670 posts • joined Monday 4th June 2007 21:31 GMT
Clearly . . .
"Speaking as somebody who's been working his very testicles off for the last month without a break"
. . . you've gone mad from overwork, because nothing you posted actually makes the least amount of goddamn sense.
I'm curious about how strong this stuff is. Would it be possible to make airplanes or rockets partially or completely out of it or some analog?
"When this happens, your brain remembers to do things, like duck a punch or keep your heart beating. (Often at the same time.)"
Initially read that as "punch a duck" and was forced to wonder what kind of activities Reg hacks get up to in their off-hours.
Redundancy also makes no sense for any organization that is cost-conscious, by your friend's argument. Why spend that extra money on additional power supplies, cluster failover, etc. when you can just have everything in one box?
Back in the real world, properly-implemented virtualization allows for tremendous flexibility with less management overhead per physical device. It arguably requires greater up-front implementation costs and effort than a single box does, but it pays off in the long run for most shops.
As I've commented elsewhere, if you're not implementing virtualization, you're probably doing something wrong.
Even in relatively small shops, finding products that can keep up with a bog-standard VMware vSphere deployment is hard enough. It's remarkable how few monitoring suites truly comprehend the cloud.
I'm generally pro-solar, but . . .
"Put solar panels that create NO WASTE, and produce CLEAN ENERGY on your house. You will NEVER have an electric bill again, and if you produce enough energy you can charge it back to the grid, and GIVE the electric company a bill."
Fortunately for me, the solar panel fairy will just deliver these at no cost, and they certainly consume no energy or rare earths during manufacture, nor does their manufacture create toxic wastes. Also, like everyone on earth, I live in a place where the sun constantly shines throughout the year, especially cold winter months, without interference from clouds, fog, or building shadow AND have sufficiently exposed square footage to generate enough electricity!
"Most states will allow you to make up to $1000 a month or more charging electricity back to your local electric company. That's a $12,000 a year direct income that coupled with savings from not having an electric bill would net you around $15000+ yearly."
Well, this certainly seems sustainable. I'm certain that the power companies and governments will be very willing to maintain these subsidies indefinitely.
"We should give all the middle/poor class people solar panels so they can charge electricity back to their local electric companies. Give them electric cars too so that they never have to pay for gas, and make sure those cars have solar panels on them so they are always charging. The financial offset alone would dramatically help our economy."
I would be interested to see your specific calculations on these figures. I suspect I'll be waiting a while.
The problem is not that solar power is bad idea; there are many places on Earth where it makes a great deal of sense. The problem is that it is not feasible for all cases, and it certainly is not without its drawbacks. Your flavor of one-dimensional ranting screed does not help the cause.
NoScript blocks all scripting by default, but it's very easy to unblock specific domains on a particular site. For example, on this page, I allow theregister.co.uk but block doubleclick.net.
The missing device
The device no one seems to think about is the one sitting in every office and hallway: the lowly printer. How many printers support IPv6? My home Lexmark does not, and I'm sure that most HP JetDirect adapters don't. Until that issue is fixed, I think we can safely assume that IPv6 will be at best a hybrid solution in most organizations.
I think you'll find
. . . that someone hasn't not thought of that already, in fact.
Oooh, a net! How fancy! Back when I was a lad, we would wade out and catch fish with our bare hands and then tear them open raw as the gods intended.
My family roamed the open plains, counting on our bearskins for warmth. Ever tried skinning a bear with your bare hands and curing the skin without fire? It ain't easy!
Yeah, it's already been said
But that is a wussy quesadilla. The local taqueria makes quesadillas with one gigantic flour tortilla (or you can get the quesadilla para dos with two gigantic flour tortillas), a mountain of cheese, salsa, avocado, sour cream (which I usually skip), and your choice of meats (my personal favorite being carne asada). The resulting construction, eaten wrapped up like a burrito, is greasy, filling, and delicious, especially after a night of hard drinking.
It's an axiom of food that the further you go from the source, the worse it gets, and this is most especially true of "commoner" food like standard Mexican fare (there are exceptions, of course, but they're rare), so expecting a decent quesadilla out of a Spanish/English collaboration does seem unreasonable. Get your man in San Francisco to FedEx you a quesadilla from El Farolito--the difference, even after being in transit, will be quite apparent.
Do you understand the concept of the Ig Nobel prize?
The Mayor of Vilnius
Hell, he's got my vote.
How about divide by zero?
Have they disproven that one yet?
Right, I'm going, I'm going . . .
Thanks to your OVERUSE of ALL CAPS, I can't actually TELL if you're being SERIOUS. If you ARE, then I AGREE with your basic POINT, which is that MORALITY and RELIGION are not interdependent, but you come off sounding like a JACKASS. If you TROLLING by pretending to be an ATHEIST, then you actually ARE a jackass.
"Is there some masterplan here we've missed?"
Possibly, but it better be one hell of a plan. The customer base is pissed, and the decision to split into two separate companies, in one stroke massively inconveniencing existing customers and eroding a pioneering and highly successful brand, simply boggles the mind. I suspect Netflix is bound to end up as someone else's subsidiary.
You'll! Get! Over! It!
No mention of sharks?
Anyway, this sounds like the perfect use case for nuclear energy. Assuming they get the basic tech figured out, a nuclear plant sounds like the ideal way of generating the required energy. If the Greens bitch about the nuclear plant, it can just be pointed out how much damage a conventional rocket launch does to the environment.
Maybe! You! Should! Read! A! Different! Site!
I'm sure there will be the usual assortment of Linux trolls posting here, but it sounds like the next version of Windows Server is going to make some major improvements, especially around virtualization, that will be a big help to Windows server admins. It also sounds like they'll be lighting a fire under VMware, which is no bad thing.
Now you've done it.
"This is precisely why giving US corporations a tax holiday does not create jobs. In fact, you could make a fair argument that it will destroy a bunch."
This should earn you some opprobrium from the Nutsack--er, Teabagger brigade on El Reg. Hope you're wearing your asbestos underwear!
While I partially agree . . .
. . . I'm not sure I see your point. Are you talking about the new pricing model or about the subject of this article? If the latter, what VMware is doing is actually a good thing because it allows the VMware administrator to virtualize storage more effectively. When combined with SDRM and SIOC, it gives the VMware administrator much more control over what disk performance is available to VMs, and it gives the hypervisor more ability to auto-tune storage distribution.
If your issue is with the storage "cartel" calling the shots, I have some news for you: this sort of thing is already happening. If you think VMware has not already been working with the major storage vendors to bake in advanced functionality, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Not, again, that doing so is a bad thing. From a VMware administration perspective, it would actually be great to hand vSphere a bunch of disks and allocate them directly without having to dick about with LUNs, NFS mounts, etc.
I wonder if these guys will be at Burning Man?
Not even trying
Come on, "WinCrap 7?" "MicroSuck?" You're not even trying! Here are some better alternatives for you to consider for next time around:
And "Microsoft" of course has many of the permutations perfected by Slashdotters and other assorted basement-dwellers over the years:
Micros~1 (for the old school)
Tsk. Kids today, no commitment to excellence or creativity when it comes to fanboy trolling.
The counterargument . . .
. . . is that it doesn't *have* to be that way. Back in the Internet's salad days, there were sufficiently few people using it that, if you talked to enough people, you could probably track down the real identity of an individual, but no one (except possibly the FBI) was explicitly gathering personal information. If you were an asshole in a moderated forum, you got banned, but you could easily come back with an alt. Facebook and Google are now working hard to tie your Internet identity to your real identity AND scarf up a mess of data about you. Exactly how bad that is depends on your perspective and what you personally get up to, but I don't think anyone would disagree that giant databases of information which can be used to tie up vast amounts of personal data which can then be used to identify the proclivities of specific individuals and/or commit crimes of data, identity, and financial theft and fraud constitute a tremendous risk to the people whose information in those databases.
The typical El Reg reader seems to be of the perspective that people who use Facebook or other social media (or indeed the Interwebs at all without 7 proxies and a pseudonym) get whatever they deserve. This perspective fails to acknowledge that most people are not aware of these issues to the same extend that most Reg commentards are and further does not address the fact that at least a subset of this information can be scarfed in by illicit/clueless Web programmers.
I personally try not to put anything on the Internet that I wouldn't want my mother to see, but not everyone is so careful. In any case, when one shares information with one's friends, one probably doesn't expect to see that information spewed out for the world to see, regardless of the content.
I think you want, "Gérard n'aime pas de douches d'or?"
Distortion of truth
These "protestors" are little more than a flash mob. If they want to protest, why not do so at BART HQ or at the BART police barracks? Why are they inconveniencing (or worse) people trying to get home, pick their kids up from school, get to work, go to the doctor, etc.? In case you're not aware, public transit is the transit system used by the working classes and other regular folks. If your goal is to change policy, protesting by shutting is going to turn public opinion AGAINST you.
Furthermore, it's actually a public safety issue. Much has been made of the hypothetical concerns about someone having medical emergency while cell phone services are shut down, despite there being clearly-marked emergency phones on the trains and platforms. Suppose someone has an emergency while the train is stopped in the tunnel because the protestors have managed to keep another train from leaving the platform? Where is your moral righteousness when you've killed someone who really IS innocent?
I won't deny that police brutality should be taken seriously or that people have the right to protest. On the flip side, the police have historically been very tolerant of protests in San Francisco. I marched in the anti-war protests before Gulf War II: Electric Boogaloo, and the only time the police interfered with us was when we tried to march onto the Bay Bridge, which would have created similar safety issues. I actually talked to a riot officer during one of the more recent protests, and he was remarkably calm about the whole issue. In my experience, the SFPD, at least, are not a bunch of truncheon-wielding thugs. BART police may be a separate matter, since they have less experience and training. As I mentioned originally, though, let us not forget that the person who got shot did so because he attacked another human being with a knife. Setting aside the knee-jerk issue of it being a cop, I think every human being has the right to self-defense and the use of lethal force where warranted. If someone is trying to end my life, I would feel completely justified in ending theirs.
Finally, I live in a neighborhood with a large number of homeless people and a large number of police officers. I've had to call the police on three separate occasions in response to assault, mugging, and a drunken hit-and-run driver who ran down a small child, so I very much appreciate the contribution the police make to my neighborhood. While I oppose excessive use of force, I do respect that they have to deal with the least-pleasant members of society, and I don't think they should have to lay down their lives so that some yahoo can go flailing around with a deadly weapon.
How do you justify cutting off someone's transportation? Suppose that person has a heart attack, and the train is stuck in the tunnel and can't get out because protestors are blocking the tracks ahead and behind? It hardly matters at that point if you have cell phone access because the person is physically trapped. Of course, there are physical emergency access corridors, but those take extra time to reach compared to the platform.
The cretins supporting the drunken homeless knife-wielding lunatic don't have the attention span to plan an actual protest, so they complain when BART shuts down Wifi and cell access. The Anonytards then punish a few random BART riders, not BART itself. Great job, guys, really. You are truly the hope of freedom.
As a daily BART commuter myself, I'm on Team BART for this one and opposed to Team Drunken Asshat, in case that wasn't clear.
I'm on Team BART
As a San Francisco resident, I'm not 100% on BART's side (the phrase "chilling effect" comes to mind), but mostly I support this course of action for two reasons:
1) The protestors are supporting a guy who assaulted a police officer with a knife. Suppose it had not been a cop but some random person who happened to catch the drunk's eye and gotten knifed for his trouble . . . would that person have been wrong to defend himself, even to the point of using lethal force? If you use a lethal weapon to attack someone, you are, in my opinion, implicitly placing your own life on the line--the victim always has the right to self-defense.
2) Most people who use cell phones on public transit are douchebags (no, I know that YOU'RE not, you're a world-renowned heart surgeon who can't possibly be interrupted for a few minutes; I'm talking about those OTHER people), so blocking their cell phone service for 5-10 minutes (about the length of time it takes to get through the affected area) is a mercy to the other passengers. If BART could figure out how to shut down the ability for people to play music on their cell phones' speakers, that would be even better.
For the most part, I call it a win-win.
Have the phone deploy some sort of harpoon into the flesh of its owner and then reel itself back in. That'll be the last time the phone gets dropped, I'll bet!
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- I KNOW how to SAVE Microsoft. Give Windows 8 away for FREE – analyst