I can't quite imagine a business of that size not having a system in place to reimage machines at will. At one place I work we have two dozen machines and I'm well underway in having them all PXE boot into an imager which then either boots the existing image from the hard drive or updates it prior to booting. Once I finish shaking down the test deployment on a few machines, it should be ready to go. Users have had roaming profiles for years now so that's not an issue.
For half of that money I'd fucking take a first class plane trip to Germany, pay for my own hotel, and be done reimaging their PCs over a workweek. That includes deploying whatever they need deployed on those PCs, and leaving a solution in place to reimage them at will. And that's all being quite green when it comes to Windows administration. At work I really only do the minimum needed not to need to muck with it.
TeX is a bad example, I think. It was a tool designed for a particular task, a task it does reasonably well. Alas, it's real world use has way outgrown the original design, and it shows. TeX wasn't meant as a general purpose scripting language, it has primitives that make it easy to manipulate the layout structure but make everything else look very awkward. Yet is is largely being used as a general purpose scripting language that ends up manipulating things that are only tangentially related to layout. Yes, it produces graphical output in the end, but it's not text layout anymore. TeX is used a lot to generate publication graphics, where text and box structure is but a tiny aspect of the functionality.
TeX is being used mainly because nobody really wants to reinvent the wheel here: people who use it don't do it because they are after TeX. They simply want to publish something that looks decently, and TeX does the job, all its quirks notwithstanding. Knuth did what had to be done at the time and nobody else really wants to re-do it. There are many people today who could design their own typesetting package, just like Knuth did, and it'd likely be much easier to use and less quirky. They'd likely leverage what has been learned about TeX's deficiencies. Yet there is insufficient pressure for them, demonstrably, to actually go ahead and do it. It's easier to leverage what's out there, and be done with it.
The most value of the code comes from how quickly it can be understood by a human. You've heard that before. You laughed it off. It's not because they were wrong. It' because you didn't get it.
Given that Silverlight is a broad stack of technologies, learning it in a day is off by orders of magnitude. Assuming you start with a decent CSE background, it will take you probably 2 orders of magnitude longer than a day just to get proficient. Perhaps an extra order of magnitude to be an expert, assuming that you're working hard at it. Whipping out a class project is different from being proficient, mind you.
It's not bullshit, it's just packaging of existing technologies, for a particular purpose. An SDN client-server connection, apart from housekeeping, is just TCP/IP encapsulated ethernet traffic. Pretty much like remote TUN/TAP. It was designed to solve a particular problem: that of letting students operate on live internet traffic from their own development environment, without having to muck with low-level platform details of how you get the ethernet packets in and out. Turns out it was useful for a few more things than just teaching networking.
I disagree. I think that squeezing "yet another drop out of what we are producing" is simply leveraging what you have. Suppose you have a piece of hardware that was specified some time ago, but you have a new functionality requirement for the firmware that wasn't in the original spec. You can either throw new hardware at the problem, with a more capable CPU, or you can use what you have. In the latter case, supposedly it's a piece of hardware that has large deployments, has been field tested, and is something you can depend on. Given that you have to implement new features in the firmware anyway, keeping the old hardware and implementing it there may well save you quite a bit of effort. Instead of going on two fronts, with new hardware and firmware, you deal with firmware only. Yes, it may require a bit more finesse to squeeze the new functionality into the less capable hardware platform. My experience is that it's not that big of a deal. Yes, you may have to deal with limitations of the platform, but those often turn out to take a small fraction of the work spent. Most of the time is spent on new features and would be the same time spent whether you reuse the old platform or do it on something brand new.
It's worse than that. People who look like sheep staring into oncoming traffic when manual diverges from reality are just missing their calling. They should be studying for a divinity degree if reality is so foreign to them. Yeah, real world works a tad differently from what's written down. Except maybe if you study hard sciences like physics, but even then it takes a few decades of experience to get a feel for what's missing between the lines.
Those ~3% is almost $5k. That's no small change. With a check, you wait a week and unless it's an outright forgery on an account that isn't yours, you'll be OK.
As a grad student I was pretty close. With grad student earnings, no less. First five years of this century were quite crazy, and if you played your cards right and had a bit of luck, you could in fact get that kind of a limit, even if it was many times your yearly gross salary. Many banks would let you consolidate the accounts into one, so that credit limits would simply add. Over time, those many banks were all acquired and joined the big bank. Ergo a humongous limit.
There is no such thing as a portable bomb detector. It's pure fantasy at this point. Just because you wish for something very hard doesn't make it possible. Yes, those things do have some usefulness. You can use them as paperweights. They are very lousy doorstops.
They need power from all four extremities -- simply so that they have enough. You'd be surprised at how much power can the glycogen stored in your arm muscles provide. For a crazy spin a couple seconds long, starting "cold", you can push close to a kilowatt IIRC.
The analog signal is what you get from a magnetoresistive head, but that head is still reading one domain at a time. The state of one domain is binary, all-or-nothing. There's nothing analog about domains. To get "analog", you need thousands of domains -- their average state is what the head of a tape audio recorder is reproducing. The averaging can be any combination of spatial and temporal, so without doing any mechanical changes to a hard drive you could still write to it like you did in a tape recorder -- you'd be getting temporal average, as hundreds of thousands of domains pass under the head every millisecond. The smaller the head, the less domains affect the output at any one time, eventually there's just one domain you're reading from at a time. Once you are there, you can tweak the magnetic coating to shrink the domains, tracking any gains there with a commensuratively shrinking head.
That's incorrect. Current drives store information in individual (as in single) magnetic domains. A magnetic force microscope is of no help there. Once you flip a domain, you've flipped it. There's no history, no layers, nada. You're referring to information that was current 20 years ago.
The omnipresent and omnipotent "government" also has captive fairies that they let foreign dignitaries have some fun with, from time to time. Yeah, sure.
What's a fair supply in terms of the probability that a recipient finds a matching donor? Just having plenty of donor organs may simply mean that you'll have plenty of livers that none of your recipients are good matches for. It may well be that, for example, people with less likely combinations of some matching factors (as I shall call them) are more likely to get liver disease. So it's more likely for an unlikely liver to get sick -- then good luck finding a matching donor organ. It's a made up scenario, but I'd like to see some numbers that show it isn't so. I'm overly skeptical when it comes to transplants -- we're still long way away before a transplant could really be considered an everyday thing, in spite of them being done daily all over the world. Having to take drugs with serious side effects for the rest of your life doesn't strike me as something that should be mentioned merely in passing. Transplantology is really a very young discipline. Despite it seeming mainstream, it's anything but. Yeah, sure, it's often better to stay alive and take drugs than face sure death, but the anti-rejection cocktails are no fun. Well, a bit more fun than chemo, but still.
How can there be no justification? I have nothing against prolonging an alcoholic's agony, but this should be handled by putting them on a bottom of the list. People who don't intend to destroy their livers should be given precedence IMHO. Given that the shortage of organs of all kinds is going to stay with us for the foreseeable future, this pretty much means that in fact drinkers are not going to get transplants. Yes, I do realize that there are many things that must match in a liver and it may just happen that in spite of otherwise good recipients, there's simply no match to anyone on the list but a drinker. That's fair game, of course.
If that's the consensus, then it'd have most likely been recognized as law by now, and there'd be no meat sales period. Kill a cow, be guilty of murder. Or do we make an exception for murder as somehow more acceptable than causing pain and suffering?
The good dogs and cats I know of really understand young children and when they feel like they've had enough abuse by the toddler, they just leave. They are kind enough not to let themselves be provoked. OTOH, what you describe is stupidity cubed and a case of an animal that should be kept away from kids period.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't quite imagine a business of that size not having a system in place to reimage machines at will. At one place I work we have two dozen machines and I'm well underway in having them all PXE boot into an imager which then either boots the existing image from the hard drive or updates it prior to booting. Once I finish shaking down the test deployment on a few machines, it should be ready to go. Users have had roaming profiles for years now so that's not an issue.
For half of that money I'd fucking take a first class plane trip to Germany, pay for my own hotel, and be done reimaging their PCs over a workweek. That includes deploying whatever they need deployed on those PCs, and leaving a solution in place to reimage them at will. And that's all being quite green when it comes to Windows administration. At work I really only do the minimum needed not to need to muck with it.
TeX is a bad example, I think. It was a tool designed for a particular task, a task it does reasonably well. Alas, it's real world use has way outgrown the original design, and it shows. TeX wasn't meant as a general purpose scripting language, it has primitives that make it easy to manipulate the layout structure but make everything else look very awkward. Yet is is largely being used as a general purpose scripting language that ends up manipulating things that are only tangentially related to layout. Yes, it produces graphical output in the end, but it's not text layout anymore. TeX is used a lot to generate publication graphics, where text and box structure is but a tiny aspect of the functionality.
TeX is being used mainly because nobody really wants to reinvent the wheel here: people who use it don't do it because they are after TeX. They simply want to publish something that looks decently, and TeX does the job, all its quirks notwithstanding. Knuth did what had to be done at the time and nobody else really wants to re-do it. There are many people today who could design their own typesetting package, just like Knuth did, and it'd likely be much easier to use and less quirky. They'd likely leverage what has been learned about TeX's deficiencies. Yet there is insufficient pressure for them, demonstrably, to actually go ahead and do it. It's easier to leverage what's out there, and be done with it.
The most value of the code comes from how quickly it can be understood by a human. You've heard that before. You laughed it off. It's not because they were wrong. It' because you didn't get it.
This is the comment of the day. Thank you!
Given that Silverlight is a broad stack of technologies, learning it in a day is off by orders of magnitude. Assuming you start with a decent CSE background, it will take you probably 2 orders of magnitude longer than a day just to get proficient. Perhaps an extra order of magnitude to be an expert, assuming that you're working hard at it. Whipping out a class project is different from being proficient, mind you.
note that being an older programmer does not obviate the possibility of having a young lover
I don't know where that came from, but I can't say I disagree, not at all :)
It's not bullshit, it's just packaging of existing technologies, for a particular purpose. An SDN client-server connection, apart from housekeeping, is just TCP/IP encapsulated ethernet traffic. Pretty much like remote TUN/TAP. It was designed to solve a particular problem: that of letting students operate on live internet traffic from their own development environment, without having to muck with low-level platform details of how you get the ethernet packets in and out. Turns out it was useful for a few more things than just teaching networking.
I disagree. I think that squeezing "yet another drop out of what we are producing" is simply leveraging what you have. Suppose you have a piece of hardware that was specified some time ago, but you have a new functionality requirement for the firmware that wasn't in the original spec. You can either throw new hardware at the problem, with a more capable CPU, or you can use what you have. In the latter case, supposedly it's a piece of hardware that has large deployments, has been field tested, and is something you can depend on. Given that you have to implement new features in the firmware anyway, keeping the old hardware and implementing it there may well save you quite a bit of effort. Instead of going on two fronts, with new hardware and firmware, you deal with firmware only. Yes, it may require a bit more finesse to squeeze the new functionality into the less capable hardware platform. My experience is that it's not that big of a deal. Yes, you may have to deal with limitations of the platform, but those often turn out to take a small fraction of the work spent. Most of the time is spent on new features and would be the same time spent whether you reuse the old platform or do it on something brand new.
It's worse than that. People who look like sheep staring into oncoming traffic when manual diverges from reality are just missing their calling. They should be studying for a divinity degree if reality is so foreign to them. Yeah, real world works a tad differently from what's written down. Except maybe if you study hard sciences like physics, but even then it takes a few decades of experience to get a feel for what's missing between the lines.
Those ~3% is almost $5k. That's no small change. With a check, you wait a week and unless it's an outright forgery on an account that isn't yours, you'll be OK.
AmEx products vary. Blue is not the same as the classic card.
LOL about the vendor not taking a check. They lost a bunch of money on going through a credit card transaction.
As a grad student I was pretty close. With grad student earnings, no less. First five years of this century were quite crazy, and if you played your cards right and had a bit of luck, you could in fact get that kind of a limit, even if it was many times your yearly gross salary. Many banks would let you consolidate the accounts into one, so that credit limits would simply add. Over time, those many banks were all acquired and joined the big bank. Ergo a humongous limit.
There is no such thing as a portable bomb detector. It's pure fantasy at this point. Just because you wish for something very hard doesn't make it possible. Yes, those things do have some usefulness. You can use them as paperweights. They are very lousy doorstops.
They need power from all four extremities -- simply so that they have enough. You'd be surprised at how much power can the glycogen stored in your arm muscles provide. For a crazy spin a couple seconds long, starting "cold", you can push close to a kilowatt IIRC.
Be careful, Gamera is lighter than the pilot :)
The analog signal is what you get from a magnetoresistive head, but that head is still reading one domain at a time. The state of one domain is binary, all-or-nothing. There's nothing analog about domains. To get "analog", you need thousands of domains -- their average state is what the head of a tape audio recorder is reproducing. The averaging can be any combination of spatial and temporal, so without doing any mechanical changes to a hard drive you could still write to it like you did in a tape recorder -- you'd be getting temporal average, as hundreds of thousands of domains pass under the head every millisecond. The smaller the head, the less domains affect the output at any one time, eventually there's just one domain you're reading from at a time. Once you are there, you can tweak the magnetic coating to shrink the domains, tracking any gains there with a commensuratively shrinking head.
That's incorrect. Current drives store information in individual (as in single) magnetic domains. A magnetic force microscope is of no help there. Once you flip a domain, you've flipped it. There's no history, no layers, nada. You're referring to information that was current 20 years ago.
The omnipresent and omnipotent "government" also has captive fairies that they let foreign dignitaries have some fun with, from time to time. Yeah, sure.
What's a fair supply in terms of the probability that a recipient finds a matching donor? Just having plenty of donor organs may simply mean that you'll have plenty of livers that none of your recipients are good matches for. It may well be that, for example, people with less likely combinations of some matching factors (as I shall call them) are more likely to get liver disease. So it's more likely for an unlikely liver to get sick -- then good luck finding a matching donor organ. It's a made up scenario, but I'd like to see some numbers that show it isn't so. I'm overly skeptical when it comes to transplants -- we're still long way away before a transplant could really be considered an everyday thing, in spite of them being done daily all over the world. Having to take drugs with serious side effects for the rest of your life doesn't strike me as something that should be mentioned merely in passing. Transplantology is really a very young discipline. Despite it seeming mainstream, it's anything but. Yeah, sure, it's often better to stay alive and take drugs than face sure death, but the anti-rejection cocktails are no fun. Well, a bit more fun than chemo, but still.
How can there be no justification? I have nothing against prolonging an alcoholic's agony, but this should be handled by putting them on a bottom of the list. People who don't intend to destroy their livers should be given precedence IMHO. Given that the shortage of organs of all kinds is going to stay with us for the foreseeable future, this pretty much means that in fact drinkers are not going to get transplants. Yes, I do realize that there are many things that must match in a liver and it may just happen that in spite of otherwise good recipients, there's simply no match to anyone on the list but a drinker. That's fair game, of course.
Protip: you don't get a liver transplant if you are a drinker.
If that's the consensus, then it'd have most likely been recognized as law by now, and there'd be no meat sales period. Kill a cow, be guilty of murder. Or do we make an exception for murder as somehow more acceptable than causing pain and suffering?
The good dogs and cats I know of really understand young children and when they feel like they've had enough abuse by the toddler, they just leave. They are kind enough not to let themselves be provoked. OTOH, what you describe is stupidity cubed and a case of an animal that should be kept away from kids period.
This!