While most people instantly gravitate towards the upfront cost and performance of going solid state, I would make one important point. Reducing your data center space by 9 racks is significant in terms of power, cooling and that is all on top of the purchase price and support contracts. Regardless if ebay owns their own data center or colocates, the cost per square foot in a data center and the continued operation of such a large storage system is more then likely to provide a higher return on investment. eBay isn't in the business of looking cool and hip, they're in the business of selling stuff as cheaply as possible and I'm certain their CIO cares only about the bottom line.

The claim that your denying your neighbor from bandwidth is complete FUD. If you are provided a service (lets say 10 mb down / 5 mb up) and you consume said service and it degrades your neighbor's service, is that YOUR fault? No. It is entirely your service providers fault for providing service in such a way that a single customer affects another customer.

In the real world, you alone do not deprive bandwidth from another user (even in cable with shared medium environments it is rare, and if it does happen it is STILL the ISP's fault not the customers).

With that said, the real issue is that the ISPs don't want to pony up and order additional capacity to their providers, peers, or even within their own network. They've all increased subscriber counts, data rates, and expected to spend little to nothing on improving the network? That's crap. ISP's are just trying to convince us that we are the cause of congestion because we watch too much You Tube and Netfix while they neglect maintaining and improving the network. It is ok to oversell, every business does it, but if you neglect your own service to the point that customers service is being denied because you refused to invest in your own network, how could this be the consumers fault?

Clearly the internet market in the United States is flawed. It's ok, the free market is clearly worse than the guaranteed monopolies we have with our telecoms.

If you're responsible for keeping a system up and you have the ability to trigger alarms then you should! If you're generating false positive alarms then the solution is not to disregard or disable the alarms! You should be investigating every single alarm, documenting it and then fixing the reason why it happened. Alarms can be caused by a misconfiguration of the alarm system which is just as critical as a real alarm. If your fire alarm goes off every day would you fix it or would you start disregarding the alarm? Even more important, if you kept calling 911 screaming fire, would you expect the Firefighters to show up every time? I certainly would, however I wouldn't expect them to be happy about it. The moral of the story is, if your job includes alarms you should take full responsibility for them. Turning them off or ignoring them isn't being responsible no matter who you try to pass the blame to...it still is on your shoulders for not fixing the issue. Excuses don't mean shit at the end of the day. Three Mile Island was a disaster and the BP Oil Spill has caused an incredible amount of damage that we may never fully comprehend. In either case, alarms are critical to the safety of not only the employee's but the environment, citizens, the economy, and the company. Excuses that there were too many false positives just means that people needed to fix the false positives instead of ignoring or disabling them!

As many have stated, this was an appeal to remove restrictions the minor was unhappy with. Specifically he had issues with the following provisions of his probation:

A. Use of Computer for Non-School-Related Purposes
B. Use of Instant Messaging or Social Networks
C. Use of Computers Contaminated with Viruses or Unwanted Software

The important point is that this appeal did _NOT_ address his right to use encryption at all. The Judges involved in the appeal did as asked, they reviewed the limitations that were appealed only (see above). This does not say that the original Judge should have restricted use of encryption software to begin with, it just means the defendant did not specifically question his right to use encryption. One could argue that he in fact did argue based upon vagueness, but he didn't point out the word encryption, however as worded its insane to believe anyone with a technical background would agree to that.

My guess, the defendant, judges, or anyone involved probably doesn't read /. and probably doesn't know how common encryption is.

It's actually not his code and the school would have every right to force him to take it down. Any work you do for school is the schools intellectual property. Even to re-use work you have previously done you must get permission from the professor you originally did the work from and the professor you will be turning the work into. Publishing source code online is no different. It is the schools IP, not the students. The teacher is technically right, but he's being a dick and the administration was on the side of the student, but its not going to always be true.

Read the man page for the dhcp3 configuration for 'on commit', 'on release', and 'on expiry' where you can run code to update your LDAP backend with whatever language you want. There's no reason you can't already do this.

Conficker told my GF to dump me.

TLDR

On the upside, it'd be a lot harder for the Obama administration to misplace millions of e-mails...i mean Google does no evil!

Since when was this a Microsoft vs Linux argument? There is tons of software developers out there besides Microsoft. We are talking about Hospital management software, not operating systems.

And how does someone buying Windows increase revenue for a company? It doesn't, but it lets some guy at Microsoft keep his job instead of being laid off. Now, put that in terms of not Microsoft, now your keeping some software developer off the streets who happens to work on Hospital Management software.

Why does everything have to be Microsoft or Linux? There are tons of software developers besides those two groups!

Yea, but most of us make our livelihoods by using closed source proprietary code at our places of business. Realistically, open source creates fewer jobs than a closed source solution. Not that I'm complaining, I am all for open source, but for that just doesn't seem to fit in my book for maximizing job creation...

DRM

Then explain why there are about a maximum of two populated servers, ever...I'm not the only one who feels this way.