...then it would stand to reason that other storage vendors mostly know this, too.
So why aren't there more MLC based flash arrays, especially all-flash models? For storage capacities under 24 TB raw, it would be pretty price competitive to HDD but produce a storage device with insane I/O potential.
What is Sanders is the VP? That would be about as close as someone with his leanings has been to the top spot since... Well, a long time.
Unless the Senate is split 50/50 and Hillary lets Sanders cast tiebreakers based on his own views, I would say Sanders as a VP is probably less effective than keeping Sanders in the Senate.
The VP has so little authority and power that it really wouldn't matter. And I just don't see Hillary Clinton deciding to accede any part of her "political mandate" to Sanders to develop and implement, especially in areas like banking and finance where she has such deep political connections.
I did hear an interesting idea floated -- make the Vice President a voting-only 9th member of the Supreme Court. This would give the VP a possible tiebreaking vote, introduce a variable political component to the court that would change with some frequency, possibly shifting the actual court nominees to more neutral political territory instead of the massive maneuvering to appoint long-lasting ideologues to the court in attempt to skew it.
It would also add gravitas and meaning to the selection of the running mates. I might even go so far as to make the VP election distinct from the President to further dilute partisanship.
This explains the weird phenomenon of Trump supporters who also like Bernie Sanders. These are people who are desperate for something different than business as usual to be done, but don't know what that different thing should be and don't care.
I think there's a better explanation. I think the overlap in support most likely exposes the artificial, ideologically and politically driven framework imposed on American governance, as well as the belief that policies necessarily need to be ideologically consistent even when circumstances differ greatly.
As an example, why can't you be in favor of "free trade" at a city, state or nation level yet reject it at an international level? The impact of such a policy varies greatly depending on how and where it's applied.
I would say supporters who view both candidates somewhat favorably are rejecting the idea that they must subscribe to a set of policies approved by a unitary ideological choice. I also think they're rejecting a lot of the intellectually false rhetoric surrounding many of these policies. It's only too easy to see that one is being sold a policy in name that isn't it in practice -- how many pages does NAFTA or TPP need to be to implement actual free movement of goods, services and capital? Why does "free trade" need 30 chapters and hundreds of pages to describe, unless of course, it's anything but free trade.
This same political doublespeak extends over all kinds of issues and it doesn't take an advanced degree to recognize when basic facts simply don't align with the narrative being used to push policies. If they chocolate ration masses less today than it did last week, how has the chocolate ration increased?
Trump may be a phony plutocrat and Sanders may be a socialist, but if you're rejecting the establishment political narrative, these are the choices you have.
I'm a real cynic in most areas of my life, but I've always enjoyed the visits we made to Disneyworld. I went in '77 with my parents in our rmotorhome from Minnesota. The day we got to Orlando, we drove to the Magic Kingdom and walked into the Contemporary hotel and I can still remember the sense of awe I had walking into the atrium and seeing the monorail pass through.
That being said, I think Disney has fucked itself on crowds and capacity. Disneyworld now has more on-premise hotel capacity than all of Orlando had when Magic Kingdom opened. When you factor in all of the hotel capacity outside the park, it's a staggering number of potential visitors at any one time and this doesn't include the couple of million people who live a couple of hours from the theme parks in central Florida.
While they have built new theme parks (we were back the first year EPCOT opened), they mostly keep building rides that can only handle a small number of passengers. Fast Pass helps, sort of, but only if you're somewhat experienced and hyper-plan your visit, which takes some of the fun out of it and leaves you a little more scheduled than I think makes sense for a vacation.
I think they need to fairly radically re-think the nature of their attractions and have fewer of them, but make them much higher capacity to minimize queuing, using continuous loading cars and long, serpentine paths to essentially make queuing part of the ride itself. An attraction the size of a football stadium, but enclosed with a serpentine path for the ride should be able to accommodate 20,000 or more people at a time. It could also make the ride longer, which would help with fewer rides overall.
I think it would also help to expand the monorail system to make it easier to move between parks during the day. I think one of the biggest mistakes was not extending the Epcot line to Hollywood Studios (it wouldn't be hard, even now) or having any monorail access to Animal Kingdom at all. This might help load balance the parks somewhat. You can buy parkhopper tickets now, but other than MK/Epcot, getting between parks requires the good-but-not-great bus system and transfers to get around, which is too time consuming.
No, executives always disdain process, the only time they follow it is when they want to drag their feet or they're engaged in some kind of executive politics.
But I guess the naive optimist in me might believe that an information technology company not far from the center of smartphone privacy and security debates might actually have done some thinking about this, especially since they probably (hopefully?) have some security people on staff and maybe some concern about being penetrated to obtain user information and/or compromise messaging.
I guess I wouldn't even question the lack of process it if it was any other kind of company involved.
But like I said, I'm a long-time pessimist whose naive optimism apparently can't be killed off.
I'm curious if this was a purely technical decision based on tasks and available automation technology, or if somehow labor politics was involved.
My understanding (which will quickly be corrected here, I'm sure) is that labor is a pretty high level stakeholder in German industry with more influence than typical American labor unions.
Is it possible this could have been done to create more jobs or working hours for labor under the guise of automation isn't right for the task?
You are expecting a rich guy which profited from the system to turn coat ? What is this ? Fairyland ?
You could take a different perspective and assume that Trump is already rich, the kind of rich where you can have a 737 with your name painted on the side, so he's actually less corruptible by money. Most politicians aren't rich and are corruptible by political donations, speaking fees, donations to their personal foundations, low-interest loans, paid for junkets to far off places, etc. For them rich is aspirational and politics is the way to achieve that. Trump doesn't need your money and he might already have more than you do.
Further, you could argue that because Trump is already rich and his business involves the highly regulated world of real estate development, he's all too familiar with the ways that politicians and policies can be bought and paid for. He said as much in the first debate, and it would have been genius for him to pull cancelled checks out of his pocket during that debate and wave them in the air.
I guess I don't think of Trump as being swayed by making more money or using the office as a means of defending the moneyed classes.
You won't get that here unless some actual journalist decides to write a "where are they now?" kind of article about all the "amazing breakthrough!!11" technologies, because Slashdot doesn't practice actual journalism, it's just an aggregator of news elsewhere, usually senselessly linked to another aggregator which may or may not link to some actual article.
I agree that it would be fascinating to have an actual journalist cull a dozen or so of the "amazing breakthrough" stories, focusing on those that seemed the most promising and then write about what happened to those stories. I'd suspect that at the story would end up being mostly the same, they all depended on some leap of engineering to mass production that they couldn't quite achieve or some economics that made it impractical.
I think a lot of companies have found out that hipster benefits and perks are just cheaper than paying market wages by promoting a false sense of "fun", mostly that can be trotted out to prospective employees.
The small company I'm working for is moving into a new office space and there's so much talk about "the game room" that I just about puke every time hear it, especially when I see the tiny postage stamp size cubicle space they're building. It's a jerkoff way to spend $1500 on a TV and a couch and then claim a "fun" working environment.
if he is capable of reason and level-headedness, why not show that in the campaign?
I think it's a question of style and image as much as it is being actually being pig headed and rash, and I think it's something he developed as a real estate developer in New York. Just think about the people you have to deal with building real estate in New York -- this is not a career path you achieve success in with a even keeled and contemplative personality. City government, clients, trade unions, contractors, competitors and probably even the mafia at some level.
Having a brash personality creates an image both intimidating and charismatic.
And Trump has been like this since at least the 1980s when Spy used to lampoon him as a short-fingered vulgarian, so you might even gauge some of his success as being in spite of this personality, even.
It also seems somewhat axiomatic to me that anyone who's managed to stay at his level let alone not fail miserably and end up indicted or broke after this long has to be more reasonable and flexible than his soundbites would indicate. You'd have to be.
I really do think he's been somewhat underestimated for his potential. His policies would likely end up being more pragmatic and reasonable than predicted, however they wouldn't have any ideological coherency and the only reason that should bother anyone is they're an ideologue.
I just don't think I could risk voting for Trump just in case anything he has said actually does represent his personal beliefs
Trump's virtue/vice is that he says the first thing that comes to his mind, which largely dovetails with the kind of conventional wisdom that most people have on many of the issues. It doesn't make the statements *good* or necessarily practically valuable, but at least it's not dishonest and manipulative.
Take his statements on illegal immigration and the wall. It doesn't strike me as necessarily illogical that maybe one source of illegal immigration is a porous border that's too easy to get across. If we have an immigration process (and I think only a tiny minority would argue for open borders), part of the enforcement process maybe should involve a physical barrier that prevents people from just walking in. I mean, there is a reason every border checkpoint *I've* seen has fences and cops and barriers of some kind.
Now if you stop and think about it you can come up with all kinds of reasons why you couldn't build a wall -- too expensive, engineering challenges, not actually effective, but it still doesn't invalidate the idea that maybe there should be a better barrier to entry if we're actually going to have a limited access immigration policy.
What makes him more appealing is that the other candidates are *all* talking out of the sides of their mouths on this subject, either as an appeal to specific ethnicities or to appease their other interest groups. Trump says common sense things people agree with when the other candidates spout nonsense that makes the tax code seem straightforward.
I think in a lot of ways, US politics suffers from the tyranny of mediocrity.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and I think part of that reason is so we can take risks on political candidates who don't fall into the category of least worst or best-on-average.
Trump has his buffoonish qualities and some crazy outbursts, like building the ridiculous wall, but I just don't get the sense that he's as bad as he's made out to be, and he does have some kind of compelling traits, like being one of the first candidates to speak out against H1-Bs and not needing to kowtow to party insiders or financial donors.
As a system of positions, I like Sanders more but not exclusively and the other candidates turn me off in various ways. Rubio is paper thin in many of the same ways Obama was, Cruz is such a hard-core ideologue and has some positions I intimately detest, and both, for all their faux rebel status within the party prior to the primaries seem heavily invested in the existing system that benefits donors.
Hillary may well be the best qualified as a political executive, but I also think she's too compliant to donors and too driven by personal ambition and hubris; she's just not trustable, and I don't like many of her positions, either.
I say take a risk on crazy maybe and see what happens. I guess I just don't see our system capable of being ruined permanently by one guy.
What kind of authority does the city have over widespread infrastructure installed but poorly maintained and documented by utilities?
A utility comes into a city decades ago, gets approval to install infrastructure. Years pass and as their business declines, they reduce the amount of maintenance, documentation and record keeping on this infrastructure. The base is still useful, but is cluttered with abandoned, undocumented and unused components.
The city has a desire to improve services similar to those provided by the utility and believes it is in the best interest of the city and its citizens to repurpose that infrastructure for other similar services, and such repurposing may require a new utility provider to remove legacy components in order to utilize the base infrastructure.
On one hand, you can say AT&T owns the poles and that Google's installers might corrupt the working parts of their infrastructure accidentally and in ways that are hard to fix and may irreparably damage their business relationships.
On the other hand, you can argue that AT&T created any risk through negligent maintenance of their infrastructure, and that their primary purpose is to hinder the expansion of a competing business, either by blocking access outright or creating a burdensome review process for many obviously obsolete component the new utility may remove.
I'm also curious what contractural agreements the city has with AT&T over placement and use of their poles. Is the city contractually obligated to let AT&T do whatever it wants with those poles, forever? Are they never subject to new ordinances, maintenance of the poles and components, etc?
I could see some of the larger SAN vendors getting behind this, if only as a way to keep customers paying top dollar for SSD and tiering features. They would gain an additional way of charging more for less (super magic form factor high performance high density hard disks that only work in our custom enclosures..).
My guess, though, is that they're probably going to see some of their business erode from SSD-only vendors whose products will provide better performance at less cost because they can eliminate some of the overhead associated with tiering and caching schemes and supply lighter weight controllers.
I think you're right, but I think it only counts/matters for organizations operating at the spreadsheet analysis scale where the potential savings are really only realized across many thousands of disks in extremely customized environments.
It also wouldn't surprise me if this was also being floated by Google to induce hard disk makers to leverage their existing manufacturing base to mass produce something that really only a very small number of customers are likely to have in any interest in. Hard disks are probably the one component Google can't just design and have made for themselves, unlike the rest of their rack hardware.
I also wonder if the business math on Google's distributed storage system doesn't make as much sense with SSDs versus hard disks and they worry that their model is going to be upset by HDDs potentially getting more expensive as everyone else transitions to SSDs. It doesn't seem too outrageous to think that in 10 years that a lot of the manufacturing capacity of HDD makers will be economically nonviable as demand shrinks. They won't disappear, but as demand shrinks and manufacturing follows, price might go up.
I would imagine that there have been many official Colt M16 revisions with varying selector/trigger group options, depending on who was ordering. It also wouldn't surprise me if there weren't field modifications which replaced full auto lowers with variations of select fire settings and possibly even trigger group only modifications that replaced auto fire rifles to various combinations as well, so long as the lower would accommodate the parts. It's a modular platform and the parts so easy to change that who knows how many variations, official and retrofit, have been made.
Given the arming up of all levels of law enforcement with various non-Colt M16 pattern rifles, there are probably even more variations out there depending on what agency was ordering them and what they could get away with. I imagine the four way select fire is considered the most desirable by guys who carry them because it gives them the best of all worlds, but I would imagine most agencies would prefer burst only rifles to simplify training and reduce the potential for trigger-happy firefights.
Cops generally have a reputation for poor marksmanship, although there are a significant number who are excellent. It wouldn't surprise me if rank and file FBI agents performed poorly with rifles. Their primary role is investigative and often on high level, white collar crimes where there is little use for a handgun, let alone a rifle. Plus they have significant tactical team assets to rely on for heavy lifting.
Rome is a great example -- you can argue that the Western Empire fell in 476, or you could argue that by 476 Roman culture had been so influential for so long that the end of an official government empire wasn't really the end of the civilization -- people didn't suddenly drop every last bit of Roman cultural traits. Latin was still spoken, Roman buildings, cities and roads were still used and so on.
To this day, we call one of senior legislative bodies the Senate in a building that borrows a lot of architectural elements from Rome.
Did Roman civilization end, or did it just evolve into what we now refer to as Western Civilization?
I think laying fiber is more complicated than that. The rights of way can be awfully complex -- a lot of what look like main city streets around here actually are signed as county roads as well. So who controls the right of way? City, county, maybe some state rule that regulates all of them if they pass across multiple municipalities?
My guess is that it's some clusterfuck of all three entities and has nothing to do with cable franchise agreements.
I do think you're on the right track for municipal fiber. There should be a central colo center where municipal fiber terminates and access could be sold to whoever could purchase rack space and meet whatever the interconnect requirements were.
The whole infrastructure could be managed by whoever wants to bid for it at cost + 20% maximum, and managing entities would be barred from selling services on the network or supplying capital improvement services to eliminate double-dipping or biases in management services.
The build out and capital improvement would be paid for by city-issued bonds, funded by user fees and a sales tax on services delivered over the network.
Call me crazy, but I think this would generate way more economic activity than whatever existing carriers would lose from their overpriced metro networks. I can think of a lot of my clients who want to build out HA or multi-site networks but can't justify the hardware cost due to outrageous site link costs by carriers.
My son was in intensive care at a major children's hospital for a week two years ago. While there was front desk security limiting access to the hospital past the public lobby area, once you were past that point it was trivial to go anywhere, including intensive care.
Intensive care itself had inherent limits on freedom to mess with patients in their rooms, but only because most patients in intensive care had dedicated, 24x7 nursing assigned in room.
The normal patient rooms didn't have any of these limitations, so in theory a paper chart would be quite vulnerable.
And the only reason they have the security guard up front is probably a mix of "think of the children" (for once, where it's kind of appropriate). But primarily because the hospital complex is smack dab in the middle of one of the worst neighborhoods in the city and has kind of a Fort Apache mindset to keep out the undesirables.
I've always thought that since he came out. It seems like concern for privacy would be a fairly strong value for a man who lived in fear of being exposed.
Didn't burst mode replace full auto on many M16s in later variants because they found that troops in Viet Nam tended to use the rifles on full auto too much and ended up wasting ammo and wrecking rifles?
Have you ever heard an actual hands-on IT person describe any IT component as having a "rich" quality to it? It seems like a writer's use of language to ascribe a tactile quality to something which has no tactile properties.
Since there's no rule book on tipping, I kind of follow my own.
In any low-end table service place, I figure the person working there isn't making much money to begin with, so if the service was good, I tip 20%.
At a higher end place, I will adjust the percentage down closer to 15% by default unless the server provided extraordinary service, especially if there are only two people being served because there's just not enough service taking place to warrant that much add on. In larger groups with attentive service, I think more is warranted.
At a lot of high end places, they have dedicated staff for delivering the food, clearing the plates, sometimes even for delivering cocktails from the bar, which complicates the tip as a "reward".
I do assume that most of these places the tips are pooled and divided among all the service staff, which complicates your rationale for ensuring the staff gets the money. It'd be easy for the server to skim the cash tips for themselves.
I don't worry about the owner withholding tips, at least not in my town. Attracting competent wait staff is difficult, and most people I know will avoid a place with good food and shitty service. Owners who withhold tips from servers will not attract any but the worst wait staff and basically slit their own throats.
Slashdot Mirror
...then it would stand to reason that other storage vendors mostly know this, too.
So why aren't there more MLC based flash arrays, especially all-flash models? For storage capacities under 24 TB raw, it would be pretty price competitive to HDD but produce a storage device with insane I/O potential.
What is Sanders is the VP? That would be about as close as someone with his leanings has been to the top spot since... Well, a long time.
Unless the Senate is split 50/50 and Hillary lets Sanders cast tiebreakers based on his own views, I would say Sanders as a VP is probably less effective than keeping Sanders in the Senate.
The VP has so little authority and power that it really wouldn't matter. And I just don't see Hillary Clinton deciding to accede any part of her "political mandate" to Sanders to develop and implement, especially in areas like banking and finance where she has such deep political connections.
I did hear an interesting idea floated -- make the Vice President a voting-only 9th member of the Supreme Court. This would give the VP a possible tiebreaking vote, introduce a variable political component to the court that would change with some frequency, possibly shifting the actual court nominees to more neutral political territory instead of the massive maneuvering to appoint long-lasting ideologues to the court in attempt to skew it.
It would also add gravitas and meaning to the selection of the running mates. I might even go so far as to make the VP election distinct from the President to further dilute partisanship.
This explains the weird phenomenon of Trump supporters who also like Bernie Sanders. These are people who are desperate for something different than business as usual to be done, but don't know what that different thing should be and don't care.
I think there's a better explanation. I think the overlap in support most likely exposes the artificial, ideologically and politically driven framework imposed on American governance, as well as the belief that policies necessarily need to be ideologically consistent even when circumstances differ greatly.
As an example, why can't you be in favor of "free trade" at a city, state or nation level yet reject it at an international level? The impact of such a policy varies greatly depending on how and where it's applied.
I would say supporters who view both candidates somewhat favorably are rejecting the idea that they must subscribe to a set of policies approved by a unitary ideological choice. I also think they're rejecting a lot of the intellectually false rhetoric surrounding many of these policies. It's only too easy to see that one is being sold a policy in name that isn't it in practice -- how many pages does NAFTA or TPP need to be to implement actual free movement of goods, services and capital? Why does "free trade" need 30 chapters and hundreds of pages to describe, unless of course, it's anything but free trade.
This same political doublespeak extends over all kinds of issues and it doesn't take an advanced degree to recognize when basic facts simply don't align with the narrative being used to push policies. If they chocolate ration masses less today than it did last week, how has the chocolate ration increased?
Trump may be a phony plutocrat and Sanders may be a socialist, but if you're rejecting the establishment political narrative, these are the choices you have.
I'm a real cynic in most areas of my life, but I've always enjoyed the visits we made to Disneyworld. I went in '77 with my parents in our rmotorhome from Minnesota. The day we got to Orlando, we drove to the Magic Kingdom and walked into the Contemporary hotel and I can still remember the sense of awe I had walking into the atrium and seeing the monorail pass through.
That being said, I think Disney has fucked itself on crowds and capacity. Disneyworld now has more on-premise hotel capacity than all of Orlando had when Magic Kingdom opened. When you factor in all of the hotel capacity outside the park, it's a staggering number of potential visitors at any one time and this doesn't include the couple of million people who live a couple of hours from the theme parks in central Florida.
While they have built new theme parks (we were back the first year EPCOT opened), they mostly keep building rides that can only handle a small number of passengers. Fast Pass helps, sort of, but only if you're somewhat experienced and hyper-plan your visit, which takes some of the fun out of it and leaves you a little more scheduled than I think makes sense for a vacation.
I think they need to fairly radically re-think the nature of their attractions and have fewer of them, but make them much higher capacity to minimize queuing, using continuous loading cars and long, serpentine paths to essentially make queuing part of the ride itself. An attraction the size of a football stadium, but enclosed with a serpentine path for the ride should be able to accommodate 20,000 or more people at a time. It could also make the ride longer, which would help with fewer rides overall.
I think it would also help to expand the monorail system to make it easier to move between parks during the day. I think one of the biggest mistakes was not extending the Epcot line to Hollywood Studios (it wouldn't be hard, even now) or having any monorail access to Animal Kingdom at all. This might help load balance the parks somewhat. You can buy parkhopper tickets now, but other than MK/Epcot, getting between parks requires the good-but-not-great bus system and transfers to get around, which is too time consuming.
No, executives always disdain process, the only time they follow it is when they want to drag their feet or they're engaged in some kind of executive politics.
But I guess the naive optimist in me might believe that an information technology company not far from the center of smartphone privacy and security debates might actually have done some thinking about this, especially since they probably (hopefully?) have some security people on staff and maybe some concern about being penetrated to obtain user information and/or compromise messaging.
I guess I wouldn't even question the lack of process it if it was any other kind of company involved.
But like I said, I'm a long-time pessimist whose naive optimism apparently can't be killed off.
...at least better than "an email from the CEO" asking for a bulk delivery of sensitive information.
And maybe a process whereby it gets encrypted so only the recipient can open it..
I'm curious if this was a purely technical decision based on tasks and available automation technology, or if somehow labor politics was involved.
My understanding (which will quickly be corrected here, I'm sure) is that labor is a pretty high level stakeholder in German industry with more influence than typical American labor unions.
Is it possible this could have been done to create more jobs or working hours for labor under the guise of automation isn't right for the task?
You are expecting a rich guy which profited from the system to turn coat ? What is this ? Fairyland ?
You could take a different perspective and assume that Trump is already rich, the kind of rich where you can have a 737 with your name painted on the side, so he's actually less corruptible by money. Most politicians aren't rich and are corruptible by political donations, speaking fees, donations to their personal foundations, low-interest loans, paid for junkets to far off places, etc. For them rich is aspirational and politics is the way to achieve that. Trump doesn't need your money and he might already have more than you do.
Further, you could argue that because Trump is already rich and his business involves the highly regulated world of real estate development, he's all too familiar with the ways that politicians and policies can be bought and paid for. He said as much in the first debate, and it would have been genius for him to pull cancelled checks out of his pocket during that debate and wave them in the air.
I guess I don't think of Trump as being swayed by making more money or using the office as a means of defending the moneyed classes.
I thought foreigners who wanted the lobby the government had to register?
You won't get that here unless some actual journalist decides to write a "where are they now?" kind of article about all the "amazing breakthrough!!11" technologies, because Slashdot doesn't practice actual journalism, it's just an aggregator of news elsewhere, usually senselessly linked to another aggregator which may or may not link to some actual article.
I agree that it would be fascinating to have an actual journalist cull a dozen or so of the "amazing breakthrough" stories, focusing on those that seemed the most promising and then write about what happened to those stories. I'd suspect that at the story would end up being mostly the same, they all depended on some leap of engineering to mass production that they couldn't quite achieve or some economics that made it impractical.
I think a lot of companies have found out that hipster benefits and perks are just cheaper than paying market wages by promoting a false sense of "fun", mostly that can be trotted out to prospective employees.
The small company I'm working for is moving into a new office space and there's so much talk about "the game room" that I just about puke every time hear it, especially when I see the tiny postage stamp size cubicle space they're building. It's a jerkoff way to spend $1500 on a TV and a couch and then claim a "fun" working environment.
if he is capable of reason and level-headedness, why not show that in the campaign?
I think it's a question of style and image as much as it is being actually being pig headed and rash, and I think it's something he developed as a real estate developer in New York. Just think about the people you have to deal with building real estate in New York -- this is not a career path you achieve success in with a even keeled and contemplative personality. City government, clients, trade unions, contractors, competitors and probably even the mafia at some level.
Having a brash personality creates an image both intimidating and charismatic.
And Trump has been like this since at least the 1980s when Spy used to lampoon him as a short-fingered vulgarian, so you might even gauge some of his success as being in spite of this personality, even.
It also seems somewhat axiomatic to me that anyone who's managed to stay at his level let alone not fail miserably and end up indicted or broke after this long has to be more reasonable and flexible than his soundbites would indicate. You'd have to be.
I really do think he's been somewhat underestimated for his potential. His policies would likely end up being more pragmatic and reasonable than predicted, however they wouldn't have any ideological coherency and the only reason that should bother anyone is they're an ideologue.
I just don't think I could risk voting for Trump just in case anything he has said actually does represent his personal beliefs
Trump's virtue/vice is that he says the first thing that comes to his mind, which largely dovetails with the kind of conventional wisdom that most people have on many of the issues. It doesn't make the statements *good* or necessarily practically valuable, but at least it's not dishonest and manipulative.
Take his statements on illegal immigration and the wall. It doesn't strike me as necessarily illogical that maybe one source of illegal immigration is a porous border that's too easy to get across. If we have an immigration process (and I think only a tiny minority would argue for open borders), part of the enforcement process maybe should involve a physical barrier that prevents people from just walking in. I mean, there is a reason every border checkpoint *I've* seen has fences and cops and barriers of some kind.
Now if you stop and think about it you can come up with all kinds of reasons why you couldn't build a wall -- too expensive, engineering challenges, not actually effective, but it still doesn't invalidate the idea that maybe there should be a better barrier to entry if we're actually going to have a limited access immigration policy.
What makes him more appealing is that the other candidates are *all* talking out of the sides of their mouths on this subject, either as an appeal to specific ethnicities or to appease their other interest groups. Trump says common sense things people agree with when the other candidates spout nonsense that makes the tax code seem straightforward.
I think in a lot of ways, US politics suffers from the tyranny of mediocrity.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and I think part of that reason is so we can take risks on political candidates who don't fall into the category of least worst or best-on-average.
Trump has his buffoonish qualities and some crazy outbursts, like building the ridiculous wall, but I just don't get the sense that he's as bad as he's made out to be, and he does have some kind of compelling traits, like being one of the first candidates to speak out against H1-Bs and not needing to kowtow to party insiders or financial donors.
As a system of positions, I like Sanders more but not exclusively and the other candidates turn me off in various ways. Rubio is paper thin in many of the same ways Obama was, Cruz is such a hard-core ideologue and has some positions I intimately detest, and both, for all their faux rebel status within the party prior to the primaries seem heavily invested in the existing system that benefits donors.
Hillary may well be the best qualified as a political executive, but I also think she's too compliant to donors and too driven by personal ambition and hubris; she's just not trustable, and I don't like many of her positions, either.
I say take a risk on crazy maybe and see what happens. I guess I just don't see our system capable of being ruined permanently by one guy.
What kind of authority does the city have over widespread infrastructure installed but poorly maintained and documented by utilities?
A utility comes into a city decades ago, gets approval to install infrastructure. Years pass and as their business declines, they reduce the amount of maintenance, documentation and record keeping on this infrastructure. The base is still useful, but is cluttered with abandoned, undocumented and unused components.
The city has a desire to improve services similar to those provided by the utility and believes it is in the best interest of the city and its citizens to repurpose that infrastructure for other similar services, and such repurposing may require a new utility provider to remove legacy components in order to utilize the base infrastructure.
On one hand, you can say AT&T owns the poles and that Google's installers might corrupt the working parts of their infrastructure accidentally and in ways that are hard to fix and may irreparably damage their business relationships.
On the other hand, you can argue that AT&T created any risk through negligent maintenance of their infrastructure, and that their primary purpose is to hinder the expansion of a competing business, either by blocking access outright or creating a burdensome review process for many obviously obsolete component the new utility may remove.
I'm also curious what contractural agreements the city has with AT&T over placement and use of their poles. Is the city contractually obligated to let AT&T do whatever it wants with those poles, forever? Are they never subject to new ordinances, maintenance of the poles and components, etc?
I could see some of the larger SAN vendors getting behind this, if only as a way to keep customers paying top dollar for SSD and tiering features. They would gain an additional way of charging more for less (super magic form factor high performance high density hard disks that only work in our custom enclosures..).
My guess, though, is that they're probably going to see some of their business erode from SSD-only vendors whose products will provide better performance at less cost because they can eliminate some of the overhead associated with tiering and caching schemes and supply lighter weight controllers.
I think you're right, but I think it only counts/matters for organizations operating at the spreadsheet analysis scale where the potential savings are really only realized across many thousands of disks in extremely customized environments.
It also wouldn't surprise me if this was also being floated by Google to induce hard disk makers to leverage their existing manufacturing base to mass produce something that really only a very small number of customers are likely to have in any interest in. Hard disks are probably the one component Google can't just design and have made for themselves, unlike the rest of their rack hardware.
I also wonder if the business math on Google's distributed storage system doesn't make as much sense with SSDs versus hard disks and they worry that their model is going to be upset by HDDs potentially getting more expensive as everyone else transitions to SSDs. It doesn't seem too outrageous to think that in 10 years that a lot of the manufacturing capacity of HDD makers will be economically nonviable as demand shrinks. They won't disappear, but as demand shrinks and manufacturing follows, price might go up.
I would imagine that there have been many official Colt M16 revisions with varying selector /trigger group options, depending on who was ordering. It also wouldn't surprise me if there weren't field modifications which replaced full auto lowers with variations of select fire settings and possibly even trigger group only modifications that replaced auto fire rifles to various combinations as well, so long as the lower would accommodate the parts. It's a modular platform and the parts so easy to change that who knows how many variations, official and retrofit, have been made.
Given the arming up of all levels of law enforcement with various non-Colt M16 pattern rifles, there are probably even more variations out there depending on what agency was ordering them and what they could get away with. I imagine the four way select fire is considered the most desirable by guys who carry them because it gives them the best of all worlds, but I would imagine most agencies would prefer burst only rifles to simplify training and reduce the potential for trigger-happy firefights.
Cops generally have a reputation for poor marksmanship, although there are a significant number who are excellent. It wouldn't surprise me if rank and file FBI agents performed poorly with rifles. Their primary role is investigative and often on high level, white collar crimes where there is little use for a handgun, let alone a rifle. Plus they have significant tactical team assets to rely on for heavy lifting.
How many have truly died out, though?
Rome is a great example -- you can argue that the Western Empire fell in 476, or you could argue that by 476 Roman culture had been so influential for so long that the end of an official government empire wasn't really the end of the civilization -- people didn't suddenly drop every last bit of Roman cultural traits. Latin was still spoken, Roman buildings, cities and roads were still used and so on.
To this day, we call one of senior legislative bodies the Senate in a building that borrows a lot of architectural elements from Rome.
Did Roman civilization end, or did it just evolve into what we now refer to as Western Civilization?
I think laying fiber is more complicated than that. The rights of way can be awfully complex -- a lot of what look like main city streets around here actually are signed as county roads as well. So who controls the right of way? City, county, maybe some state rule that regulates all of them if they pass across multiple municipalities?
My guess is that it's some clusterfuck of all three entities and has nothing to do with cable franchise agreements.
I do think you're on the right track for municipal fiber. There should be a central colo center where municipal fiber terminates and access could be sold to whoever could purchase rack space and meet whatever the interconnect requirements were.
The whole infrastructure could be managed by whoever wants to bid for it at cost + 20% maximum, and managing entities would be barred from selling services on the network or supplying capital improvement services to eliminate double-dipping or biases in management services.
The build out and capital improvement would be paid for by city-issued bonds, funded by user fees and a sales tax on services delivered over the network.
Call me crazy, but I think this would generate way more economic activity than whatever existing carriers would lose from their overpriced metro networks. I can think of a lot of my clients who want to build out HA or multi-site networks but can't justify the hardware cost due to outrageous site link costs by carriers.
My son was in intensive care at a major children's hospital for a week two years ago. While there was front desk security limiting access to the hospital past the public lobby area, once you were past that point it was trivial to go anywhere, including intensive care.
Intensive care itself had inherent limits on freedom to mess with patients in their rooms, but only because most patients in intensive care had dedicated, 24x7 nursing assigned in room.
The normal patient rooms didn't have any of these limitations, so in theory a paper chart would be quite vulnerable.
And the only reason they have the security guard up front is probably a mix of "think of the children" (for once, where it's kind of appropriate). But primarily because the hospital complex is smack dab in the middle of one of the worst neighborhoods in the city and has kind of a Fort Apache mindset to keep out the undesirables.
I've always thought that since he came out. It seems like concern for privacy would be a fairly strong value for a man who lived in fear of being exposed.
Didn't burst mode replace full auto on many M16s in later variants because they found that troops in Viet Nam tended to use the rifles on full auto too much and ended up wasting ammo and wrecking rifles?
Have you ever heard an actual hands-on IT person describe any IT component as having a "rich" quality to it? It seems like a writer's use of language to ascribe a tactile quality to something which has no tactile properties.
$50 is 20% on a $250 tab.
Since there's no rule book on tipping, I kind of follow my own.
In any low-end table service place, I figure the person working there isn't making much money to begin with, so if the service was good, I tip 20%.
At a higher end place, I will adjust the percentage down closer to 15% by default unless the server provided extraordinary service, especially if there are only two people being served because there's just not enough service taking place to warrant that much add on. In larger groups with attentive service, I think more is warranted.
At a lot of high end places, they have dedicated staff for delivering the food, clearing the plates, sometimes even for delivering cocktails from the bar, which complicates the tip as a "reward".
I do assume that most of these places the tips are pooled and divided among all the service staff, which complicates your rationale for ensuring the staff gets the money. It'd be easy for the server to skim the cash tips for themselves.
I don't worry about the owner withholding tips, at least not in my town. Attracting competent wait staff is difficult, and most people I know will avoid a place with good food and shitty service. Owners who withhold tips from servers will not attract any but the worst wait staff and basically slit their own throats.