Comment Re:UPS (Score 1) 236
Who said anything about a 700W power supply? The PSU is 1050W. 700W (well, 684W peak to be exact) is what I measured at the wall.
Who said anything about a 700W power supply? The PSU is 1050W. 700W (well, 684W peak to be exact) is what I measured at the wall.
Just two 980's in SLI, but your figures only take into account the power consumed at their rated TDP - overclock them and add in an overclocked CPU too and 700W isn't out of reach by any means, when you add in all the drives, fans etc.. and the monitor of course.
That is pretty cheap though - got anything like as cheap in the UK?
Have you checked the maximum output of that $150 UPS in W?
I don't know what the power consumption of your PC is like, but a quick bit of research found that the cheapest UPS I could buy that can cope with my PC (700W or so under load) is around £400, that's about $627.
Obviously that PC cost more than $500, but given that power disruptions in my area occur maybe once in a decade or so, I'll stick with a simple surge protector.
Exactly - another key sentence in there is:
"In the Commonwealth's view, the defendant's act of decryption would not communicate facts of a testimonial nature to the government beyond what the defendant already has admitted to investigators. As such, the Commonwealth continues, the defendant's act of decryption does not trigger Fifth Amendment protection."
So if he had not admitted anything already and had refused to decrypt, the ruling may have been different.
I've been involved in negotiations with a couple of contracts relating to Google Apps for Enterprise/Education.
In each one, the "scanning" has been explicitly mentioned in the contract. In each one, scanning for the purposes of advertising has only happened if the domain administrator allows it to happen. If it is turned off, Google will not scan mail for the purposes of advertising content.
There are of course other reasons why google will scan your email. Spam/Antivirus filtering and indexing to enable search functionality are two that come to mind.
Basically, all Google have done is remove the domain administrators ability to allow ads, and I'm not aware of anyone I know who used Google Apps for Education/Enterprise with it turned on anyway.
I did look at the commits. They're all to OpenBSD, not OpenSSL.
By "fixing SSL" I meant "fixing OpenSSL". Duh!
The article doesn't make it completely clear that this doesn't have much to do with the fixing problems in OpenSSL.
Commits to the true OpenSSL source can be seen through the web interface at https://github.com/openssl/ope.... What the article is talking about is tidying up the version that is built in to OpenBSD. Not that that isn't worthwhile work, but it's unlikely to fix many hidden problems in OpenSSL itself, unless the OpenBSD devs find something and hand it back to the upstream.
Indeed. When we introduced our change management process I realised that I was informally doing this risk analysis anyway. The change management process and CAB just formalise it.
Risk analysis can be as simple as thinking "is this low impact" for a second and then deciding it is and continuing. Most of these types of changes are pre-approved by CAB and we just have to record the change. If we started creating outages from these types of changes then that pre-approval would probably be reviewed.
There are other times when that pre-approval is temporarily revoked when the organisation cannot tolerate the risk of any downtime caused by changes, but that only happens twice a year, and I get to put my feet up a bit and work on interesting hobby projects for a couple of weeks
It needn't difficult at all and it doesn't have to impact your ability to apply security patches. For example, patches from Microsoft released on the 8th April were applied to roughly 500 servers on the 11th. A couple of hundred of our servers applied the software remedy for heartbleed within hours of it being released, without any intervention from a human at all.
A change management process should take into account an organisations appetite for risk. For us, we're keen to apply security patches quickly, so they are pre-approved by our CAB.
I have to do this and it's no problem at all, although our change management process doesn't sound quite as onerous as yours (I suspect yours will adapt over time -- the CAB will soon get bored if they have to approve every single OS patch).
I have to do a risk analysis for each change that gets made to a system (not just patches). Sometimes this risk analysis is fairly informal, for example if the change is to add more RAM to a VM, it's very unlikely to have a significant adverse impact and is easily reversible, so low risk. Other times the risk analysis (and processes that come out of that) may take a long time and require significant co-ordination with other parts of the organisation I work in.
A good example is if we make a change to a service that impacts the look and feel of that service. It will require co-ordinating with our communications, helpdesk, training and documentation teams as well as other parts of the technical group I work in and the CAB really acts as a check to make sure all of that has happened properly.
There are still a few people in our organisation who see the CAB as a barrier to getting work done, but for me it is really a check to make sure we're delivering changes in a proper way.
I can recommend you take a look at The Phoenix Project by Gene Kim, Kevin Behr and George Spafford. http://itrevolution.com/books/... - I had quite a few "this is where I work" moments whilst reading it
Way back in 2011, Amazon already started censoring what they choose to sell - it was reported right here on SlashDot.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/15/0254250/amazon-removes-yaoi-manga-titles-from-kindle-store
Since then, I boycotted them. Looks like another bunch of companies just made the list.
"I took the initiative on creating the internet".
Do you mean GBIC? I'm not aware of them using LEDs. For optical GBICs lasers are used (usually VCSELs - or they were when I last cared about the internal workings of fibre stuff, which was about 10 years ago ).
That's still proxying and not NAT. I would be stunned if ISPs started routinely proxying all HTTP traffic (and they don't stand a chance with HTTPS). The amount of processing resource required would be unfeasibly large.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
