Did anyone even look at the post before putting it up?
A two minute check
A three minute check shows they claim a power savings over having no AV installed at all. They claim 4.43 KwH/day for no AV, and 4.39 KwH/day for Abatis. Unless there is some "new math" reason that 4.43 is smaller than 4.39, it would appear to me that they are claiming to have lower power than no AV.
Yes, surprise surprise, I actually RTFA... and not just skimmed, but truly read it.
The developers of the NTFS support for Linux do have a fsck implemented. It does a pretty good job. However, since they've done a black-box re-implementation, they rightfully aren't willing to 100% guarantee they have everything correct. Hence, although it has been almost a decade since I've had trouble with Linux NTFS support causing a problem, the recommendation is still to run the native Windows chkdsk after the Linux one finds a problem, just in case.
So, it isn't that you can't use a pure Linux toolchain to work with NTFS, it's just that the Windows toolchain is a little bit better. All in all, that isn't surprising.
The overall unemployment rate among PhDs in computer science is shockingly low. Per the current Taulbee Survey (see pdf here), unemployment among fresh CS PhD graduates from surveyed institutions (266 North American ones; likely comprising the whole top 100 institutions plus 166 others) is
So ask yourself, what are you totally screwing up. Some previous posters have suggested that perhaps you're shooting way too low (intro programming job) for your talents. This could be the case. It could be that your degree is from a less-than-reputable institution (you didn't say, so we can't comment). You may just be messing up the basics of interviewing --- my PhD prepared me for an academic interview, but not so much for a straight industry job. Asking help from your institution's career services department on interviewing skills could help.
Regardless, there are very well collected statistics that reflect that a CS PhD is a strong benefit to gaining employment; don't blame the PhD.
How many of these 100 faculty (or is it 93?) are actually qualified to have an opinion about this?
Conservatives sure are a funny (insane?) bunch nowadays. If you're an actual scientist who is an expert in climate research, and say that climate change is real, that man is causing it, and that it will probably be a bad thing overall then you're just shilling for more of that lucrative research money (and want to destroy America). If you're not a scientist who is an expert in the field, but defer your judgement to those who are experts (of which 97% are in agreement) as most educated people do, then you're not qualified to speak on the matter, so you should just shut up (because you want to destroy America).
Honestly, four or five (or ten?) years ago I might have just thought that you didn't have the facts, but in the year 2014 I just find it weird. Why is reducing how much oil we burn such a bad thing? I don't fucking get it.
Conservatives sure are a funny (insane?) bunch nowadays. If you're an actual scientist who is an expert in climate research, and say that climate change is real, that man is causing it, and that it will probably be a bad thing overall then you're just shilling for more of that lucrative research money (and want to destroy America). If you're not a scientist who is an expert in the field, but defer your judgement to those who are experts (of which 97% are in agreement) as most educated people do, then you're not qualified to speak on the matter, so you should just shut up
You seem to have gotten my point backwards
When Joe DiMaggio comes on the radio, and tells you to smoke Winston cigarettes, because they're invigorating and healthful, you should ignore him. When a former playboy bunny goes on television and tells you that vaccines cause autism, you should ignore her. When Rush Limbaugh goes on air and tells you climate change is a conspiracy made up by secret hidden commies working together with Al-Qaeda, you should ignore him.
And when the chair of the divinity department at Harvard tells you climate change is real, you should ignore him too.
If the faculty at a Harvard want to get the administration to not invest in Chevron, that's all well and fine. They want to write a letter, that's all well and fine. But writing a news article about it just because it was Harvard faculty? It deserves a news article just as much as if it was the faculty at the University of Pheonix: not at all. This sort of trash is why the tobacco companies got away with it for so long, why there's an anti-vax movement, and why climate change denial is still around.
FYI, a major value-add the server vendors give is validation, burn-in, and firmware tweaks. So that "same" model of Seagate drive sold by HP might be rock solid, while the IBM version of the WD drive might be absolute junk.
Short version is that everyone ships a crap batch occasionally, and direct from the manufacturer has the worst odds.
IIRC Backblaze's workload is write once read maybe once (I mean, they are a backup company). So it's quite likely that they are massively under the specs for throughput.
The truly interesting thing about this study is that they name names; previous work in the area (lke Bianca Schroeder's FAST 07 paper, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/... or Google's FAST 07 paper, http://research.google.com/arc..., or NetApp's FAST 08 paper http://www.usenix.org/event/fa...) doesn't give away vendor names. The Backblaze results broadly agree with the previous results.
but that's a fair accusation, because I don't really.
80-90% of things can be shipped off to software where it's delightfully easy to trace/probe/debug things, and you have a functional unit which is infinitely malleable. What you can't do in software most realistically ends up in an FPGA, where really you're just debugging your VHDL/Verilog, and the simulator is your new best friend for 80-90% of the cases. When the simulator is a lying piece of junk, 80-90% of the time all you need is a good logic analyzer...
But there's still that ~1% of the time where software and/or digital logic just didn't behave right. Something analog is either necessary (e.g. maybe you're doing something actually useful, like driving a motor, rather than just flipping bits), or analog is making your life miserable.
Even professionally, I've found a 2-channel 50 MHz analog scope to be a godsend in some cases; of course, I like my 4-channel 1GHz digital scope more
If you're just putzing around, sure, a DMM will do ya. But if you're actually building something new (even something simple), you need a scope.
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"