Initially I would think the fuel is more flammable than the batteries, but I have no research to support that.
The difference is that the batteries can ignite without an external heat source. As in the case mentioned, if the battery short-circuit for any reason, it can ignite. Fuel needs an external heat source to ignite.
Liquid fuel is actually not easily ignited (do not believe what you see in movies:-) ).
One other factor is how a fast a fire becomes dangerous. If the fuel ignites, you are in big trouble NOW. If the battery ignites, it is quite likely not immediately dangerous, as the flammable material does not spread.
That might be significant if it was statistically significant. One incident does not make it significant. Now, if there were 10 in 63000, that would be significant, but one in 6300 is not. In addition, this accident was not caused by a car malfunction, it was caused by an external event.
My company uses Harris Caprock for satelite links. We use them for locations where ground network is not available (mainly Africa in our case, but also on our ships). We use them for our corporate network, but as far as I know, they also offer intenet access.
... but what the heck: With the new design as demonstrated, I will probably pretty much stop reading/. Way to little use of the horizontal real estate, and way too much wasted vertical space. Spending more time scrolling than reading is not a good way to spend my time. Too bad, but life goes on...
Being top student with great aptitude for history is not the same as being the top students with great aptitude for math. Entrance exams measure knowledge and skills in area that you are really going to study. So, you do not kick out great mathematician for weaker essay writing skills.
There is no problem with assigning higher weight to the math grade when selecting students for (as an example) engineering and assigning higher weight to history grade when selecting students for history classes. It is actually being done, Also, the exit grades will be (at least where I live) based on both exams and tests during the course, so it is likely that they are more representative for the students knowledge than one single entry exam.
Well, I do have some issue with that: imagine an University searches for a certain student profile, that is not tested by the "secondary school exit exam" (e.g. special skills or talents. Take a military academy or a music higher education school).
There is no reason why you cannot have both. Where I live, most university courses use the exit exams with weighting of the grades based on the course.
Some will in addition have an admission test based on the students specific skills and talents. Music and fine arts are two examples.
In addition some courses will require minimum grades above "passed".
Because insurances are notorious for requiring their customers to minimize the chance for a reason to file a claim, and your premium is usually dependent on your risk.
Spot on. It seems some people may think that insurance is some magic wand that will miraculously make losses disappear. I bet no insurance company will offer such an insurance without pretty detailed requirements and audits. In the end, those who can get the insurance at a price they are willing to pay may not actually need it...
We get cloud based email, cloud based file storage, and it just fucking works and we can communicate and collaborate and get done what we need to. If our internet connection goes down we call and bitch and they fix it and we move on.
And, like, the cloud provider does not have sysadmins? The only change is that instead of internal sysadmins doing the work, the cloud providers sysadmins do the job.
As an reader, you have the option of ignoring stories about systems and software you don't like. As a publisher, Slashdot can't afford to ignore the 90% of its potential audience that has a personal or professional interest in news about MS Office and Windows.
First: I actually like Office. SharePoint not so much, but it does the job. I use them both all the time.
Second: As a reader I have the option of telling/. that I do not think updates to old versions of MS software is newsworthy on/. /. cannot afford not to take into consideration that if they lower the standard on what submissions are accepted, they may lose readers.
I really hate to sound like I'm defending MS here but when it's fine to post an update about Apache OpenOffice one day but it's not OK to post an update about MS Office the very next day then there's a serious case of double-standards going on. I get that this is/. where for a long time the company was referred to as M$, but that's hardly a defence when somebody points out blatant bias.
No need to defend Microsoft. They did not post.
If this was a shiny new version of Office or even SharePoint, fine. But this is a service pack to a version that is not even the latest version. It is like posting about a patch to OpenOffice 3 a year after OpenOffice 4 is out.
And just to calm down the impression that I would be anti-Microsoft: I work almost exclusively with Microsoft products. I have nothing against Microsoft. But I still think that posting news about a trivial update on/. is a waste of time and space.
Also, I can't help but feel you've missed the point of aggregator sites like Slashdot. Part of their purpose is saving you from having to constantly monitoring a pile of different sites for their version of news.
Anybody running an MS infrastructure who is getting MS product news from/. have a serious issue with priorities.
...there is already a site more or less dedicated to announcements about Microsoft Service Packs. It is called Microsoft.com, and I think most people around here know about it, so we do not need another one.
Doing something unusual like reading the TFA reveals:
"It should be noted, and in fact highlighted, that CIA is only funding a portion of this study, with the rest provided by NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences itself."
"one of the objectives of the study is to discuss the possible national security concerns that might arise should geoengineering techniques be deployed (expected or unexpectedly), either by a private entity or another country."
Microsoft might give free licenses to France for 2 yrs, then decide that was a bad business choice - change the price in France to $5000/ea.
While you main point is valid (F/LOSS is needed and free of cost is not free), the example you give indicate a total lack of contact with the business world.
If contract people are as incompetent as you seem to think, they get what they deserve. Any (potentially) long term contract would include restrictions on price increase. For an online service it would also include agreements on phase out. Also, apart from Office365, Microsoft sells perpetual licenses, so if you stop paying (lots of companies run MS without a SA), you can continue running what you have. No hurry in changing software.
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
Not really. Nothing prevent me from using the exact infrastructure I use for Skype (my PC and ithernet connection) for other similar services. And with IPv6 implemented, all that will be needed is a directory service, because every device on the internet will have a unique IP address, fully enabling point to point communication. The current model where everything has to go through central servers will be obsolete. Of course Skype will want to be the directory service of choice, but anybody can build one. And they will.
What nice view you have of us. We print on our own printer because:
1) the big printer is busy again printing some courses and you need it now
2) it's confidential
3) the big printer is too far or needs a special code against your department
1) If the big printer is frequently busy with big jobs, then there should be a printer specifically for those big jobs. Also, with modern printing software, the print can be piched up at any printer (badge printing), so if one printer is busy, find another one.
2) Not a problem. Lots of solutions exist, and all printers I know of will let you specify a PIN which needs to be entered at the printer to get the print out (default setting at our company)
3) If it needs a special code against the department, then I would assume the department has given out that code. How is that a problem?
That goes for anything. Nothing works if people do not do their job. Including HR and IT. That is why there are measurements in place to ensure that requests are handled in a timely manner.
I am a manager. I have a staff of about a dozen people that report to me. If one of my employees needs to involve IT for some aspect of their work then they should do that without wasting my time needlessly. If their request could or would impact something beyond their ability to do their own work then sure, come to me first.
Precisely. So for day to day problems, no problem. Talk to IT. That is only a good thing. But for the average employee, he/she has to be realistic in what they can expect to influence when talking directly to IT.
If they want to change processes or software (as the original poster wanted), then one persons opinion will simply not matter. However, if you (as a manager) tell IT management that the processes are causing problems, or that you need some software for your people to do their job, then you may may have a chance of getting through.But depending on the size of the company, you may need to get your manager to be behind is as well.
If the sysadmin or the accountant is aware that there is a problem that requires management authorization then they have a duty to bring it to the attention of management.
Actually no. The people with the problem should take it up with their managers who will decide if it is a case to be taken further. If an employee cannot even convince his/her own manager it is a case worth pursuing, then why should IT bother with it? If the manager decides it is a case that needs to be fixed, then he will know the next course of action.
The real profit comes from the revenue of marketeers (or Sales, as someone pointed out, quite rightly)
By that definition, very few in a company make a profit. Only those directly involved in manufacturing the end product, actually. Because how are the marketing people creating value more than IT? How are management creating more value than IT?
The thing is that this primitive view of the how value is created is ancient and obsolete. Any company who looks at the business this way deserve to go bankrupt.
Also let's not forget that sysadmins themselves, or most of the IT staff (in a non-technological company, at least), are not making money - they are spending it and drawing it.
If sysadmins are only spending and drawing money, why not simply get rid of them? If they do not contribute to the bottom line of the company, why were they hired in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
Initially I would think the fuel is more flammable than the batteries, but I have no research to support that.
The difference is that the batteries can ignite without an external heat source. As in the case mentioned, if the battery short-circuit for any reason, it can ignite. Fuel needs an external heat source to ignite. :-) ).
Liquid fuel is actually not easily ignited (do not believe what you see in movies
One other factor is how a fast a fire becomes dangerous. If the fuel ignites, you are in big trouble NOW. If the battery ignites, it is quite likely not immediately dangerous, as the flammable material does not spread.
Different energy stores, different risks.
That being said, 1 in 6300 is a lot
That might be significant if it was statistically significant. One incident does not make it significant.
Now, if there were 10 in 63000, that would be significant, but one in 6300 is not.
In addition, this accident was not caused by a car malfunction, it was caused by an external event.
My company uses Harris Caprock for satelite links. We use them for locations where ground network is not available (mainly Africa in our case, but also on our ships). We use them for our corporate network, but as far as I know, they also offer intenet access.
There is a coverage map at http://www.harriscaprock.com/coverage.php
How to use the ancient thing called "book" (or "bok" in norwegian): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
... but what the heck: With the new design as demonstrated, I will probably pretty much stop reading /. Way to little use of the horizontal real estate, and way too much wasted vertical space. Spending more time scrolling than reading is not a good way to spend my time. Too bad, but life goes on...
then it can run your normal Wintel software, can't it?
Not only can. It does. It was is designed to do it. It is actually sold with full Windows 8.
Being top student with great aptitude for history is not the same as being the top students with great aptitude for math. Entrance exams measure knowledge and skills in area that you are really going to study. So, you do not kick out great mathematician for weaker essay writing skills.
There is no problem with assigning higher weight to the math grade when selecting students for (as an example) engineering and assigning higher weight to history grade when selecting students for history classes.
It is actually being done,
Also, the exit grades will be (at least where I live) based on both exams and tests during the course, so it is likely that they are more representative for the students knowledge than one single entry exam.
Well, I do have some issue with that: imagine an University searches for a certain student profile, that is not tested by the "secondary school exit exam" (e.g. special skills or talents. Take a military academy or a music higher education school).
There is no reason why you cannot have both. Where I live, most university courses use the exit exams with weighting of the grades based on the course.
Some will in addition have an admission test based on the students specific skills and talents. Music and fine arts are two examples.
In addition some courses will require minimum grades above "passed".
Don't forget about the microphone!
Until NSA characterize a roomfull of people telling really bad jokes as an act of terrorism, my family is safe.
Because insurances are notorious for requiring their customers to minimize the chance for a reason to file a claim, and your premium is usually dependent on your risk.
Spot on. It seems some people may think that insurance is some magic wand that will miraculously make losses disappear. I bet no insurance company will offer such an insurance without pretty detailed requirements and audits. In the end, those who can get the insurance at a price they are willing to pay may not actually need it...
We get cloud based email, cloud based file storage, and it just fucking works and we can communicate and collaborate and get done what we need to. If our internet connection goes down we call and bitch and they fix it and we move on.
And, like, the cloud provider does not have sysadmins? The only change is that instead of internal sysadmins doing the work, the cloud providers sysadmins do the job.
As an reader, you have the option of ignoring stories about systems and software you don't like. As a publisher, Slashdot can't afford to ignore the 90% of its potential audience that has a personal or professional interest in news about MS Office and Windows.
First: I actually like Office. SharePoint not so much, but it does the job. I use them both all the time. /. that I do not think updates to old versions of MS software is newsworthy on /.
/. cannot afford not to take into consideration that if they lower the standard on what submissions are accepted, they may lose readers.
Second: As a reader I have the option of telling
I really hate to sound like I'm defending MS here but when it's fine to post an update about Apache OpenOffice one day but it's not OK to post an update about MS Office the very next day then there's a serious case of double-standards going on. I get that this is /. where for a long time the company was referred to as M$, but that's hardly a defence when somebody points out blatant bias.
No need to defend Microsoft. They did not post.
/. is a waste of time and space.
If this was a shiny new version of Office or even SharePoint, fine. But this is a service pack to a version that is not even the latest version. It is like posting about a patch to OpenOffice 3 a year after OpenOffice 4 is out.
And just to calm down the impression that I would be anti-Microsoft: I work almost exclusively with Microsoft products. I have nothing against Microsoft. But I still think that posting news about a trivial update on
Did you complain about the /. article announcing the latest update to Apache OpenOffice [slashdot.org] yesterday, or is that different?
One is about a new major version, the other is about service packs on products which are not even the latest version...?
Also, I can't help but feel you've missed the point of aggregator sites like Slashdot. Part of their purpose is saving you from having to constantly monitoring a pile of different sites for their version of news.
Anybody running an MS infrastructure who is getting MS product news from /. have a serious issue with priorities.
...there is already a site more or less dedicated to announcements about Microsoft Service Packs. It is called Microsoft.com, and I think most people around here know about it, so we do not need another one.
Doing something unusual like reading the TFA reveals:
"It should be noted, and in fact highlighted, that CIA is only funding a portion of this study, with the rest provided by NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences itself."
"one of the objectives of the study is to discuss the possible national security concerns that might arise should geoengineering techniques be deployed (expected or unexpectedly), either by a private entity or another country."
Microsoft might give free licenses to France for 2 yrs, then decide that was a bad business choice - change the price in France to $5000/ea.
While you main point is valid (F/LOSS is needed and free of cost is not free), the example you give indicate a total lack of contact with the business world.
If contract people are as incompetent as you seem to think, they get what they deserve. Any (potentially) long term contract would include restrictions on price increase. For an online service it would also include agreements on phase out.
Also, apart from Office365, Microsoft sells perpetual licenses, so if you stop paying (lots of companies run MS without a SA), you can continue running what you have. No hurry in changing software.
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
Not really. Nothing prevent me from using the exact infrastructure I use for Skype (my PC and ithernet connection) for other similar services. And with IPv6 implemented, all that will be needed is a directory service, because every device on the internet will have a unique IP address, fully enabling point to point communication. The current model where everything has to go through central servers will be obsolete. Of course Skype will want to be the directory service of choice, but anybody can build one. And they will.
What nice view you have of us. We print on our own printer because: 1) the big printer is busy again printing some courses and you need it now 2) it's confidential 3) the big printer is too far or needs a special code against your department
1) If the big printer is frequently busy with big jobs, then there should be a printer specifically for those big jobs. Also, with modern printing software, the print can be piched up at any printer (badge printing), so if one printer is busy, find another one.
2) Not a problem. Lots of solutions exist, and all printers I know of will let you specify a PIN which needs to be entered at the printer to get the print out (default setting at our company)
3) If it needs a special code against the department, then I would assume the department has given out that code. How is that a problem?
That goes for anything. Nothing works if people do not do their job. Including HR and IT.
That is why there are measurements in place to ensure that requests are handled in a timely manner.
I am a manager. I have a staff of about a dozen people that report to me. If one of my employees needs to involve IT for some aspect of their work then they should do that without wasting my time needlessly. If their request could or would impact something beyond their ability to do their own work then sure, come to me first.
Precisely.
So for day to day problems, no problem. Talk to IT. That is only a good thing. But for the average employee, he/she has to be realistic in what they can expect to influence when talking directly to IT.
If they want to change processes or software (as the original poster wanted), then one persons opinion will simply not matter. However, if you (as a manager) tell IT management that the processes are causing problems, or that you need some software for your people to do their job, then you may may have a chance of getting through.But depending on the size of the company, you may need to get your manager to be behind is as well.
If the sysadmin or the accountant is aware that there is a problem that requires management authorization then they have a duty to bring it to the attention of management.
Actually no.
The people with the problem should take it up with their managers who will decide if it is a case to be taken further. If an employee cannot even convince his/her own manager it is a case worth pursuing, then why should IT bother with it? If the manager decides it is a case that needs to be fixed, then he will know the next course of action.
The real profit comes from the revenue of marketeers (or Sales, as someone pointed out, quite rightly)
By that definition, very few in a company make a profit. Only those directly involved in manufacturing the end product, actually. Because how are the marketing people creating value more than IT? How are management creating more value than IT?
The thing is that this primitive view of the how value is created is ancient and obsolete. Any company who looks at the business this way deserve to go bankrupt.
Also let's not forget that sysadmins themselves, or most of the IT staff (in a non-technological company, at least), are not making money - they are spending it and drawing it.
If sysadmins are only spending and drawing money, why not simply get rid of them? If they do not contribute to the bottom line of the company, why were they hired in the first place?