The physical Azure servers only have a 100 megabit connection... different VM role levels can have different limits put on it. At some point there was/is a 5mbs cap on extra-small VMs... however I cannot find MSDN documentation to that effect today... so that may have changed.
Seattle drives scare you?
Call me crazy... but I've had far more incidents of bike riders who are oblivious to the laws of physics and think that their perceptions of the laws of 'right of way' will protect them (or as I call them 'suicidal bike riders') from impact than I have had incidents with passenger vehicles acting similarly stupid.
Don't get me wrong... drivers round here are absolutely horrible. When I see an out of state plate (regardless of origin I sigh a bit of relief at the fact they can drive better than the locals... but putting it all on drivers of 4-wheeled vehicles? Outrageous!
@elmer: Ahh I'd not heard that was announced.
As far as MS not taking any feedback from the preview... not at all, bugs have come in related to it and depending on the type and impact will be addressed in some way.
While it's true that most features are pretty set in stone by the time a major public preview like this happens... the feedback had now are for two major things:
- App compat, stability & regression issues
- Helping to guide the next release
And all Windows RT devices also have WiFi networking built in... so it's ok to limit one kind of device but not another? Interesting double standard you have there.If someone bought a Surface, it's their device and they can install whatever they may wish. I know, not very cool to say this in today's prison IT.
Tell that to those who try to install third-party apps to a Surface outside of the Windows 8 store.
Sure it's doable with a bit of work. Ditto goes for an unsupported Ethernet adapter.
You are falling into the trap of the sensationalist article... that the maximum penalty involved is what will be imposed if he is convicted.
Why not wait until there is something to be outraged about before actually being outraged? Or why not be outraged over all of the other maximum potential penalties that exist in state & federal law and regulations which may or may not be imposed on violators. Why constrain the outrage to a hypothetical maximum to just this case?Not only that, if you actually put him in jail for 13 years it would be a colossal waste of resources. In 08-09 it was estimated (in California) that it would cost $47,000 per year to house an inmate. At 13 years (assuming no inflation on the costs) it would come to $611,000 to lock up the sidewalk chalk writer for the requested amount of time.
What 'requested time'? Again... you are getting outraged over NOTHING. The man hasn't even had a trial yet.I agree, we can't stop prosecuting for that reason. I'm also not arguing that some penalty or punishment isn't in order, I just think asking for 13 years for this specific crime was way out of proportion.
You keep saying that... but have yet to demonstrate that he will get a 13 year jail sentence AND serves it.
Why? Have you researched the case?
To quote California Penal Code Section 594 (emphasis mine):594. Every person who maliciously commits any of the following
acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her
own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of
(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.
Whenever a person violates this subdivision with respect to real
property, vehicles, signs, fixtures, furnishings, or property
belonging to any public entity, as defined by Section 811.2 of the
Government Code, or the federal government, it shall be a permissive
inference that the person neither owned the property nor had the
permission of the owner to deface, damage, or destroy the property.
(b) (1) If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is
four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage,
or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine
of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
(2) (A) If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is
less than four hundred dollars ($400), vandalism is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of
not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine
Given the accused is charged with 13 separate counts of vandalism... each carrying a maximum of 1 year in jail... it's easy to see how they got to that number of yearsWhat if the guy got a bum jury and he actually ended up in jail for even a quarter of that time?
What if the jury finds him not guilty? What if an asteroid falls to earth and destroys the sidewalk in question prior to the trial? "What ifs" are irrelevant. If he didn't want to have any risk of jail time, he shouldn't have repeatedly broken the law in this way.I saw some college kids drawing on the sidewalk with chalk the other day (for a fundraiser)... maybe some felony charges and chucking them in with a bunch of meth head's will clean their acts up. Oh wait, they weren't speaking out against a corporation, that makes all the difference. Good thing they were outside some local businesses and not a multi-national corporation.
Or maybe they had permission from the property owners.
Rather than make broad claims like "pretty much all"... if you took a little time you might quickly realize which kind of drivers work and which don't.
I'll give you a hint... plug in a USB webcam (even one from Microsoft) into a Windows RT device and see what happens.
Allow me to save you some time: No driver will be found and you won't be able to use it.
Does this mean we have a conspiracy not only to kill off Ethernet but also external webcams?
Clearly the "big monitor" lobby got someone in Microsoft, just like someone from "big-wifi" clearly got in in order to try to kill competition in a rather silly way.
Blowdart said exactly what the reasoning is for this, sorry you don't want to accept facts.
@Dr Herbie: Not immediately... but just like a business can generally refuse service or access to someone... they can also revoke service/access... and once that happens you are inches from being a trespasser.
Example: You are generally free to access a store during normal business hours, if however you happened to be wearing a shirt that "<store name> drowns puppies"... or run around yelling about how horrible the store is... they are more than free to ask (ie tell) you to leave. If you refuse or do not leave n short order you can be arrested for trespassing.
If they also tell you never to return, simply setting foot in the store again... even if you are not creating any kind of disturbance is enough to make you a trespasser again.
Re: "Also does it count as vandalism when the chalk will naturally wash away the next time it rains?"
Yes. Here in Washington this sort of vandalism is categorized under the crime of "malicious mischief", in the third degree it is defined as:(1) A person is guilty of malicious mischief in the third degree if he or she:
Knowingly and maliciously causes physical damage to the property of another, under circumstances not amounting to malicious mischief in the first or second degree; or
(b) Writes, paints, or draws any inscription, figure, or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any real or personal property owned by any other person unless the person has obtained the express permission of the owner or operator of the property, under circumstances not amounting to malicious mischief in the first or second degree.
So yes... even drawing with a medium that will wash away after the next rainfall (even if completely and 5 minutes after the drawing (because we know jut how soon the rain is coming)) is still vandalism if done on private property.