I would love if my laptop had 2 more USB ports on the other side. It's my bosses old laptop and he abused the two existing USB ports to the point where sometimes I need to keep USB thumb drives half in for them to be recognized. I also have an issue with the console cable where it falls out while I'm in the middle of using a USB to serial cable through PuTTY and I get a BSOD. If I had two more USB ports on the other side I might be able to get by using those (maybe they'd be less abused, or there'd be abuse evenly distributed between 4 ports instead of 2.) Plus, sometimes I'm using my laptop in a position where I want the console cable on the other side (pretty much any time I'm at my desk since my desktop keyboard is on the right where the laptop ports are.)
It makes sense though, they know how well iPhone, iPads and all their other iProducts sell but the Apple Watch is new and is not likely to sell anywhere near as well as those other products. This way they can save on manufacturing tons of watches and having them shipped to all the stores just for them to sit on the shelves. Sure it'll reduce the number of people that might just walk in and purchase a watch on the same day but they'll save more than they could potentially make.
I understand the reasoning behind this since I've felt the same way in the past, but then this reopens the door to "Well we don't serve blacks at our restaurant, you'll have to eat somewhere else." Any privately owned business that provides services to the general public is not allowed to discriminate as to who they serve.
And seriously what's the big deal? A customer comes in and wants a cake, you bake cakes, why does it matter if you're baking a cake for a straight marriage, a gay marriage or even a bar mitzvah? They're not asking you to officiate the wedding, they're not asking you to get married with them, and unless they're asking for a cake with two guys fucking on it, I don't see why it matters.
Did you even read the remark under that line?
"The driver can override the speed limit by pressing "firmly" on the accelerator."
That's what you already have to do to make an automatic downshift. Have you driven one lately that didn't do this?
The person driving the car will already be pressing firmly on the accelerator to pass, it's just normal behavior that is learned quickly through driving on a highway.
There is in fact a limit to how much bandwidth you have, it might seem like a fiber optic cable should have infinite bandwidth, but it doesn't. I never really thought about why there would be a limit but I just always remember thinking there must be something restricting the amount of bandwidth you have between two points, otherwise why wouldn't everyone have at least gigabit to their homes? Not only is there a technological limit (which was the first limit I learned about many years ago) due to having to process and handle the large amount of data coming in over the pipe, there's also a physical limit.
Basically, there's a limit to how short a pulse you can send down fiber optic cable, and the shorter you can make those pulses the more bandwidth you have. According to the video, the shortest pulse width is around 1 femtosecond which gives a maximum total bandwidth over fiber optic cable of 125TB/sec. While a very large number, it's certainly not infinite.
Plus, your posts seem to point out that you feel the costs to increase maximum theoretical bandwidth are trivial. It's not cheap supporting a hundred fiber connected gigabit devices, let alone the millions an ISP would need to support to give ever customer guaranteed gigabit bandwidth. It's not just the gigabit links that cost money, it's also the equipment required for the uplinks. You would need to be able to handle all of the traffic going back up to the tier 1 network, which is going to require a lot more than just a couple 1 gig GBICs. While I feel that plenty of ISPs are holding off upgrading their equipment since they can just continue charging their customers high fees for low speeds, I also don't think it would be feasible for any of them to start providing gigabit speed to everyone. Even 100 mbit is extremely cost prohibitive and not worth most ISPs resources. There are plenty that will provide guaranteed asynchronous bandwidth but they have a very small target market.
I actually thought this was going to be some real world experiences, and not "Someone on the internet called me a cunt!", "Someone on the internet said they'd rape me!"
If you make your unpopular opinion known to the world online, expect people who disagree to come out and attack you. Expect more people to come out when they know you'll make a big stink about it. The main thing they're looking for is a reaction, that's just how the internet works, people can hind behind their computers and make all the threats they want and some people find joy in getting these responses from people. I was really looking forward to an article describing real world instances where people made these comments and threats. Not that I want to see that happen, but at least that's something that can be corrected when brought to light, the only way to stop trolls is to stop feeding them.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I've worked with a lot of IT people and sometimes they're just not competent enough to realize what's happening on their network. This sounds like a long time ago someone was sold on the idea that a firewall that scans all network traffic for malware would be a very good thing, and part of the requirements for that would be installing the root CA so the HTTPS traffic can be decrypted and scanned for malware. The staff the submitter dealt with likely never knew this was happening at all, then after the conversation the IT staff might have poked around in their firewall and found some checkbox that said "Scan all HTTPS traffic" and unchecked it. They might not know enough to help everyone remove the root CA.
From the article -
But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU)
Why not just buy a fingerprint reader and use that to secure your password vault?
Sure someone can hack off your hand and get your passwords, but if they're that valuable you shouldn't have a vault to begin with.
Exactly what part of teaching requires you to follow a dress code?
From the summary it sounds like the students feel the laid back teacher must be excellent at his job for the top tier school to keep him despite not following their dress code.
It's New York, NY not NYC, NY. NYC is all five boroughs where New York, NY is specifically Manhattan.
Anyway, considering all of the weird shit the NYPD has to deal with on a daily basis I really don't see this being a problem. Two guys throwing a plastic ball around Times Square would be nothing, especially since the device seems to be targeted at hipsters and computer geeks. Plus, no one in NYC gets shot for being mistaken as a suicide bomber, it's only when you're mistaken for having a gun and that's not something that happens in Times Square.
I'm looking for more technical information on this virus. Is there a collection of different key logging software all sending the passwords to the same proxy server? How does someone get infected by this virus? How about the IP addresses of the proxy servers so people can at least look for traffic from their firewalls?
This article seems kind of useless other than to scare people into purchasing some protection, which conveniently the company writing the article sells!
As someone who builds and installs large phone systems for a living, I cringe whenever a customer tells me "Yeah we've got a T1, coming in over Time Warner."
A traditional copper PRI from Verizon is the ideal service I like most of my customers to have, I never get anywhere near the same level complaints of call quality issues or service outages for a traditional PRI that I get for any PRI coming in over the internet. Well, except after hurricane Sandy, after that storm we had a number of customers switch over to an IP based PRI or a pure SIP solution. It made sense since it took Verizon months to fix their wiring, but a lot of these customers that switched wanted to immediately switch back as soon as Verizon was available again since the quality was so god awful.
I have no problem with Verizon using fiber and IP based telephony in the back end since I they're not going to be able to maintain their legacy equipment forever. But, don't send everything down the same pipe and just install a $200 Adtran on-site and expect it to be anywhere near as reliable. Especially since a lot of the support engineers for these carriers have no idea how to do anything with an IAD. I've had support engineers tell me I need to send a SIP redirect to forward calls out with the proper caller ID, well sure I'd love to except I'm being handed a PRI and the SIP side of things is all them.
Anyway, for customers that have rock solid internet and a separate dedicated pipe for a SIP trunk, I have no problem going native SIP all the way to our equipment. My problem is when someone out in the boonies thinks they'll save a ton of money switching to VoIP service from their cable provider. Instead it just means dozens of billable hours trying to explain to this customer that while their internet service is excellent for checking Facebook, good voice quality requires a solid internet connection with little to no packet loss and very low latency and nothing we can do to their PBX will change that. Although as one coworker pointed out, as the number of people who grew up using cell phones all their life increases, the less complaints we will receive. People who are used to POTS lines are going to be used to picking up a phone and having excellent call quality, people who grew up with cell phones are much more accustomed to jitter, echo, and poor call quality so I'm sure they'll be fine in a pure IP telephony world.
Oh, good point, a former Marine Corps sharpshooter would have no idea that shooting down at a steep angle would affect the trajectory of the bullet...