I would love to see a passive fiber network that is run by the muni that allows cdwm from central meet me rooms (aka the old telco CO). BX optics are nice, but would rather have optics with different send and receive wavelengths without the built in cdwm splitter/combiner so you can have multiple providers reusing the same fiber.
Your 10 story office building would be out of reach of this, 3.9m is your average commercial building floor to floor distance and I've yet to see one with the primary dmarc in the middle floor
In the case of only 1 or 2 clients pulling only one or two pairs might be the correct thing.
30m is pretty short run, 10ge will do 100m over 6a or 7. For office buildings it's normally pretty easy to get new cable in place not so much with apartment complexes.
That is going to barely make it from the pole to the house. Tack on how much the gear will cost and this is cheaper than pulling fiber? Pull the fiber and be done with it 2 strands of single mode from the 70's would still get me any speed available today, sure it might need C/DWDM to do it but it's doable with standard gear.
Those early days are over and 3.x is intentionally designed to be more rational and consistent.
The issue being that is *always* the case. In the early python 2 days, they thought the 'early' days were over. I haven't dealt with python 3 with sufficient depth to be keenly aware of any real gotchas, but the fact they decided to add back in the explicit unicode syntax is a sign that they have at least continued to indulge in flux to fix bad design decisions. In that specific case, I don't see a downside for the increased ability to have python2/3 agnostic code so I won't declare any example of breaking 3.x series code with that. It seems clear to me that the python language can't quite exercise enough restraint in their enthusiasm for their vision of improved syntax and features to walk away confident that code won't break in a couple of 3.x generations.
It's almost like a curse, the more popular and energetic a language implementation is, the more likely it is to experience some incompatible evolution.
As the hip kids would say 'un-pythonic'. It's sort of like how perl can be perfectly readable until people go and start using all the language features in 'clever' ways. Making a dict on the fly and indexing it in the same statement is the sort of thing I could see rendering python code hard to read and follow...
Python is a language that has a fascinating tendency to break python on version upgrades. Yes, there is very clearly the python 2 to python 3, but even python 2.3 to python 2.6 can create worlds of headaches.
But then again no language is perfect. Old C code is frequently hard to build on modern compilers, perl had a very long history of not needing anything to be touched but some of the disilliusionment in prel 6 has caused even perl5 to get a bit fidgety as of late.
Want metal? Come on Motorhead's Motorboat September 22-26! "The loudest boat in the world!"
Motorhead, Anthrax, Megadeth, Wilson, High on Fire and a host of others...
That filters out 99% of the garbage right there. Just look at their web site.
If you don't want personal info it as a business with a business address (po box works) and possibly a lawyer to write up the one copy paste counter notice you will ever need and pay them to deal with the inbound complaints.
If your just hosting remember your paying what a few bucks a month? DMCA notices are a cost they get shuffled in and out as quickly as possible. If you want them to look at them you need to be a bigger fish or worth there while so at least dedicated server if not a rack or more.
Why not hold people not claiming to be scientists to a higher standard? It's not like their science-but-don't-call-it-science experiments are any less potentially damaging than the same behavior done by a 'true scientist'.
I fail to see how it's that different than the manipulation that mass media does, who also do not get informed consent. There is the facet of it being more targeted, but the internet is already about targeted material (hopefully done with the best interest of the audience in mind, practically speaking with the best interests of the advertiser). They just stop short of calling it an 'experiment' (in practice, they are continually experimenting on their audience) and somehow by not trying to apply scientific rigor they get off the hook.
I'm not saying that Facebook is undeserving of outrage, I'm saying that a great deal of the media behavior is similarly deserving and somehow we are complacent with that situation.
My question is why is there particular outrage when they do it as part of a science experiment whereas it is widely acceptable to do the exact same thing in mass media to get revenue.
National and local news programs basically live and breath this sort of thing constantly. They schedule their reporting and editorialize in ways to boost viewership: stirring up anger, soothing with feelgood stories, teasing with ominous advertisements, all according to presumptions about the right way to maximize viewer attention and dedication. 'What everyday item in your house could be killing you right now, find out at 11'.
I don't have a Facebook account precisely because I don't like this sort of thing, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge this dubious manipulative behavior is ubiquitous in our media, not just as science experiments in Facebook.
I've yet to see an embedded device implement privacy extensions. Human facing computers sure.
To bad it's in New Zealand and hinges on the fact that they drives were never supposed to be given to the FBI in the first place.