Re: Burgers are good!
What do you think the difference between "vegetable spread" and "margarine" is, apart from the spelling?
Having said that, I do prefer "vegetable spread" over "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil".
2848 posts • joined 21 Jul 2009
What do you think the difference between "vegetable spread" and "margarine" is, apart from the spelling?
Having said that, I do prefer "vegetable spread" over "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil".
If your intake is reasonable then exercise will reduce your weight, if your intake is enormous so will you be unless your an athlete in training.
Argument from fallacy; if your intake was reasonable, you would not need to lose weight.
Exercise makes you "fit", it does not make you "not fat" unless the exercise tips your intake from a net surplus to a net deficit. Extra exercise accounts for such a small amount of your calorific expenditure, and an even smaller proportion if you are overweight and unfit, as you will find it difficult to do considerably more exercise than you are currently doing.
Exercise is "double good", but if you want to lose weight, cut out food and exercise more. If you want to lose weight, and only have the will power for one of those things, choose "eat less".
Exercise is fine for health, but it will do nothing for weight unless you also constrain intake.
To burn off a pack of chocolate digestives you'd be jogging for 4 hours.
You don't need to do exercise to lose weight.
The whole point of systemd is that it doesn't use init scripts.
No it isn't, that is one of the side effects, and that argument is one of the disingenuous arguments for introducing systemd.
The purpose is to borg desktop services in a way that suits desktops, but only a tiny proportion of linux machines are desktops.
(Replacing a 137 line shell script that calls wierd shit like "start-stop-daemon")
I'd prefer the shell script, because then there is less indirection between "I call this script" and what that script does.
PS: It's only weird if you don't know what it is doing. I find that ini file pretty fucking weird, because I have no clue what "running" that ini file does, or even what program "runs" it. In order to work that out I'd have to read and understand a program that does things based upon the contents of an ini file.
To work out what a shell script does, you need only to read it, or simply run it with "-x".
I'm a huge FreeBSD advocate, I run it at home, on my desktop, on my PVR, on my firewall, on my laptop, and on 800+ servers at work, where we heavily use FreeBSD jails.
We're ditching it at work :(
The main reason is that it's not possible to find sysadmin with good enough FreeBSD experience (well, with "any" FreeBSD experience tbh), and the Linux sysadmins we do hire do not like working with FreeBSD, find it difficult to update and maintain the machines - anything that goes wrong ever, they just shrug and say "oh its BSD".
However, the next biggest reason is that FreeBSD jails don't provide enough resource limitation technologies (see my post above), and so frequently you can have one poorly running application negatively affecting all the others.
Our new platform is Linux (Centos) + KVM, deploying a single application to a single VM. Docker (currently) seems to have most of the issues that jails have, but perhaps a combination of the two will be in my future, using docker to deploy multiple applications to a single VM.
Historically, the difference has been that VMs are easier to manage the resources that they use, since everything is virtual. With containers, nothing is virtual, there is simply a management layer that prevents you from doing certain things.
When you write a file on a VM, the virtual disk drive is called from the VM, the hypervisor eventually translates that into a write(2) call. When you write a file on a container, there is no intermediate step, the process in the container directly invokes write(2). The same applies to every syscall.
This directness is what makes containers so much more efficient than VMs, but it is also what prevented them from being used as much - with a VM, you can more closely constrain how much resource each VM uses, where as with early containers, a single container can easily use up all the resources on the box.
More modern containers like libcontainer and FreeBSD jails virtualise access to certain resources in order to allow controlling how much of that resource each container can use. This gives vastly less control than a VM would, eg in Docker and Jails you can control the cpuset and cpu shares that the processes in the container can see, and Docker can additionally control how much memory the container can see, but it cannot do things like ballooning or overallocation (iirc). Interestingly, Docker with LXC gives you far more resource controls than Docker with libcontainer.
Since the resource control is quite basic, the overhead of providing it is much less than on a VM. However, since the resource control is quite limited, you cannot do things like allocating a far share of IOPS, so if you have a container that uses all of your disk IOPS, you will still starve all your other containers. Hypervisors like KVM allow you to specify IOPS and throughput on virtual disk devices.
Technically that would be true if they were only selling contracts to the (huge) population of Luxemburg....
But technicalities apart, doesn't it just make basic sense - if you target a market outside of your home turf…
The idea of the common market is that any business trading legally in any part of the EU can sell goods and services to any customer in any other part of the EU.
The key point here is that Luxembourg is in the EU, and so Netflix Luxembourg is fully entitled to sell goods and services to French consumers providing that they satisfy the Luxembourgian laws under which they operate - their "home turf" is the whole EU.
My post pointed out that even though that is what EU law says, France has a particular reputation for doing whatever the hell it likes. As a gross generalisation, Germans pass the laws, Brits slavishly follow them and the French ignore them.
Technically, Netflix don't have to do anything that they wouldn't have to do in Luxembourg.
However "technically", "France" and "European law" don't necessarily have a lot to do with each other.
Gifts aren't income, and they definitely aren't the proceeds of disposing of an asset that has increased in value, so income tax and CGT are irrelevant.
Exchanges are not ducts tho. They don't look like a duct, they aren't shaped like a duct and they definitely don't quack.
How much does 60 million euros of third party liability cover cost anyways?
People who have no experience of the public sector would get exasperated at the public sector culture, lack of accountability, lack of product owner and variable requirements. It is very hard to run a successful project when there is no overall owner of the project.
I was all like, "Crikey, he's angry about the console? I know cmd.exe is bad, but you really don't need it much".
I'm getting old, think I need to play more video games..
without doubt; certainly. Also newspeak "something which must be going on because we've thought of it"
coughing up an extra £20 to have the back of my phone covered in bamboo and engraved with the words “Al’s Moto X” is, I must admit, quite alluring
Caveat emptor: customizing your device like so affects your consumer rights to return it, as it is then not suitable for resale.
On one hand, it's easy to technically get around such a ban. On the other hand, it is so much easier to sack someone if they use company resources to access a website that the company has said they are not allowed to access.
Hence the amusing begging emails to be put on to the "social networks allowed" ACL.
The most amusing thing after our facebook ban was implemented was the reasons that people came up with why they required facebook access at work - "Sure, the wage-slaves mustn't have access to facebook, but I am very important and need to check every 30 minutes where I am meeting Annabelle for drinks", these requests seemed to say.
Are you saying they knew they would be unlikely to deliver an offline mode, but still said they would in order to take peoples money?
..offline mode is required to connect 'from time to time'.
Sorry, who is being illiterate?
Why would I want 75 channels? Why would I want more than one channel?
I just want the TV that I want to watch when I want to watch it. The point of OTT is that you do not need to regress to broadcast limitations like segmenting content by channels.
No, you're not. I'll re-word what the article said:
In the population of all sampled parents, 43% felt the negatives of social networks outweighed the positives, 26% felt that social networks provide more benefits than harms, and 31% answered "something else".
In the population of sampled parents who allow their children on to social networks, 26% felt the negatives outweighed the positives.
I've never ever been barracked by someone shouting "BERKSHIRE! BERKSHIRE! BERKSHIRE!" though
The bit that gives it away that they are the same company is that the same company owns all those sub-entities.
The rest is just window dressing and frippery.
The problem the UK faced was that if they did nothing, basically no-one would be able to compete with BT. So they made up a system that produces a market that allows companies to "compete" against each other, selling bits that BT proffer up to them. This is better than nothing.
The unintended consequence is that BT (wholesale, but as I mentioned, irrelevant) get lots of revenue from all ISPs using their services, which enables them to profitably (they aren't doing it for free) build out a new last mile FTTx network.
When BT was privatised, one of the chief assets that BT shareholders bought from the government was the POTS network. With the advent of FTTx, BT no longer had that monopoly; they needed to fund a FTTx rollout, or risk someone else doing it.
Somehow, BT have managed to convince us that it is right that we pay them to profitably build a fibre monopoly. In ten years, BT will therefore have acquired everything to keep a telecoms monopoly in the UK in perpetuity, we're paying them to do it, and apparently most people think that is super.
There is very little real competition, since the largest proportion of users are all sold BT. Sure, there's an ISP in there somewhere, but most likely the ISP is BT, owned by BT, or buying bandwidth from BT, all whilst we pay BT to build and own all the new infrastructure. Phony choices are not choices.
Whenever I see "Boston Dynamics" I read "Massive Dynamic".
It's quite hard to not expose yourself when one of your gang has turned police informant.
This is why hanging out in a "gang" of hackers is a bad idea; eventually someone gets caught and throws everyone else under the bus.
the first to deliver universally-not-so-crappy bandwidth at decent rates is going to attract attention...and steal customers.
Steal customers? But that would require competing against each other.
I found it interesting that they find python + wsgi + centos + ansible "painful".
Competition drives build-out
There are three rings in the Venn diagram of mobile network development: Coverage, Price and Service.
Only because that makes you a pretty diagram that demonstrates your flawed point. With inter network roaming, there is also a cost associated with having your subscribers on someone else's AP.
The absolute biggest driver of commercial change is cost. We can set the cost that the free-loading network has to pay if their users roam onto a different network at whatever level we like. Since this cost is arbitrary, we would have implicit control of the market.
So, the article posits that roaming would lead to not enough base stations being built. By raising the roaming cost to networks, we would be able to introduce stimulus to those freeloading networks to build/share APs.
The author would have you believe that the only market is a free market, but there is no such thing as a free market - all markets have regulation and levers to control them.
If any employer tried this on me in the UK, I would very quickly tell them where they can stick it. This is my personal data, you aren't entitled to one byte of it.
No, its not because I'm porky (BMI 24 kthxbai), it just falls outside of anything my employer should be interested in.
Curious - when the NHS Blood Transfusion Service went tits-up, did you consider the maintenance work they did in order to rectify it non-essential?
My 50" telly cost £500 a couple of years ago. Panasonic. Dumb as a brick. The Panasonic smarties, with as far as I can tell the same panels, were about £800.
Sure, the same panels. Not the same electronics.
Right before OCZ went bust and were bought by Toshiba, and after they garnered the worst reputation in the business, they started flogging off factory refurbs of their most problematic drives - Vertex 3 and 4 - for basically nothing. I think I paid £30 for a 128GB Vertex 3 and £60 for a 240GB Vertex 4.
The Vertex 3 I use as an adaptive read cache for a ZFS array - if it fails, the system doesn't care one jot; I can even un-plug it and plug it back in without applications noticing. This one has never failed.
The Vertex 4 I used as the OS drive on my desktop. It worked fine for three months, and then the firmware wedged if you tried to do random access - sequential access was fine, so I could move all my data off there with a simple "dd". By this point, OCZ no longer existed, and besides which, the 3 month warranty was up. I asked Toshiba if I could RMA it, they said yes, and they sent me a brand new Tosiba branded Vertex 460, which thankfully has not failed even once.
SSDs are much more complex beasties than mechanical disks, their firmware does a lot more work than the firmware in a HDD. I have no evidence, but I think the OCZ problems were mainly down to crappy firmware. Hopefully now Toshiba are on board, things are a little better.
Sorry @AndrueC, I thoroughly respect your opinions on internettery, but BT's delivery of FTTC is shoddy. To not show up all their other products, and to constrain what you can do with the service, they artificially constrain your upload. Consequently, all it is good for is sucking down more consumer content from BT. Don't you ever want to be able to do more with your internet connection than just suck down media?
On cable and DSL, upload restrictions are there as technical necessities; in order to achieve the most optimal distribution of bandwidth on the connection, most is allocated to download. There is no such technical limitation with FTTC that requires this asymmetry, BT install a box in your property that connects to the exchange at 1.2GB/s, up and down. BT then apply artificial limitations later on in order to define who you are and what you can do with it.
BT FTTP - 300 Mbit down, 30Mbit up, £70 pcm
Non BT FTTP - 1000 Mbit down 1000 Mbit up, £50 pcm.
BT's FTTP program is expensive consumer shite. If we end up with everyone having FTTP supplied by BT, we'll be in a very bad place.
I remember many episodes of Chuck with a wall of Dell servers in the background of one of the sets.
Chuck was mainly sponsored by Subway I think.
With Ashton Kutcher?
Noah Wyle, surely.
We use levels in our hostnames to indicate location, eg foo.london.wibble.com is in the London DC. Our previous DNS config was search wibble.com, so that you could type ssh foo.london to go to foo.london.wibble.com.
When .london went active, this broke all these short host lookups. We had to change our DNS config to search london.wibble.com newyork.wibble.com (+8 others) wibble.com, which means 8 DNS requests instead of 1, and change everything everywhere to use either FQDN or very short names, and remove any duplicated host names across sites.
I still don't see the purpose of them. It's never going to be 'transport.gov.london' or 'tower.london' is it?
Closer, no cigar. IE 5.5 was a windows version of IE.
You are thinking of IE 5.1 (OS 7/8/9) and IE 5.2 (OS X). 5.1 often didn't render things at all like windows, the spec or even common sense. 5.2 was slightly better in terms of rendering, but both were dog slow at any kind of JS.
Be prepared to pay likely $700+ in Early Termination Fees if you try that move. Even if you try to weasel out with an early-out clause, all of them stipulate you turn in the phone as a condition of using that early-out clause. Even T-Mobile isn't stupid. If you cancel one of their un-plans, they bill you for the balance of the phone you were paying in installments.
Gee, thanks for clarifying that! I thought, like everyone else, that if you cancelled your subsidized phone contract that you just got to fuck over the phone company. Who would have thought that they could use legal means to try and get you to pay for the goods you have received.
Funnily enough, a computer is not a home theatre.. with a "theatre" system, you need to sit far enough away to not see the pixels, with a computer seeing the individual pixels is often the point...
First up, the Q: the reviewer here had his display set to "scaling", so that his 5k screen appears the same resolution as his current 2560x1440 screen. He then says that the advantage of a 5k screen is that your 4k content can be displayed pixel for pixel. If you are scaling the screen, doesn't that mean that your 4k content is scaled down and then up again?
Secondly, the comment: the only reason why this is "value for money" is that 5k screens only exist for Apple. 4k screens on the other hand are fairly common, and you can choose whether you can accept TN (<£500) or must have IPS (<£1000). On that basis, a 5k screen isn't that value for money - for me, I'd rather have a 4k screen for content, a second 1080p screen for controls, and an extra £1000 in my pocket.
If your ISP doesn't peer with Level3, they have to pay Level3 for transit to get to Netflix or Amazon.
I pay my ISP to make peering arrangements so that I can access the internet. This is the purpose and reason for being for an ISP, I do not need them for anything else. If the ISP chooses to not make peering arrangements with the main internet peers to save costs, that is their problem.
I don't want my ISP to charge the sites that I want to visit for me to visit them because that is what I am paying the ISP to provide to me - access to those sites. If they can't provide that without charging the other site, what am I paying the ISP for?
All this talk of faulty Russian engines is just a cover up I reckon. Much more likely one of Mr Musk's henchmen with an RPG.
My media server is largely ebay sourced, at least for all the interesting bits. The "server" itself was not, its a stock i5 that I bought from components.
For the drive enclosures, I found an ebay store selling Rackable SE 3016, which is a 3U half-depth enclosure with 16 hot swap SAS/SATA drive bays, a SAS 1 expander, a PSU and a SFF-8088 cable for $100 each (+insane shipping - I bought two, total cost was ~£500).
To hook this up to the server, I got a Dell branded "SAS 6GB 8e" controller, with two external SFF-8088 ports, again from ebay, £70 (free shipping!). The trick with this one is knowing that this is in fact an LSI SAS 2008 card, after some fiddling with flashing various BIOSes I soon had it behaving as an LSI-9211-8e in IT (infrastructure) node - meaning each drive connected appears as a drive to the OS, no RAID.
To house the enclosures, I use an IKEA LACK side table, which is exactly 19" wide, and has ~6.25U of storage. The servers sits on top of the side table, the enclosures inside it. I took the backs off the enclosures, and replaced the noisy data centre PSUs with consumer silent ones, and then put a fake back on the LACK table, with cutouts for the PSUs, and 2 huge 200mm extractor fans. This makes the entire thing silent, whilst still pulling through the same CFM that the original (Delta) fans did, but without the 80db whine.
I run FreeBSD on the server, using ZFS to manage storage. The current configuration is 8 x 3 TB + 8 x 1.5 TB, for about 31 TB of usable storage. Sequential read speed from the array is around 800MB/s, most writes are async, and there is an SSD for an adaptive read cache.
Those same companies who have outsourced to cheaper locations are now the ones bleating about a skills shortage in the UK
There is not a skills shortage in IT - this is the biggest load of bollocks ever sent up the flagpole. That article asked a bunch of C-levels whether they had problems attracting and retaining staff of sufficient skills, and they all said they did.
This does not mean there is a "skills shortage". They can't attract people of the requisite skill because they don't pay enough, and whenever they hire someone incompetent and make them competent, they aren't paying enough for that competency and so the employee goes somewhere else where they are valued.
There is no problem with finding people with the right skills, you just have to pay them appropriately.
The cloud, use local storage as a MFU cache.