The next step will be a modification to the "stingray" fake cell site unit to brick all phones in an area and prevent uploading of audio or video. This will be used during demonstrations.
If you watch the video at the bottom of the article, you'll see photos of several prototype FarmBots that do, in fact, exist.
Those are just tabletop gardening robots. That was done 20 years ago.
There's lots of real robotic agricultural machinery, much of it mobile. Building a gantry over a tabletop doesn't scale.
As for I/O, you can pass through PCI devices in to the guest for pretty-much native networking performance.
Of course, that comes with its own headaches and negates some of the benefits of a VM architecture. Paravirtualized networking is however pretty adequate for most workloads.
It's not like you have to do VM *or* baremetal across the board anyway. Use what makes sense for the circumstance.
In my experience, KSM hasn't helped as much as it promised. It depends heavily upon the workloads. It also impacts memory performance. If things are such that KSM can be highly effective, then a container solution would probably be more prudent.
CPU throughput impact is nearly undetectable nowadays. Memory *capacity* can suffer (you have overhead of the hypervisor footprint), though memory *performance* can also be pretty much on par with bare metal memory.
On hard disks and networking, things get a bit more complicated. In the most naive way, what you describe is true, a huge loss for emulating devices. However paravirtualized network and disk is pretty common which brings it in the same ballpark as not being in a VM. But that ballpark is relatively large, you still suffer significantly in the IO department in x86 virtualization despite a lot of work to make that less the case.
Of course, VM doesn't always make sense. I have seen people make a hypervisor that ran a single VM that pretty much required all the resources of the hypervisor and no other VM could run. It was architected such that live migration was impossible. This sort of stupidity makes no sense, pissing away efficiency for no gains.
So to the extent this conversation does make sense (it is pretty nonsensical in a lot of areas), it refers to a phenomenon I find annoying as hell: application vendors bundle all their OS bits.
Before, if you wanted to run vendor X's software stack, you might have to mate it with a supported OS, but at least vendor X was *only* responsible for the code they produced. Now increasingly vendor X *only* releases an 'appliance and are in practice responsible for the full OS stack despite having no competency to be in that position'. Let's see the anatomy of a recent example of critical update, OpenSSL.
For the systems where the OS has applications installed on top, patches were ready to deploy pretty much immediately, within days of the problem. It was a relatively no-muss affair. Certificate regeneration was an unfortunate hoop to go through, but it's about as painless as it could have been given the circumstances.
For the 'appliances', some *still* do not even have an update for *Heartbleed* (and many more didn't bother with the other OpenSSL updates). Some have updates, but only in versions that also have functional changes in the application that are not desired, and the vendor refuses to backport the relatively simple library change. In many cases, applying an 'update' actually resembles a reinstall. Having to download a full copy of the new image and doing some 'migration' work to have data continuity.
Vendors have traded generally low amounts of effort in initial deployment for unmaintainable messes with respect to updates.
In the interested of balance...
OWS was just a bunch of bums, they were not demanding accountability for criminal acts by executives.
Similarly, the Tea Party was originally a protest against increasing the national debt by an insane amount, to bail out financial institutions because they were "too big to fail". It was only later that it was taken over by the crazy end of the Republican Party.
Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them.
This is a common misconception.
It's true that for a bigot, approval and tolerance might be equally difficult, but they are not functionally identical. The very notion of "tolerance" presupposes the existence of something that you find detestable. Being asked to tolerate is a tacit admission that it's okay that you don't approve.
"White supremacist" is not the same as "neo-Nazi", but I concur that the language here is quite ambiguous.
"Hippie type commune", yes. As to "relatively harmless", it depends what you're comparing with. All the evidence indicates that it was bad enough.
F*ing a sleeping girl to work around her explicit and repeated refusal to consent to your preferred form of sex (what Assange is charged with, #4 on the EAW) IS RAPE [...]
No. Julian Assange has not been charged.
Let me repeat that in bold-face for added emphasis, because this is a crucial point without which none of this fiasco makes any sense.
Julian Assange has not been charged.
I'll wait for you to catch up with that before I go on. Got it? Good, now I'll continue.
Extraditing people without charge is a highly controversial practice, and widely considered to be an abuse of human rights. This year, the UK passed an amendment to the Extradition Act which bans it. Unfortunately for him, his case is grandfathered, since it's already been through the highest level of court.
Assange is wanted for questioning, no more and no less. This warrant was issued because he refused to travel to Sweden for questioning at his own expense (which is what the prosecutors wanted). Said prosecutors have known exactly where he has been for the last four years and has consistently refused to question him in any of those places despite his legal team making the offer many times.
If he is ever convicted of what he's been accused of, then he absolutely deserves his day in court and whatever punishment the court sees fit. Right now, it's hard to see how the Swedish prosecutors could be said to be acting in anything resembling good faith.
What he's accused of is serious, make no mistake. But right now, Julian Assange has not even been charged.
Misandry is hatred, too, then.
Sure it is. However, I don't recall it ever being a problem on Fark.
Fusion power is roughly 20 years away from being viable...and has been for the last 40 years LOL.
Longer than that. Fusion power has been hyped since the 1950s. From the article:
Nuclear fusion could come into play as soon as 2050
Heard that one before.
Fusion power has some real problems. After half a century of trying, nobody has a long-running sustained fusion reactor, even an experimental one. The whole "inertial fusion" thing turned out to be a cover for bomb research. There's a lot of skepticism about whether ITER will do anything useful. It's not clear that a fusion reactor will be cost-effective even with a near-zero fuel cost. (Fission reactors already have that problem.) It's really frustrating.
Fusion reactors are a pain to engineer. They have a big vacuum chamber with high-energy particles reacting inside, and huge cryogenic magnets outside. This is far more complicated than a fission reactor, and is why the cost of ITER keeps going up.
There is no "FarmBot". There is only a Kickstarter project to start a wiki to create a social network for talking about farming-related subjects, parhaps including talking about a FarmBot.
nVidia actually did sell it pretty well though. It wasn't in any way a better experience, but the brand name did actually carry the product as I recall.
It was one of the reasons that the relationship between Intel and nVidia went so far south, Intel made it impossible to have third party chipsets and nVidia lost some revenue opportunity. People rightly critical of the technical aspects were not the downfall of the product line, Intel locking down their platform was.
In short, this stuff *could* in theory fly. In practice, I don't think AMD has the brand strength. People still seem to look to nVidia as 'the go-to' brand more often than AMD in the PC component world.
The basic office-type products for Linux still kind of suck. I've been using them since the StarOffice/SunOffice days, and now use LibreOffice. They've improved a lot, but they're still flakier than they should be, a decade after initial release. Nobody wants to fix the hard-to-fix, boring bugs which damage usability.
Oracle buying the remnants of Sun didn't help.