vehicle perhaps because the avoidance algorithm didn't work in that particular situation? That is the liability risk I am trying highlight. That the car perhaps is involved in less accidents is sort of mute and simply statistical. Who gets sued and what the courts will decided with respect to liability is not clear and more interesting. Typically the US courts attempt to apply existing standards and tests to a modern situation until the new case law is decided or the legislature writes new laws. But, that may have unintended consequences. Imagine you are drunk and your car drives you home. Your car gets in a fender bender. Should you be booked for DUI? Should your insurance company be able to drop you? You were not driving the car but you are the only person in the vehicle and clearly your robotic car is not suppose to get in an accident. Therefore, were you actually driving the car or not? How do you prove you were not? These are not necessarily show stoppers but interesting twists to laws that were not designed to be applicable in such circumstances and will be addressed in time. Until then the liability issues will be a big problem with respect to these types of vehicles.
If a bug in your driving system causes an accident who is at fault? Is it you or the vehicle manufacturer? Currently if you a passenger in the car then the driver is at fault. In this case, you aren't driving. What insurance company is going to insure your car if you are not the driver? One possible model might be automated trains but that is a special form of transportation.
In the past, if it is a manufacturing defect that causes an accident and it can be proven in court (such as sticking acceleration pedal) then the driver is at fault but those harmed (both the driver and the one hit) will presumably sue the manufacturing company for huge sums of money. If the manufacturer knew of problems but didn't disclose then that make the settlement value even higher. I don't see how this is going to be resolved without special liability limitations for the makers of these systems and that might not be in the best interested of anyone but the manufacturers. In addition, I don't see how insurance companies are going to be able to rate the risk of these systems as drivers but perhaps over time enough data will be accumulated. Insurance works with regards to insurable risks and probabilities based on past risk experiences. With a new technology like this there is going to be some insurance and liability issues to resolve.
I grew up in the era of Ma Bell and party lines. I even had bought a phone from the very first phones you could buy without having to go through the company to lease one. Does anyone remember the princess phones? But, regardless I didn't get these features which I now have with my VoIP phone. My message may get garbled a few times during a phone call but it is far outweighed by the price, features, free long distance and mobility.
Free Second Line
Free International Minutes
VoiceMail web and phone
VoiceMail Viewer
VoiceMail-to-Email
Web Based Call Logs
Online Account Management
Remote VoiceMail Access
Do Not Disturb
Incoming Call Routing
Outbound Caller ID Block
Anonymous Caller Rejection
Block List
Incoming Caller ID with Name
Outgoing Caller ID with Name
Call Waiting Caller ID
Simultaneous Ring
Call Forwarding
Call Waiting
Speed Dial
Contact List
Call Hold
Directory Assistance Block
Operator Block
Softphone
7, 10 & 11 Digit Dialing
*69 Call Return
3-Way Conference Calling
Local & Long Distance Dialing
Bring Your Own Device
Enhanced 911
Free In-Network Calling
211 Community Service
311 City Service
711 TTY Text Phone Service
811 Call-Before-You-Dig Service
Click2Call
Remote Click2Call
International Call Block
Fax Catcher (Free)
Failsafe
iPhone App
This is very true and most people don't acknowledge or realize the significance of the facts. AT&T as we knew it has died. SBC and Bell South are wearing AT&T's skin as a shroud. The only reason SBC and Bell South, two former "Baby Bells" merged was due to weakness in their own products.
Re:FTPS, SFTP, FTP over SSH, ...
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And now you have confused people even more. First, implicit FTPS is deprecated. Explicit FTPS is what is being used and implemented. It is what is described RFC 4217. It is what I used in my open source FTPS library and client. Works great.
It is so confusing I get confused and I have implemented these protocols. The mistake I made in my earlier post was referring to implicit FTPS as the the other mode of explicit FTPS where the user is allowed to turn the tunnel on and off. That is actually referred to as a name which escapes me.
Second, for every passive connection you most certainly have to handshake that connection. Certs are passed on the connection and the tunnel is set up each time a file is transferred. It might appear to you as a user of an FTPS client that isn't happening but I assure you it is.
So get off you high horse my little MVP friend and do some implementations and less blogging.
FTPS, SFTP, FTP over SSH, ...
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
Good lord.
FTPS = FTP over SSL or TLS
SFTP = Totally different protocol from FTP and is unique unto itself. Bears no resemblance to FTP protocol except you are moving files to and from.
FTP over SSH = FTP over SSH where the FTP commands are tunneled inside an SSH session.
FTPS still uses passive ports to push data but FTPS client has to negotiate yet another TLS handshake which means you or the FTPS client has to re-authenticate or chain up the certificate every time a passive port is open. If your firewall allows clients to make passive connections to your FTP server then FTPS will work just fine. From the clients perspective, passive connections are the way to go since the client originates all connections to the server.
There are two modes of operation for FTPS - explicit and implicit. Implicit is weak because you can send you username and password in clear and then secure the connection. It should even be supported by FTPS clients but it is for legacy purposes. Explicit FTPS means right when the FTP connection is made from the client to the server, a TLS handshake and connection is created and then your credentials are passed in. All communications after the AUTH TLS command are secured within the TLS protocol.
There is a LOT of confusion when talking about FTP, SFTP, FTPS, FTP over SSH, or FTP over X.
Sounds like an fun, interesting problem to me. I think one the fundamental problems with supercomputers is that they generally are restricted to work on problems that can be broken down into individual pieces. Perhaps groups of FPGA chips might be adapted to portions of the problem and then aggregated as a whole to provide a solution?
You might see a super computer design around other RISC processors such as the ARM. A supercomputer using the ARM takes more chips perhaps but the power savings is substantial compared to the x86. Furthermore, companies that like Nvidia with their Telsa platform are pushing into the supercomputing space with specialized chips that are purposefully designed to deal with large linear problem solving. Interestingly the Telsa chip is a multicore chip as well.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_tesla_s1070_us.html
Did you even read my post? The non-competes are thrown out by the judges based on how the language is defined in the contract all the time. Good grief. I never said "many states do not allow non-competes." Read it before you reply.
"Employers should carefully draft non-compete agreements to ensure that they comply with the standards for this recent case. Unless an employer can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the restrictions are necessary to protect the employerâ(TM)s legitimate business interest, do not impose undue hardship on the employee, and do not injure the public, then the agreement will not be upheld. Employers are cautioned to consider which employees sign such agreements. In almost every case involving non-compete agreements, one finds the phrase âoeCovenants not to compete are disfavored by the law,â For this reason, employers should scrutinize existing agreements and prudently use them in the right situation to make sure they will hold up in court."
The courts generally rule against non-competes unless you are an executive with a company or you sold a business to a company and got a large financial gain from it. For the average joe, non-compete clauses are seen as inference with commerce by the courts and can be rejected based on any flaw. For example, if the judge thinks the geographic region is too large then he/she can chunk the whole non-compete. The same goes if the judge finds that the field definition of work is too broad. So, non-compete is really the least of your concerns. Here is an example of a court ruling in Calif. Most states allow it - very few every enforce it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/07/BAUH12716R.DTL&tsp=1
At the very least, buy this book and read it. Get legal advice because laws are different in different states and your contracts and situation varies from case to case. Paying $1,000 for a lawyer now is nothing compared to what your legal bills will be if you have to defend yourself in court - even if you win. And getting your lawyer to negotiate is always an option. Speaking directly to the company on such issues is not advisable. Have a lawyer do it and do everything upfront. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you can't do it or are bound to the agreement. A lot of contracts are "boiler" plate and are not enforceable. For example non-competes hardly ever stick (especially for contractors) but non-solicitation does hold up. In many cases only specific sections of the document are enforceable and if you are a contractor you have many claim and ownership rights in the legal system that an employee does not have. Basically as the creator you own the software you have made and you must grant that ownership to the company in an agreement. As an employee, you pretty much own nothing unless it is on your own time and some will debate that as well but it is much easier for the court to rule against an employee vs. a contractor. Your lawyer can use a crummy contract (and most are in my experience) to your advantage to come to an agreement with your client so that you can proceed without the fear of legal action. Or you can at least be well informed before you roll the dice.
http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/ObjectID/2C02C865-21E7-497C-9DDDBA058175FFA1/310/266/
In the USA, no laws are broken when discriminating on age without younger workers. Sorry.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html
We are turning into a nation where people do not want to do "work." They just want to push papers and farm the "work" out to some other entity. It certainly is not interesting and stimulating of the brain (IMHO). Most of my managers would love to fire me if they could because they are terrified by the fact they don't understand what I am doing. Yet, they will gladly take credit for the results.
We don't use lead in solder pipes (banned in 1986) anymore for the reason not that because it causes cancer but that it leads to lead poising which causes neurological damage. Similar to mercury poisoning but works on the body in a different manner.
Lead was also banned from gasoline in the mid-80's as well because it was showing up in people's blood stream. That is why if you were born after 1980 you will find that your lead level in your blood is much lower than your parents. I was not so lucky.
This solution is not cheap but it is a true solution to your problem.
A few years ago I built an automatic voice system for doctors offices. What I found is that although a lot of voice modems have some voice capability but they generally suck when it comes to building a telephony solution. You can read more about that here.
Telephony cards are not cheap but I finally found a company that makes a external telephony box that did exactly what I wanted. It isn't cheap though but it will give you complete control over the telephone line via your PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I did read the article and as you pointed out they did not specify what the oil used is but said it is similar to mineral oil as you stated. Therefore, I think it is quite appropriate to assume the chemical structure of the unknown oil used in their design is modeled after mineral oil and hence the appropriate subject of my post.
A lot of products and materials you wouldn't think twice about have to be handled properly in large quantities and come with all kinds of warnings. A giant server farm immersed in mineral oil I think would qualify as a large quantity user of mineral oil. Check out the MSDS on caffeine or ethanol for example. http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/c0165.htm http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/89308.htm
A mineral oil or liquid petroleum is a liquid by-product of the distillation of petroleum to produce gasoline and other petroleum based products from crude oil. And it isn't exactly non-toxic nor non-flammable (see link below). Not to mention all the heavy metals still found in many servers. Inevitably some of those metals will be picked up by the circulating oil so disposal might become an issue as well. Don't get me wrong, I like new ideas that save energy but touting it is "totally green" is skipping a few steps.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m7700.htm
I completely agree and you question is well directed. So I did a little research just to see myself. This is about 1/3rd of the top level executives of a 70k person tech company.
CEO - JD, MBA Finance
SVP - BS Engineering
SVP - BS Engineering
SVP - MS CS
SVP - MS CS
SVP - MS Economics, Phd
EVP CFO - MBA
SVP - JD
SVP - MBA
SVP - MBA
SVP - No degree at all
SVP - BS EE, MS EE
As I mentioned it isn't going to get you the job but it can't hurt as you plan you way up the food chain.
6 in 10 Americans don't even believe in evolution. How could they have any respect for the biological sciences? http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
MBAs are a dime a dozen but sometimes a foot note required to advance in management. In the 80's and early 90's they were in vogue. We have tons of MBAs here where I work and it doesn't mean a whole lot. I would say close to half of the MBAs I worth with have an additional masters in CS or EE and got the MBA because it was offered for free by the company. I have an ugrad in business, a masters is CIS, and working on my second masters in CS. I cannot overstate how much easier business classes are than most science classes (in general). That doesn't mean business classes are not helpful or worthwhile. It just means that if you try to equate difficult in course material to job pay that correlation generally doesn't hold. The Universities grind out so many MBAs in so many different forms (part-time MBA, on-line MBA, executive MBA, etc) it is kind of like a certificate course almost unless you get an MBA from Harvard. I am not saying that your don't learn anything from obtaining an MBA but don't expect your MBA to equal cash like the colleges try to market it - even if you get one from the ivy league as my wife did and her BioChem + MBA wasn't worth it. MBAs, JDs, and terminal Masters programs are revenue machines for a lot of universities. Higher education is a worthy goal but many get these degrees looking for a pay day and that may not always be the case. Now with the for-profits also involved in the diploma mill grind, the MBAs have lost even more weight.
That is akin to the "what about the artists?" statement the industry always uses. What about the artists? They make most of their money from live performances since they don't have to pay the record industry to perform their songs live (usually). "Artists are paid royalties usually somewhere between 3% and 25% of the suggested retail price of the recording. Exactly where it falls depends on the clout of the artist (a brand new artist might receive less than a well-known artist). From this percentage, a 25% deduction for packaging is taken out (even though packaging rarely costs 25% of the total price of the CD)." The US Supreme Court recently refused to hear the Eminem/Universal case upon which the lower courts had ruled in Eminem's favor that he should receive 50% of revenue from downloaded songs versus the 3 to 5% he was receiving based on CD licensing agreements. That's a big deal and really does put money back in the artists pocket. If the record industry was really concerned about the poor artists they would not be fighting to keep their 95-97%. http://www.prefixmag.com/news/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-eminemuniversal-case/50487/
And can you cite an example of a coal plant that has forced tens of thousands to leave their homes for decades due to high levels of radioactive isotopes? I can't. But I can certainly cite one for the nuclear industry and perhaps a second that is unfolding before our eyes. I am no fan of coal but comparing the risks of nuclear to coal isn't practical. A public company cannot survive the monetary losses they will incur with a large nuclear power plant disaster. The losses are so huge it will break them and then guess who has to step in and pay. That is what scares people about nuclear power plants - not dying of the radiation immediately but what it does to people's lives. Forcing thousands of people from their homes cannot be understated and scare the heck out of people with children particularly. If you don't have a child yet you really can't fully appreciate that aspect.
In the US we rate drivers based on statistical data about that individual driver and any other drivers in the household that might drive the vehicle. Most states allow insurance companies to take in consideration where the driver lives, the age of the driver, how many children the driver has, how many claims the driver has filed, the marital status of the driver, how many accidents the driver has been in within a time period, arrests the driver has had, the type of vehicle the driver is driving and how many miles the driver puts on the car as well as the driver's credit score. This all goes into a algebraic formula and out pops a premium number. The insurance company then uses their own loss data to determine rate filings submitted to the state in which you are a resident requesting certain increases or decreases in premiums for drivers of specific demographics. If the insurance companies determine a self-driving car greatly reduces the risk of accident then they will with out a doubt either give you a substantial discount or press for a different rating table with respect to self-driving cars. Existing discounts people receive today are for lights that always stay on or vehicles with anti-lock brakes and air-bags and advanced theft control systems. I could see them institute this as a discount. I could also see it go the other way where insurance companies refuse to insure such vehicles due to unknown liability risks. As a former actuary I can state the assessments and assignment of these risks are not trivial and will not be easily solved. I would predict new laws that have to be written but laws do not always tell the final story until those laws are tested in court. And until that happens insurance companies are not in the business of taking on the unknown with respect to liability.
Therein still lies the liability. If your robotic car strikes and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk then who is at fault? Is it the owner of the car that was simple a passenger or is it the manufacturer of the vehicle perhaps because the avoidance algorithm didn't work in that particular situation? That is the liability risk I am trying highlight. That the car perhaps is involved in less accidents is sort of mute and simply statistical. Who gets sued and what the courts will decided with respect to liability is not clear and more interesting. Typically the US courts attempt to apply existing standards and tests to a modern situation until the new case law is decided or the legislature writes new laws. But, that may have unintended consequences. Imagine you are drunk and your car drives you home. Your car gets in a fender bender. Should you be booked for DUI? Should your insurance company be able to drop you? You were not driving the car but you are the only person in the vehicle and clearly your robotic car is not suppose to get in an accident. Therefore, were you actually driving the car or not? How do you prove you were not? These are not necessarily show stoppers but interesting twists to laws that were not designed to be applicable in such circumstances and will be addressed in time. Until then the liability issues will be a big problem with respect to these types of vehicles.
If a bug in your driving system causes an accident who is at fault? Is it you or the vehicle manufacturer? Currently if you a passenger in the car then the driver is at fault. In this case, you aren't driving. What insurance company is going to insure your car if you are not the driver? One possible model might be automated trains but that is a special form of transportation. In the past, if it is a manufacturing defect that causes an accident and it can be proven in court (such as sticking acceleration pedal) then the driver is at fault but those harmed (both the driver and the one hit) will presumably sue the manufacturing company for huge sums of money. If the manufacturer knew of problems but didn't disclose then that make the settlement value even higher. I don't see how this is going to be resolved without special liability limitations for the makers of these systems and that might not be in the best interested of anyone but the manufacturers. In addition, I don't see how insurance companies are going to be able to rate the risk of these systems as drivers but perhaps over time enough data will be accumulated. Insurance works with regards to insurable risks and probabilities based on past risk experiences. With a new technology like this there is going to be some insurance and liability issues to resolve.
I grew up in the era of Ma Bell and party lines. I even had bought a phone from the very first phones you could buy without having to go through the company to lease one. Does anyone remember the princess phones? But, regardless I didn't get these features which I now have with my VoIP phone. My message may get garbled a few times during a phone call but it is far outweighed by the price, features, free long distance and mobility. Free Second Line Free International Minutes VoiceMail web and phone VoiceMail Viewer VoiceMail-to-Email Web Based Call Logs Online Account Management Remote VoiceMail Access Do Not Disturb Incoming Call Routing Outbound Caller ID Block Anonymous Caller Rejection Block List Incoming Caller ID with Name Outgoing Caller ID with Name Call Waiting Caller ID Simultaneous Ring Call Forwarding Call Waiting Speed Dial Contact List Call Hold Directory Assistance Block Operator Block Softphone 7, 10 & 11 Digit Dialing *69 Call Return 3-Way Conference Calling Local & Long Distance Dialing Bring Your Own Device Enhanced 911 Free In-Network Calling 211 Community Service 311 City Service 711 TTY Text Phone Service 811 Call-Before-You-Dig Service Click2Call Remote Click2Call International Call Block Fax Catcher (Free) Failsafe iPhone App
This is very true and most people don't acknowledge or realize the significance of the facts. AT&T as we knew it has died. SBC and Bell South are wearing AT&T's skin as a shroud. The only reason SBC and Bell South, two former "Baby Bells" merged was due to weakness in their own products.
And now you have confused people even more. First, implicit FTPS is deprecated. Explicit FTPS is what is being used and implemented. It is what is described RFC 4217. It is what I used in my open source FTPS library and client. Works great.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4217.txt
Need more: read here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTPS#Methods_of_Invoking
http://www.rebex.net/secure-ftp.net/
It is so confusing I get confused and I have implemented these protocols. The mistake I made in my earlier post was referring to implicit FTPS as the the other mode of explicit FTPS where the user is allowed to turn the tunnel on and off. That is actually referred to as a name which escapes me.
http://www.rebex.net/secure-ftp.net/
Second, for every passive connection you most certainly have to handshake that connection. Certs are passed on the connection and the tunnel is set up each time a file is transferred. It might appear to you as a user of an FTPS client that isn't happening but I assure you it is.
So get off you high horse my little MVP friend and do some implementations and less blogging.
Good lord.
FTPS = FTP over SSL or TLS
SFTP = Totally different protocol from FTP and is unique unto itself. Bears no resemblance to FTP protocol except you are moving files to and from.
FTP over SSH = FTP over SSH where the FTP commands are tunneled inside an SSH session.
FTPS still uses passive ports to push data but FTPS client has to negotiate yet another TLS handshake which means you or the FTPS client has to re-authenticate or chain up the certificate every time a passive port is open. If your firewall allows clients to make passive connections to your FTP server then FTPS will work just fine. From the clients perspective, passive connections are the way to go since the client originates all connections to the server.
There are two modes of operation for FTPS - explicit and implicit. Implicit is weak because you can send you username and password in clear and then secure the connection. It should even be supported by FTPS clients but it is for legacy purposes. Explicit FTPS means right when the FTP connection is made from the client to the server, a TLS handshake and connection is created and then your credentials are passed in. All communications after the AUTH TLS command are secured within the TLS protocol.
There is a LOT of confusion when talking about FTP, SFTP, FTPS, FTP over SSH, or FTP over X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTPS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol
Sounds like an fun, interesting problem to me. I think one the fundamental problems with supercomputers is that they generally are restricted to work on problems that can be broken down into individual pieces. Perhaps groups of FPGA chips might be adapted to portions of the problem and then aggregated as a whole to provide a solution?
You might see a super computer design around other RISC processors such as the ARM. A supercomputer using the ARM takes more chips perhaps but the power savings is substantial compared to the x86. Furthermore, companies that like Nvidia with their Telsa platform are pushing into the supercomputing space with specialized chips that are purposefully designed to deal with large linear problem solving. Interestingly the Telsa chip is a multicore chip as well. http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_tesla_s1070_us.html
Did you even read my post? The non-competes are thrown out by the judges based on how the language is defined in the contract all the time. Good grief. I never said "many states do not allow non-competes." Read it before you reply.
http://library.findlaw.com/2006/Jul/13/246734.html
"Employers should carefully draft non-compete agreements to ensure that they comply with the standards for this recent case. Unless an employer can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the restrictions are necessary to protect the employerâ(TM)s legitimate business interest, do not impose undue hardship on the employee, and do not injure the public, then the agreement will not be upheld. Employers are cautioned to consider which employees sign such agreements. In almost every case involving non-compete agreements, one finds the phrase âoeCovenants not to compete are disfavored by the law,â For this reason, employers should scrutinize existing agreements and prudently use them in the right situation to make sure they will hold up in court."
The courts generally rule against non-competes unless you are an executive with a company or you sold a business to a company and got a large financial gain from it. For the average joe, non-compete clauses are seen as inference with commerce by the courts and can be rejected based on any flaw. For example, if the judge thinks the geographic region is too large then he/she can chunk the whole non-compete. The same goes if the judge finds that the field definition of work is too broad. So, non-compete is really the least of your concerns. Here is an example of a court ruling in Calif. Most states allow it - very few every enforce it. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/07/BAUH12716R.DTL&tsp=1
At the very least, buy this book and read it. Get legal advice because laws are different in different states and your contracts and situation varies from case to case. Paying $1,000 for a lawyer now is nothing compared to what your legal bills will be if you have to defend yourself in court - even if you win. And getting your lawyer to negotiate is always an option. Speaking directly to the company on such issues is not advisable. Have a lawyer do it and do everything upfront. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you can't do it or are bound to the agreement. A lot of contracts are "boiler" plate and are not enforceable. For example non-competes hardly ever stick (especially for contractors) but non-solicitation does hold up. In many cases only specific sections of the document are enforceable and if you are a contractor you have many claim and ownership rights in the legal system that an employee does not have. Basically as the creator you own the software you have made and you must grant that ownership to the company in an agreement. As an employee, you pretty much own nothing unless it is on your own time and some will debate that as well but it is much easier for the court to rule against an employee vs. a contractor. Your lawyer can use a crummy contract (and most are in my experience) to your advantage to come to an agreement with your client so that you can proceed without the fear of legal action. Or you can at least be well informed before you roll the dice. http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/ObjectID/2C02C865-21E7-497C-9DDDBA058175FFA1/310/266/
In the USA, no laws are broken when discriminating on age without younger workers. Sorry. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html
We are turning into a nation where people do not want to do "work." They just want to push papers and farm the "work" out to some other entity. It certainly is not interesting and stimulating of the brain (IMHO). Most of my managers would love to fire me if they could because they are terrified by the fact they don't understand what I am doing. Yet, they will gladly take credit for the results.
We don't use lead in solder pipes (banned in 1986) anymore for the reason not that because it causes cancer but that it leads to lead poising which causes neurological damage. Similar to mercury poisoning but works on the body in a different manner.
The way mercury affects you is via your brain's neural connections and is a bio-chemistry memick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
Lead was also banned from gasoline in the mid-80's as well because it was showing up in people's blood stream. That is why if you were born after 1980 you will find that your lead level in your blood is much lower than your parents. I was not so lucky.
humm... maybe you should read about apoptosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis
Or, you could live like the bubble kid and avoid any damage to your cells.
This solution is not cheap but it is a true solution to your problem. A few years ago I built an automatic voice system for doctors offices. What I found is that although a lot of voice modems have some voice capability but they generally suck when it comes to building a telephony solution. You can read more about that here.
http://www.exceletel.com/support/hardware/VoiceModems/index.htm
Telephony cards are not cheap but I finally found a company that makes a external telephony box that did exactly what I wanted. It isn't cheap though but it will give you complete control over the telephone line via your PC.
http://www.way2call.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=9
You can program it using their supplied API or using Microsoft TAPI. If that is too daunting then I would recommend using software from this company.
http://www.exceletel.com/products/teletools.htm
Good luck!