Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Windows without a SSD isn't worth it (Score 4, Informative) 513 513

Windows machines in recent years have become extremely bottlenecked by drive performance, especially in the case of laptops which are so popular in companies. Laptop hard drives are slow, capable of only about 80 IOPS which is about the same speed they were 10 years ago, whereas mainstream SSDs by comparison, can typically deliver 80,000 IOPS. Since once you get Windows loaded up with all it's random messy software it's disk access ends up being tons of tiny reads, IOPS is a much more important number than transfer rate, and SSDs are literally 1000x faster. It can mean the difference between a 20 minute operation and one that takes a few seconds.

If you are in any way in control over your corporate purchases, never *ever* buy another laptop without a SSD. It's false efficiency, wasting very expensive time to save a relatively cheap expense. 256GB SSDs are under $100 and will handle most corporate work just fine. Up to 1TB, the expense is almost negligible and it will pay for itself almost immediately. Your IT department will be happier, your workers will be happier, your machines will be more secure because scanning them is a lot less intrusive and can happen more often. Your IT department should have a pile of SSDs ready to be deployed into any machine that needs to be re-imaged or where the user needs the speed. Not doing so is wasting money.

> I recently reinstalled Windows 7 Home on a laptop. A factory restore (minus the shovelware), all the Windows updates

No you didn't. You *thought* you installed all the updates because Windows lied to you and said you had. Windows Update has a horrible habit of checking to see what updates are available **for the state of your machine right now** and then telling you that it's done installing updates when those are installed, when in truth there are pending updates that required previous updates to be installed before they could subsequently be installed that Windows Update won't tell you about until you re-discover what updates are available. After an install, force re-scan after every reboot to see what new updates are now available and when you reboot and re-scan and it says you are done, you are actually done.

Comment: Re:It's not a networking issue. (Score 1) 384 384

I feel like some wireless routers using openWRT might be useful here. Configure a few to nat the traffic from each port to a specific ip, then have that routed over the wireless. You could drop a wireless router in each island and update them all over wireless.

Comment: Re:IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful o (Score 1) 390 390

> Though NAT is included with almost all firewalls, it is not there to address security.

You missed my point. Firewalls are needed for security, and if you have a firewall, you can do NAT. Not needing NAT becomes a non-feature because it doesn't significantly impact complexity or cost.

Comment: IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful one (Score 2, Insightful) 390 390

Automatic address assignment: Useless. DHCP is better.

No more NAT: Useless. NAT is part of firewalls which are still needed. It's easy, and incredibly flexible.

Better multicast routing: Useless. Multicast is dead, and will remain so.

Simplified routing: Useless. This has been implemented outside IP

QOS: Useless. The IPv6 implementation is wrong for how QOS is used now.

Larger Address Space: The only useful feature in IPv6, but it was done wrong, and should be abandoned.

We need IPv8 that does things right for the internet we have *today* not the internet we thought we'd need in 1998.

Comment: Unknowns make estimates problematic (Score 1) 347 347

There are definitely times when estimates are appropriate in programming, but the more unknowns there are inside a project, the more you need to nail those unknowns down before estimating is worthwhile. Sometimes, prototyping should be done without estimates.

Comment: Evacuated tubes (Score 1) 300 300

Evacuated tubes have much better economic dynamics than sub-orbital flight. It's high-speed rail without air friction with potentially incredibly fast speeds. You could work in New York and have a lunch at midnight in Tokyo and be back to NY for dinner. It would be amazingly expensive to build, but it could be incredibly cheap to run.

Comment: Re:Does the job still get done? (Score 1) 688 688

Automation replaces work with rent. It's has a negative macroeconomic effect, amplified by the fact that work pays taxes, and rent doesn't. The solution seems obvious, reverse that dynamic. Make things that earn money for their owners pay taxes instead of workers.

Comment: Re:What about long-term data integrity? (Score 1) 438 438

Drive Writes Per Day is *the* important metric for judging the write load capabilities of a drive. 1 DWPD is perfectly adequate for consumer/desktop use and many fileserver applications but impractical for backing a database, where 5 DWPD is more appropriate. You pay about 50% more for a 5 DWPD drive than a consumer level one, but if it saves you from having to replace the drive 5 times, it's worth it.

Inaccuracies aside, this is an important property of SSD's to keep in mind when procuring them.

Comment: Were pre-mixing humans really modern humans? (Score 1) 128 128

The summary refers to the time when neanderthals and modern humans intermixed, but can we really call what came before the mixing modern humans? It seems that something about the combination sparked huge evolutionary changes that allowed us to rather rapidly (evolutionarily speaking) develop modern society. As far as I'm concerned, the history of modern humans starts with the mixing.

Comment: Re:The best quote from the article (Score 1) 942 942

> especially since they all say the exact opposite.

I always find it funny how conservative talk radio hosts seem to like pointing out how much more intelligent they and their listeners are than everyone else, almost as if they think that by saying it enough, it will make it true.

There's no monopoly on intelligence on either side of the isle, and regardless, a right and noble idea supported by stupid people is still right and noble. Arguing that an idea is stupid because it's supporters are stupid is invalid.

Comment: Theism breeds entitlement and apathy (Score 4, Interesting) 937 937

Immorality is much easier to excuse when you believe there is a divine order to things. When someone is poor, or suffering or has had a bad run of luck, belief in a divine plan makes it easy to see that as deserved, instead of unfortunate. When someone is rich, powerful and/or fortunate, you're more likely to see them as superior and deserving of their good fortune if you are religious.

Every time you hear someone thank god that for answering their prayers and blessing them with something, keep in mind that intrinsically behind that statement is the idea that god has made a judgement call and found them deserving of having their prayers answered. It's a round about way of saying "God chose this for me, because he thinks I deserve it." It always rubs me as subtly arrogant to imply that whatever good fortune you are enjoying isn't simply good fortune, but it's a reward you earned because god found you deserving of it, and thusly found everyone else who doesn't receive that same thing, undeserving.

Comment: Re:Progenitors? (Score 1) 686 686

I thought that evidence was pointing to us being the product of about 9.5 billion years of evolution. Given that we live on a 4.5 billion year old world, life would have had to survive some sort of space-gap before getting to earth.

If sentient life takes 9.5 billion years to evolve, and the universe is only 13.5 billion years old, life would have had to start evolving relatively fast for it to get this far. The earlier you go in the universe's history, the more rare planets become. Even more rare would be a planet orbiting a star hot enough to fuel life, but also in continuous operation for that long. If it really does take 9.5 billion years for life to reach this level of complexity, and in our case it survived the destruction of a planet to spread to a new one, then the Fermi paradox all-but disappears and likelihood that sentient life is currently extremely rare, or even unique to our planet increases dramatically.

Comment: Thats a good name (Score 5, Insightful) 568 568

Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.

Global climate change is more accurate, but still nebulous.

Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening. I personally liked the name "Santa's revenge" from this winter's breakdown of the polar vortex. Melt the north pole, and you'll all get a taste of the cold!

Comment: We made it through the great filter. (Score 1) 608 608

The universe is 14 billion years old. Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Extrapolation shows that life has likely been evolving for about 9 billion years. We also know that very shortly (in geologic terms) after water arrived on our planet, green slime started spreading. I thought the current dominant theory was that life's origins are extraterrestrial and that somehow it jumped from wherever it started through space to a newly formed earth. If life traveled here aboard the shattered remains of the planet it evolved on, this would seem to indicate that we are the descendants of an extremely unlikely chain of events, which might make us the only life to have survived this long.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...