I know there is generally no point in commenting on.signatures, but I'll bite: It's not Flack, it's Flak, from the german Flugabwehrkanone (Airplane Repel Cannon).
You don't seem to actually get my point. Of course you can design experiments that connect certain historical periods to certain measurable items. One of the most known is the relation of C12 and C14 in organic matter, even though this is not the best of the examples because there seem to be different ratios of C12 and C14 in different periods of time, making the scale not an exactly geometrical one.
The prediction would be: "If you find wood and your thesis is that it was cut in Roman times (e.g. 2000 years ago), you can expect a ratio of C12 and C14 of X." Everyone with access to wood from said time and a mass spectrometre can perform the experiment and see the results.
The same works also for geological periods. If you find limestone, and your thesis is that it has formed in Cambrian times, you can expect to find remainings of trilobites inside. This experiment is available to everyone with access to limestone about 500 mio years old and a microscope.
There are certain items which are quite seldom or even unique, so the possibility of experimentation is limited. One example would be the Ichtyostega, where for 40 years the only known exemplar was locked away, and only its discoverer had access to it. In the Nineties several more Ichtyostega were found in Greenland, and the scientific process was working: Some of the theses the discoverer made about the Ichtyostega were disproven.
But this is also valid for predictions about the behaviour of a building (there is only a single one of them build at exactly this place), but you wouldn't call the engineering somehow unscientific (there may be engineering that is misfit to the conditions, but that's a completely different matter).
Not exactly. An experiment means that you are setting the conditions, predict a possible outcome out of your theory and then perform the experiment, measure the results and compare them with your predictions. That doesn't mean that everything you are measuring later is created during the experiment. It just means that it was unknown beforehand.
So one of the predictions of evolution theory was that birds and recent reptiles have a common ancestor, and thus there has to have been an animal with a mixed pattern of reptile and birdlike characteristics. Discovering the Archeopteryx was thus an experiment that proved this theory.
(The idea that all livings somehow belong to a common ancestor or are at least adhering to a common building plan is much older than Darwin's theory of evolution. Aristoteles for instance was very interested in 'chimeras', animals or plants which have common characteristics with two otherwise different groups of livings.)
The problem with paleontologic findings is not so much the fact that you can (maybe) prove the existance of some predicted species, but you can't prove the absence of a predefined species (just the fact that you haven't discovered remainings doesn't prove anything. It just means that you didn't look yet into places where remainings have hidden.)
So it is with all the single development steps of the recent livings. Sometimes we have already a good paleontologic record of the developments, sometimes we have just some predictions how the assumed 'chimeras' may have looked like. Some of the predictions have been proved wrong (we now know that not all land living vertebratae had a maximum of five fingers at each extremity, the Ichtyostega seems to have had at least eight at the feet and seven at the hands). But the general concepts of evolution theory (radiation, separation, genetic drift, common ancestry and adaption to external conditions) have been proven as sound.
But's easy to see that 30 ~ 28 = 4 * 7 ~ 6. So if the estimated size for the Wilkins meteor ranges between 28 and 32, and the one for the Chicxulub meteor between 6 and 7 miles, then the factor 4 up to 5 looks pretty close.
But with the support contract come Service Level Agreements. And at this point the software vendor is interested in keeping the Service Level Agreements without too much additional work for him, especially if the support contract is of a "cover all" type (additional fees for some actions might give the vendor the incentive to redefine many support cases into cases which requires additional payment).
In a certain way software which includes free patches and rebates on upgrades is already of the mentioned type: You don't only pay for the first installation software package, but also for the ability to get free (as in paid for beforehand) patches and a lower price at the upgrade (also paid for with your money for the first version).
I remember an article linked here on slashdot about half a year ago, where the author argued that the actual price for the software is only about 10% of the purchase price, all the other money is paid for the additional services (patches and cheaper upgrades). Actually he used his experience in arbitrage business to separate the prices for the different parts of the whole contract.
First of all: You seem to have no idea how many landlines are in Iraq, and how many of them are (after two wars) still in operation. This is a third world country by all means, and that means less than 100 land line based phones per 1000 inhabitants. And probably half of them are installed in the ministries and local offices. Cell phones basicly made the landlines obsolete in Iraq, and I doubt that they are actually maintained for normal phone calls. I rather guess that most of them now are used for cell base station interconnect and the DSL of the Internet cafés anyway;) Shutting down cellular networks in the end means putting Iraq into the pre telephone era. And because the american occupation forces have been inable to recreate basic services, most of the services now in place are ad hoc, created by local initiatives and local businesses. How do you ever want to control them? Sending the troups to cut down antennas?
Moreso, if I have a program generating HTML code, I want that code to be standard compliant. To me it's the easiest way to catch bugs in my code, because if I program it with compliance in mind, but the code gets warnings in the validator, I know there are bugs lurking around, even if the output seems to show up correctly in the browser. I even let generated code indent correctly, because this is another easy way to spot lines where your assumptions about what the code is doing are different from the actual behaviour.
And if there is ever the problem of being not displayed correctly in different browsers: For me starting with W3C compliance and then tweak the stuff to show up correctly in different browsers is more easy than coding for one browser and try do adapt to others. With the W3C compliance you know how the code SHOULD look like, and you can spot the browser dependencies better, thus bug fixing gets more easy.
It's called "biometric passport" and it is required for every non citizen to enter the U.S. So in reverse, it is required for every U.S. citizen if they want to go abroad. (They might be gun owners, so just a step till fully grown terrorists, you know?)
3) There's not that much difference between the sensitivity of different GSM phones - they all have to meet the same RF specifications, and few beat them by very much. However, an external (stubby) antenna, while possibly causing an unsightly bulge in your trousers, will probably give silghtly better reception in practice than one with an internal patch antenna, if only because you won't get the attenuation from your hand while you're holding it.
I doubt that. I have an old (yeah... very old) Motorola 7089, which beats all newer phones I ever used in reception and quality of sound. Saddly the battery is getting weak and gives only about half a day of standby now, so I can't use it anymore for more than just check the signal intensity:)
In the end it boils down to the old question centralisation vs. local autonomy. Centralisation is fine for keeping state, it is fine for enforcing a thoroughly similar approach to everything, it helps with 'single points of contact'. Local autonomy helps with less administrational effort, with clearly defined information paths and with clear responsibilities, thus with keeping problems locally.
Both approaches have their merits, and in the real world you will never see a purely central organisation or a purely localized organisation. Every organisation is somehow swinging between both extrema, going more central at one point "to leverage synergies and increase efficiency", or is starting outsourcing and reorganizing itself into profit centers, to "overcome bureaucracy, to clearly define responsibilities and to cut down on administrational spending".
The limits are given by the speed information is created, sent and decoded within the different organisational paths. An increase in Inter Process Communication speed will help with a more modularized microkernel approach, an increase in number and complexity of concurrent requests demands a more centralized kernel.
In the end it boils down to the fact, that transactions have to be atomar operations, either being executed completely or rolled back completely if not finished. Centralized systems are inherently transactional, especially if they are executing tasks sequentially. The limit is given with the numbers of transactions that can be executed per time unit. Parallel execution demands operations to be as independent of each other as possible, thus increasing design efforts, but once the task is (nearly) interlock free, a modularized approach helps with faster, better maintenable code.
I don't think volume matters that much than weight. You always find some spare room to put a tank in. Space is not that precious in a car. My car can carry 20 gallons of gasoline, but just the trunk has at least 250 gallons, the whole passenger room about 800 gallons. Increasing the volume of the gas tank by 100 percent would just remove 2,5% of space if it were taken from the passenger room. Normally a tank is outside the passenger room for security reasons anyway, and the space between the rear wheels, where the gas tank resides, is not fully occupied by this. This wouldn't even affect overall measurements of the car at all. The sizes of gas tanks are more designed with a 500ml distance to go on a refill than with the maximum capacity in mind. But weight is precious, firstly because this is pulling each time you are accelerating or braking. A full refill of my tank increases the car weight by 5%, and if I am using ethanol for refill, I would have to take in 50 percent more to store the same amount of energy, thus increasing the weight of the car by 2.5%, and this directly affects the mileage. And transporting the ethanol with trucks or rail waggons would add at least 30% penalty on the transportation costs (it may not be the full 50% because the transporting system has a minimum weight which is independent of the actual freight). The weight of the whole system is also a reason why liquid gas or hydrogene have not caught on with cars yet: The tanks have to withstand much more pressure, and thus are more heavy, even when empty, and leakage is much more dangerous, thus increasing the weight again for the additional security systems. For more heavy vehicles like busses or trucks there are viable liquid gas systems available, because there the weight of the tank is much smaller compared with the overall vehicle weight. There are several towns whose public busses run on liquid gas instead of gasoline. In Italy liquid gas is available at most of the gas stations, thus also many cars can run on both liquid gas or gasoline, but those cars are more heavy and make sense economically only because of the lower liquid gas prices.
First: Ethanol is less dense than Gasoline. If you compare volumes instead of weight, Ethanol is at a disadvantage. Second, Ethanol already contains some oxygene in the molecules, thus the energy density is lower anyway. Ethanol produces about 29,7 Megajoule per kg if burned, Gasoline about 47 Megajoule per kg. Pure Hydrogene would produce 143 Megajoule per kg, while pure Carbon (Anthracit) gets about 33 Megajoule per kg. In the end it's always a compromise between ease of transportation (pure Carbon wins), energy density (Hydrogene wins), ease of combustion (again Hydrogene), safety of storage and transportation (Carbon), handling of fuel (any liquid fuel like Ethanol or Gasoline) and other aspects of operation. Ethanol has the big advantage that it's energy source is free (as in beer) and will be for the next 5 billion years. That might help Ethanol to overcome the other obstacles, as the big area necessary to grow the plants, the complicated processes to refine the plants to Ethanol and the low energy density, which makes the transportation of Ethanol more expensive.
First: You don't need to run only the single UNIX service on the kernel. When I was involved in L4Linux, we planned to have the UNIX kernel doing all the non real time stuff (authorisation, administration etc.pp.) and run in parallel real time jobs like data stream switching, robotics etc.pp.
Second: The single UNIX service is a kind of fallback. When you are designing a new operating system, it's nice to know that all services are already there, and you can start replacing them one by one with compartemented services.
Third: It is nice to have all the drivers usable for exotic hardware, so recycling them for your project is easy. And stuff that doesn't need to be compartemented or doesn't have special requirements can be left within the single UNIX service.
But that's not the real question here. The question is not if you have profited from a specified piece of software, that by chance was open source, but if you have profited from the fact, that it was open source.
So for instance I have profited from the fact that SAP's R/3 software is in a way open source that a registered developer on a SAP R/3 system can not only browse his own code or the code of fellow developers, but also the code SAP provides (very useful for debugging!), and (with a warning that this voids the warranty though) can even change SAP code. If you tell SAP about your modifications, and your project has a certain value to SAP, they will even setup an own system with your modifications at their side to help you hunt down bugs.
SAP's source policy is not conform to full open source though. You are not allowed to distribute SAP's products with your modifications freely (you are allowed to distribute your patches though). But I have certainly profited from the fact that I was able to see, debug and modify SAP's codebase.
You can cut a sphere in half on EACH great circle. It doesn't have to be parallel to the equator or to a longitude. If the line Surface-Center is in the plane of the cut, it is surely cutting the sphere into two halves. The line Bosnia-Egypt then only fixes the acutal position of the plane.
From the viewpoint of an European centrist, Slashdot looks quite right wing;) Just because you describe yourself as rightwing, not everyone not agreeing with you is a left wing nut. Some might just be wrong.;)
They are worth $1,000,000 if they get traded for $1,000,000. So let someone sell his share for $1,000,000 and buy it back for $1,000,000. Here we go. Low volatility in the stock though... Two shares traded (the same twice).
The idea there is to separate service and network. So you only need one network to connect two different suppliers in the same town to their respective customers. This only works if the actual part of the service they are offering, that is going via the network, is either absolutely the same (as in electricity or natural gas) or doesn't interfere with each other too much (as in packet switched circuit).
I have worked in an environment where we had lots of customers, and many of them with private IP space for backends. Often the necessary networks are only/28 or/29, for some transfer networks a/30 might be sufficient. But you have to keep track of the networks, because for managing the servers via VPNs or private IP space you should keep track of which network belongs to which customer, and how much IP space is left. And it might be good to note if the DB Primary has the 10.23.34.5 or 10.23.34.6 in the network though.
I was with the firewall group, and we had to manage about 1200 firewall entities. Here you can't go anymore with "pretty much selfdocumenting". All the mappings and forwards and address translations have to be kept track of. And if you get some strange private addresses on your core routers in the data center, you want to know which customer to check for misrouting. This won't work without documentation.
No. There was a cyclingpath nearly crossing free along the river banks. So I was disconnected from all normal traffic. (For people who know the location: I was living in Frankfurt(Main)-Ostend, Germany, and I was working in Frankfurt(Main)-Griesheim. Pretty well the whole distance can be done along the Main river bank.)
Slashdot Mirror
I know there is generally no point in commenting on .signatures, but I'll bite:
It's not Flack, it's Flak, from the german Flugabwehrkanone (Airplane Repel Cannon).
You don't seem to actually get my point. Of course you can design experiments that connect certain historical periods to certain measurable items. One of the most known is the relation of C12 and C14 in organic matter, even though this is not the best of the examples because there seem to be different ratios of C12 and C14 in different periods of time, making the scale not an exactly geometrical one.
The prediction would be: "If you find wood and your thesis is that it was cut in Roman times (e.g. 2000 years ago), you can expect a ratio of C12 and C14 of X." Everyone with access to wood from said time and a mass spectrometre can perform the experiment and see the results.
The same works also for geological periods. If you find limestone, and your thesis is that it has formed in Cambrian times, you can expect to find remainings of trilobites inside. This experiment is available to everyone with access to limestone about 500 mio years old and a microscope.
There are certain items which are quite seldom or even unique, so the possibility of experimentation is limited. One example would be the Ichtyostega, where for 40 years the only known exemplar was locked away, and only its discoverer had access to it. In the Nineties several more Ichtyostega were found in Greenland, and the scientific process was working: Some of the theses the discoverer made about the Ichtyostega were disproven.
But this is also valid for predictions about the behaviour of a building (there is only a single one of them build at exactly this place), but you wouldn't call the engineering somehow unscientific (there may be engineering that is misfit to the conditions, but that's a completely different matter).
Not exactly. An experiment means that you are setting the conditions, predict a possible outcome out of your theory and then perform the experiment, measure the results and compare them with your predictions. That doesn't mean that everything you are measuring later is created during the experiment. It just means that it was unknown beforehand.
So one of the predictions of evolution theory was that birds and recent reptiles have a common ancestor, and thus there has to have been an animal with a mixed pattern of reptile and birdlike characteristics. Discovering the Archeopteryx was thus an experiment that proved this theory.
(The idea that all livings somehow belong to a common ancestor or are at least adhering to a common building plan is much older than Darwin's theory of evolution. Aristoteles for instance was very interested in 'chimeras', animals or plants which have common characteristics with two otherwise different groups of livings.)
The problem with paleontologic findings is not so much the fact that you can (maybe) prove the existance of some predicted species, but you can't prove the absence of a predefined species (just the fact that you haven't discovered remainings doesn't prove anything. It just means that you didn't look yet into places where remainings have hidden.)
So it is with all the single development steps of the recent livings. Sometimes we have already a good paleontologic record of the developments, sometimes we have just some predictions how the assumed 'chimeras' may have looked like. Some of the predictions have been proved wrong (we now know that not all land living vertebratae had a maximum of five fingers at each extremity, the Ichtyostega seems to have had at least eight at the feet and seven at the hands). But the general concepts of evolution theory (radiation, separation, genetic drift, common ancestry and adaption to external conditions) have been proven as sound.
But's easy to see that 30 ~ 28 = 4 * 7 ~ 6. So if the estimated size for the Wilkins meteor ranges between 28 and 32, and the one for the Chicxulub meteor between 6 and 7 miles, then the factor 4 up to 5 looks pretty close.
But with the support contract come Service Level Agreements. And at this point the software vendor is interested in keeping the Service Level Agreements without too much additional work for him, especially if the support contract is of a "cover all" type (additional fees for some actions might give the vendor the incentive to redefine many support cases into cases which requires additional payment).
In a certain way software which includes free patches and rebates on upgrades is already of the mentioned type: You don't only pay for the first installation software package, but also for the ability to get free (as in paid for beforehand) patches and a lower price at the upgrade (also paid for with your money for the first version).
I remember an article linked here on slashdot about half a year ago, where the author argued that the actual price for the software is only about 10% of the purchase price, all the other money is paid for the additional services (patches and cheaper upgrades). Actually he used his experience in arbitrage business to separate the prices for the different parts of the whole contract.
First of all: You seem to have no idea how many landlines are in Iraq, and how many of them are (after two wars) still in operation. This is a third world country by all means, and that means less than 100 land line based phones per 1000 inhabitants. And probably half of them are installed in the ministries and local offices. ;)
Cell phones basicly made the landlines obsolete in Iraq, and I doubt that they are actually maintained for normal phone calls. I rather guess that most of them now are used for cell base station interconnect and the DSL of the Internet cafés anyway
Shutting down cellular networks in the end means putting Iraq into the pre telephone era. And because the american occupation forces have been inable to recreate basic services, most of the services now in place are ad hoc, created by local initiatives and local businesses. How do you ever want to control them? Sending the troups to cut down antennas?
Moreso, if I have a program generating HTML code, I want that code to be standard compliant. To me it's the easiest way to catch bugs in my code, because if I program it with compliance in mind, but the code gets warnings in the validator, I know there are bugs lurking around, even if the output seems to show up correctly in the browser. I even let generated code indent correctly, because this is another easy way to spot lines where your assumptions about what the code is doing are different from the actual behaviour.
And if there is ever the problem of being not displayed correctly in different browsers: For me starting with W3C compliance and then tweak the stuff to show up correctly in different browsers is more easy than coding for one browser and try do adapt to others. With the W3C compliance you know how the code SHOULD look like, and you can spot the browser dependencies better, thus bug fixing gets more easy.
It's called "biometric passport" and it is required for every non citizen to enter the U.S. So in reverse, it is required for every U.S. citizen if they want to go abroad. (They might be gun owners, so just a step till fully grown terrorists, you know?)
I doubt that. I have an old (yeah... very old) Motorola 7089, which beats all newer phones I ever used in reception and quality of sound. Saddly the battery is getting weak and gives only about half a day of standby now, so I can't use it anymore for more than just check the signal intensity
Congratulations! Someone actually got the joke!
In the end it boils down to the old question centralisation vs. local autonomy. Centralisation is fine for keeping state, it is fine for enforcing a thoroughly similar approach to everything, it helps with 'single points of contact'. Local autonomy helps with less administrational effort, with clearly defined information paths and with clear responsibilities, thus with keeping problems locally.
Both approaches have their merits, and in the real world you will never see a purely central organisation or a purely localized organisation. Every organisation is somehow swinging between both extrema, going more central at one point "to leverage synergies and increase efficiency", or is starting outsourcing and reorganizing itself into profit centers, to "overcome bureaucracy, to clearly define responsibilities and to cut down on administrational spending".
The limits are given by the speed information is created, sent and decoded within the different organisational paths. An increase in Inter Process Communication speed will help with a more modularized microkernel approach, an increase in number and complexity of concurrent requests demands a more centralized kernel.
In the end it boils down to the fact, that transactions have to be atomar operations, either being executed completely or rolled back completely if not finished. Centralized systems are inherently transactional, especially if they are executing tasks sequentially. The limit is given with the numbers of transactions that can be executed per time unit. Parallel execution demands operations to be as independent of each other as possible, thus increasing design efforts, but once the task is (nearly) interlock free, a modularized approach helps with faster, better maintenable code.
I don't think volume matters that much than weight. You always find some spare room to put a tank in. Space is not that precious in a car. My car can carry 20 gallons of gasoline, but just the trunk has at least 250 gallons, the whole passenger room about 800 gallons. Increasing the volume of the gas tank by 100 percent would just remove 2,5% of space if it were taken from the passenger room. Normally a tank is outside the passenger room for security reasons anyway, and the space between the rear wheels, where the gas tank resides, is not fully occupied by this. This wouldn't even affect overall measurements of the car at all. The sizes of gas tanks are more designed with a 500ml distance to go on a refill than with the maximum capacity in mind.
But weight is precious, firstly because this is pulling each time you are accelerating or braking. A full refill of my tank increases the car weight by 5%, and if I am using ethanol for refill, I would have to take in 50 percent more to store the same amount of energy, thus increasing the weight of the car by 2.5%, and this directly affects the mileage. And transporting the ethanol with trucks or rail waggons would add at least 30% penalty on the transportation costs (it may not be the full 50% because the transporting system has a minimum weight which is independent of the actual freight).
The weight of the whole system is also a reason why liquid gas or hydrogene have not caught on with cars yet: The tanks have to withstand much more pressure, and thus are more heavy, even when empty, and leakage is much more dangerous, thus increasing the weight again for the additional security systems. For more heavy vehicles like busses or trucks there are viable liquid gas systems available, because there the weight of the tank is much smaller compared with the overall vehicle weight. There are several towns whose public busses run on liquid gas instead of gasoline. In Italy liquid gas is available at most of the gas stations, thus also many cars can run on both liquid gas or gasoline, but those cars are more heavy and make sense economically only because of the lower liquid gas prices.
First: Ethanol is less dense than Gasoline. If you compare volumes instead of weight, Ethanol is at a disadvantage. Second, Ethanol already contains some oxygene in the molecules, thus the energy density is lower anyway. Ethanol produces about 29,7 Megajoule per kg if burned, Gasoline about 47 Megajoule per kg. Pure Hydrogene would produce 143 Megajoule per kg, while pure Carbon (Anthracit) gets about 33 Megajoule per kg.
In the end it's always a compromise between ease of transportation (pure Carbon wins), energy density (Hydrogene wins), ease of combustion (again Hydrogene), safety of storage and transportation (Carbon), handling of fuel (any liquid fuel like Ethanol or Gasoline) and other aspects of operation.
Ethanol has the big advantage that it's energy source is free (as in beer) and will be for the next 5 billion years. That might help Ethanol to overcome the other obstacles, as the big area necessary to grow the plants, the complicated processes to refine the plants to Ethanol and the low energy density, which makes the transportation of Ethanol more expensive.
First: You don't need to run only the single UNIX service on the kernel. When I was involved in L4Linux, we planned to have the UNIX kernel doing all the non real time stuff (authorisation, administration etc.pp.) and run in parallel real time jobs like data stream switching, robotics etc.pp.
Second: The single UNIX service is a kind of fallback. When you are designing a new operating system, it's nice to know that all services are already there, and you can start replacing them one by one with compartemented services.
Third: It is nice to have all the drivers usable for exotic hardware, so recycling them for your project is easy. And stuff that doesn't need to be compartemented or doesn't have special requirements can be left within the single UNIX service.
Check out mkLinux and L4Linux. The efforts are made. The userland linux service on a microkernel is a reality.
It works with bottled water, why not bottled services?
But that's not the real question here. The question is not if you have profited from a specified piece of software, that by chance was open source, but if you have profited from the fact, that it was open source.
So for instance I have profited from the fact that SAP's R/3 software is in a way open source that a registered developer on a SAP R/3 system can not only browse his own code or the code of fellow developers, but also the code SAP provides (very useful for debugging!), and (with a warning that this voids the warranty though) can even change SAP code. If you tell SAP about your modifications, and your project has a certain value to SAP, they will even setup an own system with your modifications at their side to help you hunt down bugs.
SAP's source policy is not conform to full open source though. You are not allowed to distribute SAP's products with your modifications freely (you are allowed to distribute your patches though). But I have certainly profited from the fact that I was able to see, debug and modify SAP's codebase.
You can cut a sphere in half on EACH great circle. It doesn't have to be parallel to the equator or to a longitude. If the line Surface-Center is in the plane of the cut, it is surely cutting the sphere into two halves. The line Bosnia-Egypt then only fixes the acutal position of the plane.
From the viewpoint of an European centrist, Slashdot looks quite right wing ;) ;)
Just because you describe yourself as rightwing, not everyone not agreeing with you is a left wing nut. Some might just be wrong.
They are worth $1,000,000 if they get traded for $1,000,000. So let someone sell his share for $1,000,000 and buy it back for $1,000,000. Here we go. Low volatility in the stock though... Two shares traded (the same twice).
The idea there is to separate service and network. So you only need one network to connect two different suppliers in the same town to their respective customers.
This only works if the actual part of the service they are offering, that is going via the network, is either absolutely the same (as in electricity or natural gas) or doesn't interfere with each other too much (as in packet switched circuit).
I have worked in an environment where we had lots of customers, and many of them with private IP space for backends. Often the necessary networks are only /28 or /29, for some transfer networks a /30 might be sufficient. But you have to keep track of the networks, because for managing the servers via VPNs or private IP space you should keep track of which network belongs to which customer, and how much IP space is left. And it might be good to note if the DB Primary has the 10.23.34.5 or 10.23.34.6 in the network though.
I was with the firewall group, and we had to manage about 1200 firewall entities. Here you can't go anymore with "pretty much selfdocumenting". All the mappings and forwards and address translations have to be kept track of. And if you get some strange private addresses on your core routers in the data center, you want to know which customer to check for misrouting. This won't work without documentation.
Lucky me was working shifts. So no rush hour dependent green light for me.
No. There was a cyclingpath nearly crossing free along the river banks. So I was disconnected from all normal traffic. (For people who know the location: I was living in Frankfurt(Main)-Ostend, Germany, and I was working in Frankfurt(Main)-Griesheim. Pretty well the whole distance can be done along the Main river bank.)