Just my opinion, but speaking from experience, you will want front and back access. EASY front and back access. I've tried the slide-out rails, but frankly, I'd rather just walk around back and eyeball the connections myself. It's surprisingly difficult to change something when you're working at an angle.
We built all of our racks into a wall, but we cheated: it's a wall between rooms. (The "Technical Information Center" and the "Technical Operations Center" -- TIC and TOC.):) We just walk around back and tinker to our heart's content, while the people who walk by the Engineering area in our studios get to see pretty blinky lights and other stuff through the glass. You might consider mounting your server into the wall with its butt in a closet. That way, you not only hide the wires, you simply walk into the closet for good access.
You will tell yourself, "I hardly ever change anything." You'll try to convince yourself that a little side access should be a plenty. But again, speaking from experience, you'll regret.
Oh... and don't forget that server needs to breathe. If it's farting out several cubic feet of air per minute into that closet or wall-mounted rack, you'd better plan on a fan to pull that hot air out of there. (Again, speaking from experience.)
> Butcher prices his Dresden files books at over $10 a pop
I don't know if it's at the link that I posted, or somewhere else in his forums (search through the "WOJ" -- "Words of Jim" -- I believe it's in his Amazon comments)... but Butcher actually has an emphatic reply when someone says that to him. HE doesn't set the prices, the publisher does, and he rails at Amazon's pricing on EBooks all the time.:)
By the way, I should also point out a different view, namely from Eric Flint (www.ericflint.net), who successfully lobbied for the Baen Free Library. Flint is a leader AGAINST DRM and insists that free distribution actually *increases* sales.
Also, to be fair to Butcher, if you read all of his comments, he's not particularly enamored of DRM. He was just commenting on how the *publishers* view it.
But it's interesting to see what some of the authors have to say about it. Here's a comment from Jim Butcher (Dresden Files, Codex Alera):
I literally receive notices every single day about available free downloads of books I put months if not years of work into, and that's from a simple Google alerts search. Over a three month period, I tracked over 22,000 total pirate downloads of my work, using the stats available from the various file-sharing sites which include a counter stating the number of times the files had been downloaded. Actual sales of e-copies during that same period? Just over 2,500. That's sales information taken from the sales reports I get from the publisher.
> Does anyone send anything sensitive in email that isn't strongly encrypted? Maybe terrorists are that dumb.
I certainly don't, nor do I discuss anything really private over a telephone. Years ago, I was in a lawsuit (nothing critical, just a car accident!) and my lawyer would begin every conversation with, "are you on the wireless phone? If so, hang up and use the wired one."
But don't forget how most intelligence work is done. The real problems have always been (1) data reliability (can we trust this source?) and (2) information overload. Even the Romans faced this, from planted informers lying to them about where the barbarian chieftain was actually hiding, to dozens of eager, but dumb, farmers telling them a dozen different (and contradictory) things.
Real intelligence is actually kind of boring. You sit in bars and sip a beer, listening to conversations. You note that everyone in the 82nd Airborne has been put on alert. You note that trucks carrying lots of tanks and guns are headed over to Pope AFB and that the cargo aircraft are constantly taking off an landing. One guy in a bar complains, "my wife is going overseas, but I can't talk about it." Another guy in a restaurant says, "my buyer over on Ft. Bragg put in an order for 25,000 emergency first aid kits." Intelligence is taking all this small, seemingly-incidental details and linking them together to make One Big Picture.
And sometimes, they get it wrong. Hindsight is always 20-20. People who claim that the government "knew" about 9/11 are absolutely right. The data was there... but unless you believe the conspiracy theories, they obviously failed to link together the critical pieces of information to conclude that a couple of planes were going to fly into the Twin Towers.
Some of these stories are probably apocryphal, and most are exaggerated. Example: I remember in the early 80's people claiming that the Keyhole satellites could "read the surgeon general's warning on a pack of cigarettes." Ummm... not quite. They were very, very good and had outstanding optics, but they weren't THAT good. More like, "I can tell that you're a white male, approx 6' in height, holding a pack of cigarettes and driving a gray BMW."
So it is with government computers. Part of the answer is that "warehouse" thing. Seymour Cray's primary customer was the federal government, and he was well ahead of his time. IBM also custom-made some stuff for the government. Size didn't matter, so who cared if it drew more power than an entire city, required a million tons of cooling and filled aircraft hangars?:)
I doubt if NSA was able to recognize complete conversations 20 years ago, but the stories that I heard (I lived next to Ft. Bragg most of my life, home of the 82nd and the Delta Force, and had friends who worked there) were that they could (1) target specific conversations and (2) look for keywords, at which point, a human operator would listen to the tape and/or take a closer look.
Hey, when you have unlimited money and people crazier than Strangelove running the project, you'd be amazed at what you can accomplish.:)
But as for the airframe... as long as they can confirm that the fuselage is sound and in good shape, there's no reason why they can't continue to fly. The truth is, even before computer modeling, the "best" shapes for both subsonic and supersonic craft were pretty well determined. They had to use wind tunnels and physical modeling to arrive at (for example) the familiar-looking rounded nose, the swept wings and so on. What the computer models do nowadays is (a) confirm that the people who came up with these basic airframe shapes in the 50's were surprisingly good[g] and (b) add refinements. Unless you're building a completely-new design (such as a stealthed aircraft), the tried-and-true designs that were arrived at in the 50's and 60's work just fine.
Take a look at an older 707 and compare it to the latest Dreamliner. The planform looks quite similar. The newer design uses composites and other enhancements, but unless you're looking closely, the shape of the airframe is quite similar on both. Why mess with success?
(In fact, with commercial aircraft, it's common to develop a basic design, then introduce subsequent models that "stretch" it for more seating, or change engines for better performance. Why re-invent the wheel?)
By the way, the "uh... OK" in my reply is mine. For some reason the editor decided to join it to your quote. Sorry about that.
But while I'm on a roll, let's see: hmm, umm... My Dial Global satellite receiver uses both DNS and DHCP. It's IPv4-only, too. My Westwood One "Max" receiver, my XDS-Pro receiver and my Comstream (used for corporate feeds) is IPv4-only. The first two use DNS and obtain their address by DHCP by default. The Comstream was designed before gravity and dirt, so it's merely IPv4-only.
At my transmitter sites, there are racks containing remote controls, HD Radio exciters and other equipment that are IPv4-only. These use both DNS and DHCP by default, because vendor's Websites might change addresses and they automatically log in to receive updates and scheduling info.
> I happen to work in broadcasting, so I know your anecdote is a bit of an edge case. > Few people in broadcasting even use DNS or DHCP...... .... uh... OK.
Do you work in television? Tee-Vee people aren't normal, anyway.:)
(For the rest of you here: that's an insider's joke. Sorry.)
But in radio, where I work, we use both DNS and DHCP quite frequently, thank you.:)
Since you work in broadcasting, I'll even tell you the vendor's name: it's Comrex, by far one of the most popular for remote radio broadcasts. I would hardly consider them to be an "edge" case.
But that's just me. And as for the rest of what I said, feel free to go to Trango's Website. As of mid-March, I did a search of their entire site (with their search, and then again with the "site:" option in Google and got zero hits on IPv6. Nada. Nothing. They are IPV4 only.
Then may I be the first to suggest that the emperor is nekkid, and that maybe this whole IPv6 thing wasn't very well thought out? A bunch of ubergeeks got together and said, "here's the answer!"... with only a passing thought given to the real world, with billions of people using IPv4, and just how they're going to make the real-world transition without a lot of down time and expense.
If there aren't real, easily-implemented and cost-effective solutions in place for the transition, then it's going to be a nightmare. Thus far -- and I've talked to a bunch of people, not only for our own networks, but while researching that article -- the sense that I've gotten from the IPv6 crowd is that everyone OUGHT to be IPv6 tomorrow morning, and they're just not terribly interested in helping people (like me) who must maintain an IPv4 internal network for a least several more years. If anything, they're doing all that they can do discourage continued use of IPv4, making it even harder on people like me.
> stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting...
I won't argue that. But look at my needs and what I have working now. I'm doing just fine with DHCP on an IPv4 internal network. All of my monitoring tools, my ClearOS firewall, and everything else, are IPv4.
Further -- and this is the killer -- I have transmitter sites all over central Alabama that will be linked with microwave relays (Trango and Dragonwave). These are IPv4-only. I've also spent a good bit of time getting my IPv4 VLANs in place. We're comfortable with what we have, and in this particular case, cannot justify spending another $100-200,000 replacing all of this equipment just so I can say, "yass, yass, we're all IPv6, all the time!"
Apropos of the original article... I suspect the real reason why Apple has done this is for two reasons: (1), there is no demand for IPv6 and (2) it increases support costs from people calling with problems.
I guess I'll try one more time. Whether in this *specific* case it's a good or bad thing, remember that most of us are running small IPv4 networks. IPv6 adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed.
I just wrote an article on this for an industry trade magazine. One gem of a quote came from a vendor who makes audio-over-IP remote equipment (i.e., remote broadcast from a site away from the studios). He said, and I quote, that his company is IPv6-ready at the hardware level, but hasn't added it yet, because -- here's the quote -- "not one single customer has requested it." In fact, those who have added it get support calls from people: "why is this so slow?" "Why can't I connect?" The answer? Disable the IPv6 unless you KNOW you need it!:)
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
> UAH is University of University of Huntsville, Alabama. Bible belt.... This is a demonstration of the very problem in the story.
Indeed. What you don't see is that YOU are the problem, too. Physician, heal thyself.
People like you state, "the science is settled." Someone will say, "um, no it's not... here's a scientist who disagrees." You immediately attack that scientist.
Why? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.
It's really that simple. The very sin that you accuse global warming "deniers" of committing, you yourself commit. But you can't see it, and I'm probably wasting my time by pointing it out. "If this scientist disagrees with us, there must be a reason, so let's dig... aha, he once took money from an oil company! Or, he is a Christian! Or, he's in the Bible Belt (I love the way you dismiss, a priori, a good university, UAB-H, just to support your preconceived notions, by the way. But you can't see that, either)."
You won't do the same for YOUR scientists. Why, here's a guy who believes in Gaea and that mankind is a plague on the planet! But we'll take HIS word for it, because he's One Of Us(tm). Here's another guy who's a committed socialist, who believes that democratic republics are inherently flawed, and that rigid government control is essential to the future of humankind... but he agrees with US, so he's OK.
And here's a guy who has taken tons of money from liberal organizations, but he's One Of Us(tm). Therefore, we can trust him.
Yeah, I probably just wasted my time. But it had to be said. I can't speak for everyone, but there are some of us who are quite intelligent, who support the scientific method, but who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete and utter crock. I am one of them.
> It is my firm belief that Google, Facebook and other "Big Players"... now, if a legal problem or > challenge arises from doing this, they can simply invoke the relevant section of CISPA...
Someone with mod points, kick this one up. Dead on the money.:)
OH, and as for the Russians (or if you're going to be historically accurate, the "Soviets" -- i.e., the Soviet Union): yeah, their military bounced back and probably could have defeated the Nazis by themselves ... .
IF they had the food. After perestroika and glasnost, a number of former Soviet leaders came forward to publicly state that American supplies during WWII, especially food, made a huge difference. Remember, the Nazis had overrun and had occupied most of "Russia's" food basket. They were starving. That's why, as soon as the USA became involved, Stalin requested two things: (1), that the USA and UK open a second front against Germany ASAP to help take the pressure off of them, and (2), FOOD. Lots and lots of food. Tons of food.
Which we supplied.
This really is off-topic; we were discussing an American judge issuing an injunction in advance of a German court's decision -- but I was specifically addressing the historical inaccuracies in your post. Now I'm off to work.
> Because the USA singlehandedly defeated the Nazis...
I don't know of very many American historians who believe that we "singlehandedly" defeated the Nazis. But if we hadn't joined WW2, the outcome would very likely have been very different. Not just because of the American military, but because of American *production*. We built (and provided to our allies -- including Russia) megatons of critical supplies.
FWIW, I've never seen an alternate history of WW2 that had a good outcome when America didn't get involved. I realize that's not scientific and it's anything but conclusive, but Turtledove and others have done a ton of research -- including the perusal of military histories and what our allies themselves were saying before America became involved. The UK, for example, would now be a Nazi satellite and its Jews would have been eliminated.
> America was quite late to the party of WW2...
I believe you're thinking of WWI. Your argument, while still flawed and simplistic, might have held more weight there. But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s. Plus, we were already providing assistance to UK before we became directly involved -- assistance that Churchill and other leaders publicly stated made all the difference to staying alive until we DID get involved.
Besides, you completely ignore the Pacific theater. Sorry, I know you hate America, and we can debate the details all day long, but virtually every military historian I've ever read does believe that yes, we did in fact make a HUGE difference there.
Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me, but that's for another argument. I've never claimed we were perfect -- anything but -- but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster, because that doesn't fit in with YOUR preconceptions about how "evil" we are.) But deliberately editing history to feed your hatred is just silly.
And yes, I'm an American, so you may now feel free to dismiss me solely on that basis. Won't change how I feel, though.:)
> They hand out incentives for trying. Subtle differences...
Correct. Good point.
If you want to find a miserable employee, just look for the guy or gal who's working for a moron who thinks everything can be accomplished with a bullwhip. Anyone who's a decent manager knows that it's stick... AND carrot. And it has to be sincere, too. I appreciate my assistants and try to tell them that on a regular basis. And yeah (answering someone else's post here), they DO appreciate mentions and little letters from the company president. If it's a larger company, a little recognition goes a long way.
I encourage my guys to be creative. And here's the most important thing: I have a rock-solid rule that I beat into their heads. "If you screw up, if you break something or make a mistake, as long as it's an honest mistake, come admit it and we'll fix it." Now, if you're horsing around or slacking off an break something, I'm gonna hammer you. But if it's an honest screw-up, we'll fix it and move on.
My brother used to do food industry, and he told me the best story I've ever heard about that: fast food joint. Busy, busy, employees scrambling behind the counter. An employee drops a couple of burgers and the manager screams at her. A few minutes later, she drops something else, he threatens to fire her.
So... sure enough, it's crazy, everyone is scrambling... she drops something else. Some fries go on the floor. She looks around in a panic, notes that the manager isn't watching.. ... . and quickly picks the fries off the floor AND PUTS THEM BACK IN THE SERVING BIN.
I've never forgotten that story. Being the PHP From Doom every time an employee makes a mistake simply means that they'll start covering them up... and so you've now got a computer running with an obvious bug, or a microwave link with a broken connector that's taped back together (true stories both). And you don't even know it!
Carrot AND stick. And it has to be sincere, too. Not something that you force yourself to learn.
> And the 535 other individuals that could overrule this decision will not
Mod this one insightful. That's the best line that I've seen on this page so far.
Folks, whether you're conservative or progressive, the bottom line is that that Congress is the real problem. Whether Dem or Repub, it's not even that they're in someone's pocket (which they are) so much as it is that they're ignorant and lazy. Just plain lazy.
Don't agree with Supreme Court decisions? There's a mechanism in the US Constitution to address that. (1) the Senate can impeach the justices and (2) if worse comes to worst, a constitutional amendment can fix a bad supreme court decision. Neither is likely to happen because Congress would rather sip champagne and have face time on CSpan (I LOVE that... making speeches to an empty chamber, but you don't see that because Congress won't permit the cameras to show the vacant seats!).
Think about all of the concern about Congress almost passing Yet Still Another Bad Copyright or IP Law(tm). You can ask these Congresscritters if they understand the Internet and they'll BOAST about the fact that they don't. When it comes to seeds, most of them have never done actual, hands on work and can't even maintain a plant bed in front of their house, much less run a working farm.
And it's our fault. We keep electing the same entrenched morons, over and over, simply because they're of our party. The PRIMARIES are where we ought to be focusing, but because the incumbent has so much money and so many other advantages, he/she can swamp the opponent with negative ads... and he/she gets re-elected.
Turn the TV off. Quit watching and listening to the ads. You'll probably find that you can actually talk to the candidate (especially for a house race, which is more local). But if YOU continue to elect the same worthless meatsacks every 2, 4 and 6 years (or even worse, don't even bother to vote), then you have only yourself to blame.
Hate to be harsh this early in the morning, but all this talk about encroaching fascism and other stuff is nonsense. Oh, it could happen... but it'll only do so because every one of us continue to live in the box and won't make the effort to think (and work) outside of it.
> If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open...
Haven't checked further down in the thread, but I confidently predict that I'll hit a flame war over this very thing, once I scroll down far enough. Call me a prophet.:)
Free Software purists require that Linux must Make A Statement(tm) and Prove A Point(sm). If it also happens to work just as well, hey, that's a bonus. But to some of us, that's actually kinda-sorta important.
Related topic: when I switched to Linux (c. 2000), I always installed Acrobat because most of my equipment manuals are in PDF form. The folks in Linux fora online would scold me, but at the time, all free alternatives STUNK. They were AWFUL. They could display a page and, if you held your mouth just right, they might even print them correctly. But only Acrobat would allow me to zoom, search, print the zoomed portion, bookmark sections and do the other things I needed to do.
So... I used Acrobat. The Bearded Priests of the Free Software Revolution(tm) hated me for it, and accused me of "enabling" continued bad behavior from closed source companies. I tuned them out as background noise. Hey, I was using Linux -- on purpose -- and whenever I could reasonably do so, I chose FOSS alternatives -- on purpose. If I didn't meet their standards of ideological purity, well, too bad.
Now, thank the Lord, there are alternatives that work well enough (I use Okular). But for years, that wasn't the case.
Go ask the software and hardware vendors why they don't target Linux and they'll give you plenty of reasons. Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.
They'll release a package, only to have the next update kill it, and they'll get a flood of support calls (which cost them money). The answer from the Free Software Purists(tm) will inevitably be, "well, if you'd release everything and let us build from source, you wouldn't have that problem."
They're not going to do that. Whether it's right or wrong, that's just a fact and it's time to accept it. They're NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Instead, they'll just continue to target Windows or Mac or (nowadays) Android.
And here's the thing... Jim, the guy who runs the tower company that we use, is always looking for experienced climbers. So, how long will it be before tower companies start raiding these $20 an hour guys, promising more money and better benefits?:)
These wind turbine people didn't think their fiendishly-clever plan all the way through. You ALWAYS factor the cost of maintenance into a business plan. ALWAYS.
It might actually have been cheaper to build the turbines so that the assembly could be raised and lowered for service. Would have cost more up front, but would have saved in the long run. Heck, ham operators have been doing that with their antennas for decades.:)
I don't climb the towers for our radio stations. I know a few maintenance engineers who do, but they're rare. Tower crews get thousands of dollars per day to do the climbing. Just to relamp our 350' towers at one of our stations costs about $750 per (and we have 5 of them).
So yeah, I can imagine that they're looking for people who will climb 300' towers for $20 an hour. Good luck with that.:)
The law of unintended consequences has a corollary: unintended *costs.*
Slashdot Mirror
Just my opinion, but speaking from experience, you will want front and back access. EASY front and back access. I've tried the slide-out rails, but frankly, I'd rather just walk around back and eyeball the connections myself. It's surprisingly difficult to change something when you're working at an angle.
We built all of our racks into a wall, but we cheated: it's a wall between rooms. (The "Technical Information Center" and the "Technical Operations Center" -- TIC and TOC.) :) We just walk around back and tinker to our heart's content, while the people who walk by the Engineering area in our studios get to see pretty blinky lights and other stuff through the glass. You might consider mounting your server into the wall with its butt in a closet. That way, you not only hide the wires, you simply walk into the closet for good access.
You will tell yourself, "I hardly ever change anything." You'll try to convince yourself that a little side access should be a plenty. But again, speaking from experience, you'll regret.
Oh ... and don't forget that server needs to breathe. If it's farting out several cubic feet of air per minute into that closet or wall-mounted rack, you'd better plan on a fan to pull that hot air out of there. (Again, speaking from experience.)
> I think everyone can agree we can do without QVC.
Tell my wife that. I'll pop up some popcorn and watch.
From a safe distance. :)
> Butcher prices his Dresden files books at over $10 a pop
I don't know if it's at the link that I posted, or somewhere else in his forums (search through the "WOJ" -- "Words of Jim" -- I believe it's in his Amazon comments) ... but Butcher actually has an emphatic reply when someone says that to him. HE doesn't set the prices, the publisher does, and he rails at Amazon's pricing on EBooks all the time. :)
By the way, I should also point out a different view, namely from Eric Flint (www.ericflint.net), who successfully lobbied for the Baen Free Library. Flint is a leader AGAINST DRM and insists that free distribution actually *increases* sales.
Also, to be fair to Butcher, if you read all of his comments, he's not particularly enamored of DRM. He was just commenting on how the *publishers* view it.
But it's interesting to see what some of the authors have to say about it. Here's a comment from Jim Butcher (Dresden Files, Codex Alera):
I literally receive notices every single day about available free downloads of books I put months if not years of work into, and that's from a simple Google alerts search. Over a three month period, I tracked over 22,000 total pirate downloads of my work, using the stats available from the various file-sharing sites which include a counter stating the number of times the files had been downloaded. Actual sales of e-copies during that same period? Just over 2,500. That's sales information taken from the sales reports I get from the publisher.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26233.msg1117676.html#msg1117676
He also has some interesting comments about the publishers and how they're being dragged into eBooks kicking and screaming. :)
> Does anyone send anything sensitive in email that isn't strongly encrypted? Maybe terrorists are that dumb.
I certainly don't, nor do I discuss anything really private over a telephone. Years ago, I was in a lawsuit (nothing critical, just a car accident!) and my lawyer would begin every conversation with, "are you on the wireless phone? If so, hang up and use the wired one."
But don't forget how most intelligence work is done. The real problems have always been (1) data reliability (can we trust this source?) and (2) information overload. Even the Romans faced this, from planted informers lying to them about where the barbarian chieftain was actually hiding, to dozens of eager, but dumb, farmers telling them a dozen different (and contradictory) things.
Real intelligence is actually kind of boring. You sit in bars and sip a beer, listening to conversations. You note that everyone in the 82nd Airborne has been put on alert. You note that trucks carrying lots of tanks and guns are headed over to Pope AFB and that the cargo aircraft are constantly taking off an landing. One guy in a bar complains, "my wife is going overseas, but I can't talk about it." Another guy in a restaurant says, "my buyer over on Ft. Bragg put in an order for 25,000 emergency first aid kits." Intelligence is taking all this small, seemingly-incidental details and linking them together to make One Big Picture.
And sometimes, they get it wrong. Hindsight is always 20-20. People who claim that the government "knew" about 9/11 are absolutely right. The data was there ... but unless you believe the conspiracy theories, they obviously failed to link together the critical pieces of information to conclude that a couple of planes were going to fly into the Twin Towers.
> Where did the get the computational power ...
Some of these stories are probably apocryphal, and most are exaggerated. Example: I remember in the early 80's people claiming that the Keyhole satellites could "read the surgeon general's warning on a pack of cigarettes." Ummm ... not quite. They were very, very good and had outstanding optics, but they weren't THAT good. More like, "I can tell that you're a white male, approx 6' in height, holding a pack of cigarettes and driving a gray BMW."
So it is with government computers. Part of the answer is that "warehouse" thing. Seymour Cray's primary customer was the federal government, and he was well ahead of his time. IBM also custom-made some stuff for the government. Size didn't matter, so who cared if it drew more power than an entire city, required a million tons of cooling and filled aircraft hangars? :)
I doubt if NSA was able to recognize complete conversations 20 years ago, but the stories that I heard (I lived next to Ft. Bragg most of my life, home of the 82nd and the Delta Force, and had friends who worked there) were that they could (1) target specific conversations and (2) look for keywords, at which point, a human operator would listen to the tape and/or take a closer look.
Hey, when you have unlimited money and people crazier than Strangelove running the project, you'd be amazed at what you can accomplish. :)
Not to mention the fact that the source of heat will long since have gone cold before it even gets 1 light year from Earth.
> But that doesn't make them 50-60 year old tech
Good point and well said.
But as for the airframe ... as long as they can confirm that the fuselage is sound and in good shape, there's no reason why they can't continue to fly. The truth is, even before computer modeling, the "best" shapes for both subsonic and supersonic craft were pretty well determined. They had to use wind tunnels and physical modeling to arrive at (for example) the familiar-looking rounded nose, the swept wings and so on. What the computer models do nowadays is (a) confirm that the people who came up with these basic airframe shapes in the 50's were surprisingly good[g] and (b) add refinements. Unless you're building a completely-new design (such as a stealthed aircraft), the tried-and-true designs that were arrived at in the 50's and 60's work just fine.
Take a look at an older 707 and compare it to the latest Dreamliner. The planform looks quite similar. The newer design uses composites and other enhancements, but unless you're looking closely, the shape of the airframe is quite similar on both. Why mess with success?
(In fact, with commercial aircraft, it's common to develop a basic design, then introduce subsequent models that "stretch" it for more seating, or change engines for better performance. Why re-invent the wheel?)
By the way, the "uh ... OK" in my reply is mine. For some reason the editor decided to join it to your quote. Sorry about that.
But while I'm on a roll, let's see: hmm, umm ... My Dial Global satellite receiver uses both DNS and DHCP. It's IPv4-only, too. My Westwood One "Max" receiver, my XDS-Pro receiver and my Comstream (used for corporate feeds) is IPv4-only. The first two use DNS and obtain their address by DHCP by default. The Comstream was designed before gravity and dirt, so it's merely IPv4-only.
At my transmitter sites, there are racks containing remote controls, HD Radio exciters and other equipment that are IPv4-only. These use both DNS and DHCP by default, because vendor's Websites might change addresses and they automatically log in to receive updates and scheduling info.
How many more "edge" cases do you want? :)
> I happen to work in broadcasting, so I know your anecdote is a bit of an edge case. .... .. . ... uh ... OK.
> Few people in broadcasting even use DNS or DHCP
Do you work in television? Tee-Vee people aren't normal, anyway. :)
(For the rest of you here: that's an insider's joke. Sorry.)
But in radio, where I work, we use both DNS and DHCP quite frequently, thank you. :)
Since you work in broadcasting, I'll even tell you the vendor's name: it's Comrex, by far one of the most popular for remote radio broadcasts. I would hardly consider them to be an "edge" case.
But that's just me. And as for the rest of what I said, feel free to go to Trango's Website. As of mid-March, I did a search of their entire site (with their search, and then again with the "site:" option in Google and got zero hits on IPv6. Nada. Nothing. They are IPV4 only.
> the technology to translate ... *sucks*.
Then may I be the first to suggest that the emperor is nekkid, and that maybe this whole IPv6 thing wasn't very well thought out? A bunch of ubergeeks got together and said, "here's the answer!" ... with only a passing thought given to the real world, with billions of people using IPv4, and just how they're going to make the real-world transition without a lot of down time and expense.
If there aren't real, easily-implemented and cost-effective solutions in place for the transition, then it's going to be a nightmare. Thus far -- and I've talked to a bunch of people, not only for our own networks, but while researching that article -- the sense that I've gotten from the IPv6 crowd is that everyone OUGHT to be IPv6 tomorrow morning, and they're just not terribly interested in helping people (like me) who must maintain an IPv4 internal network for a least several more years. If anything, they're doing all that they can do discourage continued use of IPv4, making it even harder on people like me.
> stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting ...
I won't argue that. But look at my needs and what I have working now. I'm doing just fine with DHCP on an IPv4 internal network. All of my monitoring tools, my ClearOS firewall, and everything else, are IPv4.
Further -- and this is the killer -- I have transmitter sites all over central Alabama that will be linked with microwave relays (Trango and Dragonwave). These are IPv4-only. I've also spent a good bit of time getting my IPv4 VLANs in place. We're comfortable with what we have, and in this particular case, cannot justify spending another $100-200,000 replacing all of this equipment just so I can say, "yass, yass, we're all IPv6, all the time!"
Apropos of the original article ... I suspect the real reason why Apple has done this is for two reasons: (1), there is no demand for IPv6 and (2) it increases support costs from people calling with problems.
> IPv6 makes VPN a lot easier and more reliable
Even if I grant that, once again, you are talking about the public internet.
I guess I'll try one more time. Whether in this *specific* case it's a good or bad thing, remember that most of us are running small IPv4 networks. IPv6 adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed.
I just wrote an article on this for an industry trade magazine. One gem of a quote came from a vendor who makes audio-over-IP remote equipment (i.e., remote broadcast from a site away from the studios). He said, and I quote, that his company is IPv6-ready at the hardware level, but hasn't added it yet, because -- here's the quote -- "not one single customer has requested it." In fact, those who have added it get support calls from people: "why is this so slow?" "Why can't I connect?" The answer? Disable the IPv6 unless you KNOW you need it! :)
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
> UAH is University of University of Huntsville, Alabama. Bible belt .... This is a demonstration of the very problem in the story.
Indeed. What you don't see is that YOU are the problem, too. Physician, heal thyself.
People like you state, "the science is settled." Someone will say, "um, no it's not ... here's a scientist who disagrees." You immediately attack that scientist.
Why? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.
It's really that simple. The very sin that you accuse global warming "deniers" of committing, you yourself commit. But you can't see it, and I'm probably wasting my time by pointing it out. "If this scientist disagrees with us, there must be a reason, so let's dig ... aha, he once took money from an oil company! Or, he is a Christian! Or, he's in the Bible Belt (I love the way you dismiss, a priori, a good university, UAB-H, just to support your preconceived notions, by the way. But you can't see that, either)."
You won't do the same for YOUR scientists. Why, here's a guy who believes in Gaea and that mankind is a plague on the planet! But we'll take HIS word for it, because he's One Of Us(tm). Here's another guy who's a committed socialist, who believes that democratic republics are inherently flawed, and that rigid government control is essential to the future of humankind ... but he agrees with US, so he's OK.
And here's a guy who has taken tons of money from liberal organizations, but he's One Of Us(tm). Therefore, we can trust him.
Yeah, I probably just wasted my time. But it had to be said. I can't speak for everyone, but there are some of us who are quite intelligent, who support the scientific method, but who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete and utter crock. I am one of them.
> It is my firm belief that Google, Facebook and other "Big Players" ... now, if a legal problem or ...
> challenge arises from doing this, they can simply invoke the relevant section of CISPA
Someone with mod points, kick this one up. Dead on the money. :)
> as Australians we owe a lot to the USA ...
You MORE than made up for it with Kylie Minogue. :)
OH, and as for the Russians (or if you're going to be historically accurate, the "Soviets" -- i.e., the Soviet Union): yeah, their military bounced back and probably could have defeated the Nazis by themselves . .. .
IF they had the food. After perestroika and glasnost, a number of former Soviet leaders came forward to publicly state that American supplies during WWII, especially food, made a huge difference. Remember, the Nazis had overrun and had occupied most of "Russia's" food basket. They were starving. That's why, as soon as the USA became involved, Stalin requested two things: (1), that the USA and UK open a second front against Germany ASAP to help take the pressure off of them, and (2), FOOD. Lots and lots of food. Tons of food.
Which we supplied.
This really is off-topic; we were discussing an American judge issuing an injunction in advance of a German court's decision -- but I was specifically addressing the historical inaccuracies in your post. Now I'm off to work.
> Because the USA singlehandedly defeated the Nazis ...
I don't know of very many American historians who believe that we "singlehandedly" defeated the Nazis. But if we hadn't joined WW2, the outcome would very likely have been very different. Not just because of the American military, but because of American *production*. We built (and provided to our allies -- including Russia) megatons of critical supplies.
FWIW, I've never seen an alternate history of WW2 that had a good outcome when America didn't get involved. I realize that's not scientific and it's anything but conclusive, but Turtledove and others have done a ton of research -- including the perusal of military histories and what our allies themselves were saying before America became involved. The UK, for example, would now be a Nazi satellite and its Jews would have been eliminated.
> America was quite late to the party of WW2 ...
I believe you're thinking of WWI. Your argument, while still flawed and simplistic, might have held more weight there. But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s. Plus, we were already providing assistance to UK before we became directly involved -- assistance that Churchill and other leaders publicly stated made all the difference to staying alive until we DID get involved.
Besides, you completely ignore the Pacific theater. Sorry, I know you hate America, and we can debate the details all day long, but virtually every military historian I've ever read does believe that yes, we did in fact make a HUGE difference there.
Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me, but that's for another argument. I've never claimed we were perfect -- anything but -- but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster, because that doesn't fit in with YOUR preconceptions about how "evil" we are.) But deliberately editing history to feed your hatred is just silly.
And yes, I'm an American, so you may now feel free to dismiss me solely on that basis. Won't change how I feel, though. :)
> They hand out incentives for trying. Subtle differences ...
Correct. Good point.
If you want to find a miserable employee, just look for the guy or gal who's working for a moron who thinks everything can be accomplished with a bullwhip. Anyone who's a decent manager knows that it's stick ... AND carrot. And it has to be sincere, too. I appreciate my assistants and try to tell them that on a regular basis. And yeah (answering someone else's post here), they DO appreciate mentions and little letters from the company president. If it's a larger company, a little recognition goes a long way.
I encourage my guys to be creative. And here's the most important thing: I have a rock-solid rule that I beat into their heads. "If you screw up, if you break something or make a mistake, as long as it's an honest mistake, come admit it and we'll fix it." Now, if you're horsing around or slacking off an break something, I'm gonna hammer you. But if it's an honest screw-up, we'll fix it and move on.
My brother used to do food industry, and he told me the best story I've ever heard about that: fast food joint. Busy, busy, employees scrambling behind the counter. An employee drops a couple of burgers and the manager screams at her. A few minutes later, she drops something else, he threatens to fire her.
So ... sure enough, it's crazy, everyone is scrambling ... she drops something else. Some fries go on the floor. She looks around in a panic, notes that the manager isn't watching .. . .. . and quickly picks the fries off the floor AND PUTS THEM BACK IN THE SERVING BIN.
I've never forgotten that story. Being the PHP From Doom every time an employee makes a mistake simply means that they'll start covering them up ... and so you've now got a computer running with an obvious bug, or a microwave link with a broken connector that's taped back together (true stories both). And you don't even know it!
Carrot AND stick. And it has to be sincere, too. Not something that you force yourself to learn.
> Confusing reality and imagination is a classic sign of schizophrenia.
Two out of the three voices in my head disagree with that assertion. Take it back!
> And the 535 other individuals that could overrule this decision will not
Mod this one insightful. That's the best line that I've seen on this page so far.
Folks, whether you're conservative or progressive, the bottom line is that that Congress is the real problem. Whether Dem or Repub, it's not even that they're in someone's pocket (which they are) so much as it is that they're ignorant and lazy. Just plain lazy.
Don't agree with Supreme Court decisions? There's a mechanism in the US Constitution to address that. (1) the Senate can impeach the justices and (2) if worse comes to worst, a constitutional amendment can fix a bad supreme court decision. Neither is likely to happen because Congress would rather sip champagne and have face time on CSpan (I LOVE that ... making speeches to an empty chamber, but you don't see that because Congress won't permit the cameras to show the vacant seats!).
Think about all of the concern about Congress almost passing Yet Still Another Bad Copyright or IP Law(tm). You can ask these Congresscritters if they understand the Internet and they'll BOAST about the fact that they don't. When it comes to seeds, most of them have never done actual, hands on work and can't even maintain a plant bed in front of their house, much less run a working farm.
And it's our fault. We keep electing the same entrenched morons, over and over, simply because they're of our party. The PRIMARIES are where we ought to be focusing, but because the incumbent has so much money and so many other advantages, he/she can swamp the opponent with negative ads ... and he/she gets re-elected.
Turn the TV off. Quit watching and listening to the ads. You'll probably find that you can actually talk to the candidate (especially for a house race, which is more local). But if YOU continue to elect the same worthless meatsacks every 2, 4 and 6 years (or even worse, don't even bother to vote), then you have only yourself to blame.
Hate to be harsh this early in the morning, but all this talk about encroaching fascism and other stuff is nonsense. Oh, it could happen ... but it'll only do so because every one of us continue to live in the box and won't make the effort to think (and work) outside of it.
> If you get all panty-bunched about they have to be open ...
Haven't checked further down in the thread, but I confidently predict that I'll hit a flame war over this very thing, once I scroll down far enough. Call me a prophet. :)
Free Software purists require that Linux must Make A Statement(tm) and Prove A Point(sm). If it also happens to work just as well, hey, that's a bonus. But to some of us, that's actually kinda-sorta important.
Related topic: when I switched to Linux (c. 2000), I always installed Acrobat because most of my equipment manuals are in PDF form. The folks in Linux fora online would scold me, but at the time, all free alternatives STUNK. They were AWFUL. They could display a page and, if you held your mouth just right, they might even print them correctly. But only Acrobat would allow me to zoom, search, print the zoomed portion, bookmark sections and do the other things I needed to do.
So ... I used Acrobat. The Bearded Priests of the Free Software Revolution(tm) hated me for it, and accused me of "enabling" continued bad behavior from closed source companies. I tuned them out as background noise. Hey, I was using Linux -- on purpose -- and whenever I could reasonably do so, I chose FOSS alternatives -- on purpose. If I didn't meet their standards of ideological purity, well, too bad.
Now, thank the Lord, there are alternatives that work well enough (I use Okular). But for years, that wasn't the case.
Go ask the software and hardware vendors why they don't target Linux and they'll give you plenty of reasons. Hint: it's NOT market share. There are small software shops that LOVE writing apps for niche markets. But one of the biggest reasons they don't target Linux is that it's a moving target.
They'll release a package, only to have the next update kill it, and they'll get a flood of support calls (which cost them money). The answer from the Free Software Purists(tm) will inevitably be, "well, if you'd release everything and let us build from source, you wouldn't have that problem."
They're not going to do that. Whether it's right or wrong, that's just a fact and it's time to accept it. They're NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Instead, they'll just continue to target Windows or Mac or (nowadays) Android.
And here's the thing ... Jim, the guy who runs the tower company that we use, is always looking for experienced climbers. So, how long will it be before tower companies start raiding these $20 an hour guys, promising more money and better benefits? :)
These wind turbine people didn't think their fiendishly-clever plan all the way through. You ALWAYS factor the cost of maintenance into a business plan. ALWAYS.
It might actually have been cheaper to build the turbines so that the assembly could be raised and lowered for service. Would have cost more up front, but would have saved in the long run. Heck, ham operators have been doing that with their antennas for decades. :)
I don't climb the towers for our radio stations. I know a few maintenance engineers who do, but they're rare. Tower crews get thousands of dollars per day to do the climbing. Just to relamp our 350' towers at one of our stations costs about $750 per (and we have 5 of them).
So yeah, I can imagine that they're looking for people who will climb 300' towers for $20 an hour. Good luck with that. :)
The law of unintended consequences has a corollary: unintended *costs.*