When the cart is going downwind and there's a flag flying with the training end consistently pointing into that wind from a standard attached to the cart, I'll believe it.
They're entitled to compete in a free economy, and if the government uses taxes to fund a competing service, the government would be undercutting their business.
But that wouldn't happen, the government would 'bail them out', and we'd end up with more transportation than people need and a transportation system hobbling on government crutches... and the whole thing being paid for out of the public's pocket.
The ignorance seems to be assuming folks lack technical knowledge.
I have had several versions of the iPhone and AT&T (Cingular) on the RAZR for years before that, and I've had very good service. If I were asked, I would have responded with that fact.
It doesn't take technical knowledge - if you can only remember a small number (5 or 6?) of dropped calls over 5 years of moderate usage, you don't have a problem.
This study tests the appropriateness of Torrance's assumptions of trait independence and the combinability of measures (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) with respect to the scoring of the tests for a younger population and estimates the homogeneity of the scores. The sample consisted of 128 elementary school children. Results indicate that separate scoring for fluency, flexibility, and originality traits is not warranted, because any special dispositions for these traits that may exist are overwhelmed by the task specificity of the scores. It is suggested that the Torrance scores reveal nothing interesting about the individual, and the report contends that use of more than a single score from the Torrance battery makes little sense. The major question still unanswered is when, if ever, it makes sense to use a score from the Torrance battery.
I'd find a new job and negotiate a higher salary, then turn in my 2 weeks notice. If you want to accept the probable counter-offer you can, but don't be surprised if it's not forthcoming in this day and age.
No matter how important YOU think you are, it's their opinion of you that matters where wages are concerned.
Ah, you feel an anonymous post on an internet forum with no citation is capable of rebutting a research paper from one of the most influential research organizations in the US.
"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?
Yes it will. It claims to tax the households in the upper 5% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.
I read the title and the article, then started reading the replies. I was wondering who could have possibly have considered this news worthy and kdawson was the only one that came to mind, so I checked (which isn't something I normally do)
Things break "in the ordinary course of business" and that's the reason UNIX shops need UNIX admins, even though it's my experience that UNIX breaks less often than other OS's.
As far as our obligation to not disclose the contents of mail we see doing our job, I don't believe that satisfies any privacy concerns...
Peeping through a peep-hole at someone taking a shower and promising not to tell is still a violation of their privacy.
I ignored no spec - they need to go back to the customer for revision 'cause they're technically unfeasible. I guess I COULD talk myself into believing I know what the customer wants......but then I'd suck as a tech.
So, then you suck as a tech since you want to read things into the specs that aren't there. It's OK, I've seen plenty of crappy techs at IBM, AT&T, Boeing and McDonnell Dogulas before that. You'll still be able to make a living.
I've seen really good techs there, too, and they'd not misread the specs.
That's it, right there! You're apparently not a tech!
"meaningless semantics" to you, "technical specifications" to me. I guess over 30 years in the industry will do that.
The specs speak for themselves:
Aggregate multiple ISP connections to provide high bandwidth site-to-site link, yet not expensive 'cause it's for a small business.
As stated, it's not technically feasable. You go ahead and keep imagining those are "meaningless semantics" or imagining they mean something else entirely. Have fun with that.
The OP said "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections".
What's funny is how you keep ignoring the original premise and want to infer based on subsequent statements that don't support the challenge you're trying to make...since "site-to-site" links can be created over the internet, it's irrelevant to your argument yet you try to use it as a focal point.
On second thought, no, it's not funny... not "ha-ha" funny, at any rate. Read a book and get back with me.
What difference does that make? My original post applies - you need a device that supports port trunking. A "site-to-site link" can be created using one or more ISP's, so that criteria doesn't require any particular prerequisite. As written, the "multiple ISP connections" means "multiple ISP" unless you suggest the adjective doesn't modify the noun directly following it.
If so, the internet cojones apparently don't require intelligence.
The OP wrote "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections"
Had he written "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple connections from an ISP" you'd just be a jerk, but as it stands, you're an ignorant jerk.
The original poster requested info on how to create link aggregation on multiple network routers, not load balance his system...although I'm not sure he understands the difference.
The short answer is - he can't. He would need them going to a single device which supports port trunking, and that's not going to happen with connections from dissimilar IPS's.
Slashdot Mirror
So, everyone is arguing about somone not wanting to release their property?
yeah, I read more into this and found that there's a one way clutch on the drive wheels.
When the cart is going downwind and there's a flag flying with the training end consistently pointing into that wind from a standard attached to the cart, I'll believe it.
They're entitled to compete in a free economy, and if the government uses taxes to fund a competing service, the government would be undercutting their business.
But that wouldn't happen, the government would 'bail them out', and we'd end up with more transportation than people need and a transportation system hobbling on government crutches... and the whole thing being paid for out of the public's pocket.
...is that it'll steal customers from the airlines, which are already hurting. What will we do then, bail them out?
We're spending too much and we need to stop.
The ignorance seems to be assuming folks lack technical knowledge.
I have had several versions of the iPhone and AT&T (Cingular) on the RAZR for years before that, and I've had very good service. If I were asked, I would have responded with that fact.
It doesn't take technical knowledge - if you can only remember a small number (5 or 6?) of dropped calls over 5 years of moderate usage, you don't have a problem.
Also:
malware != virus
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED052254&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED052254
The Interpretation of Torrance Creativity Scores.
This study tests the appropriateness of Torrance's assumptions of trait independence and the combinability of measures (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) with respect to the scoring of the tests for a younger population and estimates the homogeneity of the scores. The sample consisted of 128 elementary school children. Results indicate that separate scoring for fluency, flexibility, and originality traits is not warranted, because any special dispositions for these traits that may exist are overwhelmed by the task specificity of the scores. It is suggested that the Torrance scores reveal nothing interesting about the individual, and the report contends that use of more than a single score from the Torrance battery makes little sense. The major question still unanswered is when, if ever, it makes sense to use a score from the Torrance battery.
I'd find a new job and negotiate a higher salary, then turn in my 2 weeks notice. If you want to accept the probable counter-offer you can, but don't be surprised if it's not forthcoming in this day and age.
No matter how important YOU think you are, it's their opinion of you that matters where wages are concerned.
I'd not let the guy tag the side of my house either. That's not censorship, that's me exercising my rights.
From the patent application:
First: Note the question mark in the subject of this post. Then read the following;
Inventors: Uhlik; Christopher R. (Danville, CA), Orchard; John T. (Palo Alto, CA)
Appl. No.: 11/497,567
Filed: July 31, 2006
http://home.pacbell.net/cuhlik/cu_resume.html
Dr. Chris Uhlik
7/2002 to present, Engineering Director -- Google, Inc. Mountain View, CA
http://www.spoke.com/info/p2WHRbr/JohnOrchard
John Orchard, Dir Engineering, Vyyo Inc.
Ah, you feel an anonymous post on an internet forum with no citation is capable of rebutting a research paper from one of the most influential research organizations in the US.
Oh SNAP! You got me!
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Understanding-Poverty-in-America
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=122
"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?
Yes it will. It claims to tax the households in the upper 5% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.
I read the title and the article, then started reading the replies. I was wondering who could have possibly have considered this news worthy and kdawson was the only one that came to mind, so I checked (which isn't something I normally do)
Yeah, kdawson ... "stuff that matters" indeed.
Things break "in the ordinary course of business" and that's the reason UNIX shops need UNIX admins, even though it's my experience that UNIX breaks less often than other OS's.
As far as our obligation to not disclose the contents of mail we see doing our job, I don't believe that satisfies any privacy concerns...
Peeping through a peep-hole at someone taking a shower and promising not to tell is still a violation of their privacy.
I do the same, but consider that reading the e-mail. I think a court would too, if it came to that.
"Fortunately for everybody, this is not true — most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' "
I disagree. When something starts filling /var/spool/mqueue it's common that customer e-mail get read.
I ignored no spec - they need to go back to the customer for revision 'cause they're technically unfeasible. I guess I COULD talk myself into believing I know what the customer wants... ...but then I'd suck as a tech.
I haven't gotten where I am by doing that.
So, then you suck as a tech since you want to read things into the specs that aren't there. It's OK, I've seen plenty of crappy techs at IBM, AT&T, Boeing and McDonnell Dogulas before that. You'll still be able to make a living.
I've seen really good techs there, too, and they'd not misread the specs.
That's it, right there! You're apparently not a tech!
"meaningless semantics" to you, "technical specifications" to me. I guess over 30 years in the industry will do that.
The specs speak for themselves:
Aggregate multiple ISP connections to provide high bandwidth site-to-site link, yet not expensive 'cause it's for a small business.
As stated, it's not technically feasable. You go ahead and keep imagining those are "meaningless semantics" or imagining they mean something else entirely. Have fun with that.
The OP said "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections".
What's funny is how you keep ignoring the original premise and want to infer based on subsequent statements that don't support the challenge you're trying to make...since "site-to-site" links can be created over the internet, it's irrelevant to your argument yet you try to use it as a focal point.
On second thought, no, it's not funny... not "ha-ha" funny, at any rate. Read a book and get back with me.
So, you agree that site-to-ISP requires link aggregation...
There's a difference between a customer network and an ISP network.
An ISP provides a connection to the internet, by defintion. So, "site-to-internet-at-large" is what was the topic of discussion.
What difference does that make? My original post applies - you need a device that supports port trunking. A "site-to-site link" can be created using one or more ISP's, so that criteria doesn't require any particular prerequisite. As written, the "multiple ISP connections" means "multiple ISP" unless you suggest the adjective doesn't modify the noun directly following it.
If so, the internet cojones apparently don't require intelligence.
Perhaps English isn't your first language...
The OP wrote "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple ISP connections"
Had he written "Has anyone setup a system to aggregate multiple connections from an ISP" you'd just be a jerk, but as it stands, you're an ignorant jerk.
The original poster requested info on how to create link aggregation on multiple network routers, not load balance his system...although I'm not sure he understands the difference.
The short answer is - he can't. He would need them going to a single device which supports port trunking, and that's not going to happen with connections from dissimilar IPS's.