I like how you assume I'm a Microsoft shill just because I know what Hyper-V is. You see, I do manage datacenters for a living. My virtualization, however, is entirely XenServer, so, hey, again on the assumptions? See, your problem is that you talk authoritatively on subjects you openly admit you know nothing about.

In a matter of about 1/10th of a second, you can suspend a VM, migrate its state to another host, resume it, gratuitously arp, and thanks to the fault-tolerant design of TCP, things just continue working. If you knew anything at all about networking you'd understand this.

Instead of being a dumbass and saying "Not possible, no way!" why don't you go install XenServer on two boxes, pool them, and see it for yourself? Or, how about simply not opening your mouth on a subject you yourself admit you know nothing about?

Oh hey, look, let me Google this one for you too:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hyper-V

See, this is part of Windows Server, which you install on your own hardware, just like XenServer, or VMware, or well, any other operating system. It's not a hosted platform that you can't control that runs somewhere else.

While I have you here, I really would like to know two things:
1. What the fuck are you smoking?
2. Can I have some? Must be some good shit.

Uhhhhh?

To put it very clearly: No. They're not flipping from one guest to another. The same guest, moving from one physical piece of hardware to another, without any interruption at all. Why this is mind boggling to you is beyond me - it's fairly simple, actually, once you realize that we have shared storage (y'know, logical volumes you can access from more than one machine - is that equally incredible?) and very fast network links...

Since you're so lazy: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=live+migration

And how exactly do you propose he gets that subdomain from whoever owns last.*? Pretty sure that if you just randomly email whoever owns a domain and say "Hay dood I want subdomain!!!!!111!1one" it won't work, and you certainly can't just go to a registrar and register a subdomain of someone else's domain...

OWA 2010 may as well have been a complete rewrite as far as I'm concerned. It's an incredible difference from 2007. I much prefer it to GMail's interface, and that's running in Chrome - yep, they made OWA fully cross browser with all the fancy features as well. About damn time.

Well, yeah, but that still can fall under 3 seconds with Google. :P

Uhhhh? The company's called Mojang. Scrolls is another game they're working on. 3 seconds with Google would have told you that and spared you however long you wasted writing that up. :|

Works fine at 5970x1080 for me. \o/

Sounds like a poorly thought out deployment to me. I used to manage an Exchange deployment with eh, 40,000 users, maybe 50,000? Everything was nearly instantaneous. Hell, all of those clients hit the 16 backend mailbox servers (each with a few Dell MD1000s hanging off of them) through one client access server (they were active/passive failover) with only 4 gigs of RAM. Exchange's requirements aren't nearly as insane as people like to make them out to be, but like anything involving tons of data and many users, it's only going to be as good as your backing storage, which is your weakest link.

(1 horsu) Post pointing out the typo "horsu"

They did exactly what the contract says and exactly what they said they'd do: they waived the monthly payment for three months. They didn't waive a portion of the balance, they didn't pay it for you, they waived the minimum monthly payment. As such, if there was interest, you'd have interest charges, and the balance would increase a bit over those three months. There isn't any way whatsoever that "we will waive the monthly payment for 3 months" equates to "we will pay your balance for you."

Nope... He's quite correct. If you're using GiB/Kib, it works out to 797.47 Kib/sec instead. Either way, if you saturate your link it's very easy to go over their cap in just a few days.

Knowing how blue the display on the iPad is, I'd prefer not to show photos on it even if it just had to be "pretty." Personal preference mostly though. A lot of my recent work has been straight up photojournalist, so color calibration doesn't matter as much there as it just ends up in a newspaper or website on someone's uncalibrated display anyway, but I wouldn't imagine I'd use an iPad for that type of work anyway as you can't tag, caption, and transmit photos nearly as quickly on a little tablet like that as you can in say Photo Mechanic.

Two words: color calibration

Even if I had the other whizbangs for editing, cataloging, tagging, etc, I wouldn't use an iPad because I don't know that the image I see will match print. There's no way to calibrate it. Even software calibration would be a slight improvement, but without hardware calibration it's a bust for me and should be a bust for any photographer who takes his or her work seriously.