"We have perfect weather conditions, and a large food population," Cook said. "This is a perfect insect storm.""
Link to Original Source
Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.
If you're on a company network and you want to have a network performing okay while bittorrent clients are present on it, you'll need DPI.
That's complete nonsense. Bittorrent and other peer to peer networks are definitely bandwidth intensive, but you don't need DPI to maintain performance on a network. A properly configured QoS should be more than enough to balance things out. Simply prioritizing the outbound data by source address alone would ensure that anyone trying to perform bandwidth intensive tasks gets their fair share. IP protocols were designed to deal with bandwidth restrictions but also to use as much as possible. It's therefore possible that a few HTTP downloads could congest an entire network in the same way a bittorrent client does. This is becoming even more common with modern browsers which use multiple connections to try and retrieve data faster from remote servers.
The only thing DPI provides is the ability to restrict access to specific protocols based solely on packet content. If encryption is used, DPI is useless as it cannot differentiate between the traffic. The end result is a never ending war between software developers and network administrators. The final outcome has yet to be decided.
"This patch series was both controversial and experimental when it went in, but we're very hopeful of seeing speedups," James Bottomley, distinguished engineer at Novell said. "Just to set expectations correctly, the dcache/path lookup improvements really only impact workloads with large metadata modifications, so the big iron workloads (like databases) will likely see no change. However, stuff that critically involves metadata, like running a mail server (the postmark benchmark) should improve quite a bit."
Sadly it seems a lot of people still think $10,000 is a briefcase full of cash. Lets break it down shall we.. Assuming they used standard US bills we get the following:
At 0:14 when they open the case you can clearly see several stacks marked as $100, some as $50, and some as $5. If the briefcase truly has $10,000 in it, the stacks marked with $100 bills must be filled with something other than $100 bills as a single stack would equal the amount the briefcase was said to hold. Given the variety of bills in the case, it appears they went to a lot of trouble to convince us that they gave away $10,000 USD. The reality is they probably didn't, and that the entire thing was just as staged as the briefcase full of cash.
I blame the sorry state of US public education, where the science teachers can make the fascinating into something as dull as watching paint dry.
When it comes to schooling, we sure as hell don't get what we pay for.
The missing element is competition at the primary and high school level. We still have competition at the university level, and the USA still has world-class universities. When students have a choice of where to go, incompetence isn't rewarded.
Setting the question of whether government should fund schooling aside, it's quite obvious that granting public schools a monopoly on the disposal of taxpayer funds has been a disaster. When they fail, they beat their chests and demand more funding. It's asinine.
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.