Thank you. I read the comments solely to find this quote. I'm surprised it was so far down.
I regularly find them in Europe.
In the US it's a lot more rare. I did stay at a hotel in Manhattan that had private rooms but a common bathroom (shared for the floor). Bu that was an extremely low price, for NYC. And I wouldn't do it again (now I have a family).
What was the rule?
The way to fix that is to just use remote desktop over the VPN. Then the machine that needs fast access to the files is on the fast network. You have fast access to everything that way. The machine that displays the desktop can be anything, and cheap; the machine that you really use can be fully virtualized (although I just use a regular desktop at the desk I never visit; it could be moved into a data closet or onto a shared VM box and I wouldn't care).
About the only thing that doesn't work well over VPN remote desktop is video (a smarter remote desktop could deal with that, but I haven't seen it personally). My job doesn't involve video at work anyway.
Only the highest ranks get to use the Constitution in the executive washroom.
Bullshit. They make a minor capital outlay to improve service by some percentage, then oversell that to many users as improved (higher bandwidth) service, suitable for the new features (like, say, streaming video). Once enough users are on the new tier, paying their money, the additional funds are used for the next increment of improved service. Lather, rinse, repeat. Basic business.
Sure an idiot could invest a huge amount in the hope that millions of users will pay ("if you build it they will come"), and profit can be made if you guess right, but that's usually a recipe for a loss.
The major providers are just complaining that they need to keep improving. The dollar values look large because the companies are large, but they aren't hurting; just look at their filed financial sheets. They just want more money for a small investment in lawyers. Don't make investing in lawyers worthwhile; invest in service, not in lawyering.
How much do you drink? Most of our weight is water, and while most of the food we eat is also water, just retaining a gallon of water per day would add 56 pounds to your weight in a week. Some of that from a few pounds of food, some from drink, some absorbed through respiration. We aren't closed systems, only taking in what we eat under controlled conditions.
Not a syntax error, either. Syntactically it's valid. Semantically it's dubious, but only if the range of values in that int is out of the range of values of the unsigned. Even then its well-defined for a particular platform (except for very weird platforms), but it could be a very bad idea if the expected range of values in the int goes negative. Unless you're extremely pedantic, everytime you put a small number into an unsigned you're relying on the int->unsigned conversion.
unsigned int x = 37;
That line doesn't look too bad, does it? And it compiles fine too. Only the extremely pedantic make it
unsigned int x = 37u;
but otherwise the constant 37 has type int, and you assigned an int to an unsigned.
Getting into a signed/unsigned argument shows either that you are bad at explaining the issue, or they are pricks who don't listen. Either way a bad fit.
Recently we moved our Wii upstairs to the guest room (got a Wii U). That TV is 720p, and connected through SVHS. The TV it used to be on is 1080p, and we had it connected through the component cables. Surprisingly, I find the Wii much better looking on the SVHS connection (although the TV is different too, so it could be that).
The Wii U (component) in Wii mode also looks better than the old Wii did.
So my point is that I think the Wii looks better over SVHS cables. My theory is that it matches the capabilities of the actual hardware better; and the lower quality analog connection degrades more prettily than the component connection.
But it could all be the change in TVs; don't have the hardware (or the inclination) to exhausively test it.
Actually, we have 100 Senators. I'm going to use your tiny typo to float a different mathematical idea: increased representation at the federal level. I say there aren't enough senators.
My thought is that there should be 1 representative (senator or house member) for each 100,000 voters. If we assume an even 310,000,000 in US population (it isn't even, but it's close enough, I think) then that would be 3100 representatives. If 10% go to the senate, divided by state, then each state gets 6 senators. The other 2800 get apportioned by population into the house of representatives; NYC would get (at an assumed 8 million citizens) 72 representatives, and the rest of NY would get 99. My small town would get about a quarter of a representative, which is better than we get now.
I'd also make it a rule that districts must be cohesive. No more (or at least much less) gerrymandering. The ratio of the area of the smallest oval covering the district over the area of the actual district can't be over 2 (or some other small number). No more twisty outlines. And the representative districts need to fill the senatorial districts.
I'd also allow voting on neighboring districts, but with less weight: 60% from the district itself, 40% from outside. So a local nutcase can be overridden by people nearby.
If anyone sees this, let me know just how ludicrous it is.
Not true. RDP has support for hosting single applications from multiple servers on your screen. No one uses it that way except for enterprise stuff like Citrix, but it's part of the protocol.
And today, X remoting is essentially "shitty pixel scraping", because all the frameworks don't use X server rendering, they draw to local buffers and hand that to X (that's how you get pretty font support, for example). So X is schlepping pixmaps around, and if you're going to do that, why not just get rid of the rest of the protocol cruft: hence Wayland.
Where I work the client DOES want the current buzzword-du-jour. They fear being stuck with some ancient legacy crap that no one can support. As a result they get stuck with unproven shiny stuff that turns out not to work in practice, and no one can support.
No silver bullet.
Myself, I never found Stand on Zanzibar OR The Sheep Look Up all that depressing. The Brunner book that I found most depressing was Children of the Thunder. The Wikipedia write-up (and cover blurb) don't really reflect my memory of the book, which I recall liking up to the end, so I guess I ought to reread it. But that has always stuck in my mind as a book I didn't WANT to reread because it was so depressing.
Sad to say, wrong again.
You meant "to".