Wouldn't it be bio homework?
Wouldn't it be bio homework?
What's so ridiculous about it?
The core claims can be verified:
- Microsoft makes most of their money from Windows / Office / Server.
- The entertainment division is not making money, hence sucking from the profit makers listed above.
- Windows 8 is not the runnaway success microsoft needed.
The base conclusion seems quite logical:
- If the profit making departments hit a stumbling block and don't produce enough excess to cover the non-producing departments then the business has a problem.
Which leads to two reasonable fixes (maybe there is another option, I don't really see any):
- The simplest / quickest way to fix that problem will be to kill the "parasite" department(s) and refocus so they can come back swinging.
- IF you have enough in the bank to keep things running till you can sort out the issues then go ahead, no need to axe anyone. Hopefully your new bets pay off but in the mean while you are digging yourself into a deeper hole so you really need those bets to pay off.
I'm not going to defend the rest of the article (who it ends up being sold to, etc) but the above seems to indicate bad things for any departement in Microsoft that is not producing (especially if you subscribe to the view of allot of analysts that windows is taking a nose dive that it may never recover from), and the survival of the various departments will most likely depend on how much value they can be seen to add to the company in the future, or worse yet for the entertainment division how likely they are to turn a profit.
Oh how I wish it was that simple, there are always issues / considerations when deploying. One of the biggest problems is firewalls which if configured correctly will not simply ignore what they don't understand but start raising alarms (this is a big sticking point for business customers). Debugging any issue for users who are used to and understand 192.168.1.1 is going to be quite difficult when faced with IPv6's format (this is the major sticking point for regular home users, they are fine once everything is working but once something doesn't work as expected expect hell).
To your second point, I shudder to think of the consequences. While allot of services remain on IPv4 (bbc.com, cnn.com, amazon.com, twitter.com and ebay.com all lack AAAA records), such a stance requires full dual stack to the customer. At some point you will only have IPv6 to give customers, what then? I've now double checked and what I meant was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 which would allow customers who are only given an IPv6 address to be able to communicate with the IPv4 internet.
As more services move to IPv6 the load on the NAT64 devices will decrease until they can eventually be removed (I am assuming at this point the pressure for IPv4 addresses will be removed therefore those requiring legacy access should be easy to facilitate via a dual-stack setup, majority of the customer base would be running IPv6 only happily).
Well, I think we got 4-5 who actually asked something that included IPv4 in the request but all they really wanted a block of 4 / 8, most refer to them as public ips.
I think we got 1 requests for IPv6 but it was more a "by the way, do you offer..." question more than a I am actively looking for IPv6. At the time we didn't have our IPv6 block allocated so the request had to be turned away.
As for your 2nd question, I'd hazzard a guess at 10-15%, most of the business customers (and the odd technical home user) have their own internal networks setup (even if it is just a single subnet) and manage static ips for servers, etc. but the vast majority just pull DHCP and couldn't care less. This group is where I expect most of the push-back from going towards IPv6 will come from, their networks are small enough to fit in IPv4, the few that have cared have asked what benefit is there to switch for them.
To that point, if I could figure out how to get one of these 6to4 gateways working (completely transparently, and without needing allot of IPv4 space to deal with the temporary mappings) I'd hazzard a guess that if I changed the setup for a few of our customers to IPv6 they would not notice.
Both google and youtube are available via IPv6 (2607:f8b0:4008:806::100e and 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::be respectively).
What I believe you mean is "we just need a big service to start offering premium content EXCLUSIVELY over IPv6" which will in turn force the users to switch which will in turn get more services to move to IPv6, etc...
I work for an ISP and sadly the reason I see for the stalling of IPv6 is the lack of interest from users, some of the service providers will switch of their own accord but until there is someone to serve on that side its more a token effort rather than a "we need to get this implemented".
I would have thought this was the new anti-spy measure they implemented...
I'm not fully seeing how a game that in the presence of DX11 will make use of those features but obviously fail back when they are not available is applicable to this argument.
The baseline target still has to be the consoles, even if it was PCs not all PCs can run DX11 (It is exclusive to Vista and later, so all the people still using XP can't use any of the stuff in the PDF). So although they can obviously push the envelope on PCs wayyyy farther if the user has a beefed up PC the baseline target can't be such a beast.
If I do a fread() / fwrite() I don't care how long the call takes just that it does (I also have no control over how busy the hard drive is, or what else the OS is doing that might make it take longer).
If the call takes less time because the drive is able to fetch the data faster simply means my program runs faster.
So I'd say every program will be able to make use of it, just most users are used to the program taking X time so most deem the speed unnecssesary (then again I hear the same thing about 10+Mb internet links).
You got 2TB worth of games you actually play?
I normally play anywhere from 2-5 games at a time, and I still have a 1Tb in my PC alongside the SSD plus most of my actual storage is on the 4Tb NAS (most big media is dvd rips or music which get streamed when needed).
SSD is still expensive by comparison but I'd also argue that the average person would barely use a 1TB fully (I've seen it but kill the duplicates / most important files are stored in the "cloud" anyway). I've seen allot of users live comfortably on a laptop with a normal 500GB hard drive (most of which is still empty) which leads me to believe they could comfortably live on a 256GB SSD (and would love it due to less heat and longer battery life).
Or even 120GB?
Most games now days are around the 20GB mark (WoW, COD: BO2, Diablo III). So even if you only have a 60 there is space for windows and at least 1 game (Don't know why you would buy a 60 nowdays).
Sad part is you are probably alone there, the nexxus group seems to be the only ones without micro sd slots.
I'd say choose another brand, hopefully google will get it at some point.
they'd make it easier to complain about the spam sent by the user
WTF are you talking about?
You seem a bit confused, the spam button is there to report that a message is spam, the sender, e-mail contents, etc of the message are analyzed to prevent future spam. Seems quite pertinent to your statement.
The "Spam" button is not enough?
The targets change ips, email accounts and message formats faster every couple hours if not minutes.
I'd also toss out a stupid question which addresses what this whole ssl issue is about, what is google to do if the account is under someone else's domain?
The idea is to make the messages traceable to a verified source, less likely to try to spam others when it can be reliably traced to you.
Most mail servers have limits in place to prevent abuse from users (the mass mailings sent by my company have fallen victim to this quite a few times), the weak point is reputable mail severs could not always reliably trace the mail back to the source once other servers were involved because of spoofing, by forcing full authentication you are at least sure who you are dealing with.
As posted elsewhere they still accept non-ssl connections but I'm quite sure that mail goes through MUCH more stringent checks that the mail received over ssl receives.
I don't follow, He was running his own mail server? Or had a google account?
If you just want to pull your own mail you never needed certs even a self signed one.
"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel