You aren't understanding anything I'm saying, are you?
It's not a sort of test at all. It's something that pretty much anyone with two brain cells to rub together can get. It's bad because it isn't a valid test of anything.
Skilled people get it because they think they have to, due to the perceptions of employers. Employers require it because they think it indicates some skill.
Like the AC said, It was on a TV show called "Real TV". Sorry I don't remember many more details, other than images of an area at least the size of a city block completely decimated.
And if he were right that companies who care about degrees are doing a poor job of measuring competence then companies that don't would be able to outperform them. And that's not what happens. That's the only point I was trying to make.
That argument is bogus, because of the perception of value in the degree.
Those with skills will be more likely to get a degree to ensure they can get a job fitting their skills, whether they wanted to get a degree or not.
Yes, this means the a lot of the most skilled people will have a degree, but the degree itself had nothing to do with it.
It's a sort of catch-22. The skilled get the degree because the employers think it is important. The employers won't drop the degree requirement because they get in general, more skilled people with it.
The only way I see to break this vicious cycle of unnecessary waste is when a degree becomes such a common thing that "everyone has one". Once it hits that level, it will cease to become perceived as a valuable thing, and finally break this cycle of stupidity.
The same kind that tell me a file is broken just because I copied it through a unix box which lost the resource fork. They are just too stupid to know what an "application" is, and how it is different from "data".
If they were qualified without the "fake" degree why didn't they apply that way?
Because a lot of jobs require degrees for no reason.
I don't see how you can call it "overcompensation".
If they weren't doing the job they were hired to do, then they should have been fired for poor performance.
If they were doing the job well enough to command their compensation without getting fired, then that proves the degree is bullshit, by your own argument.
After a chinese rocket came down on a nearby town and killed thousands of people, that didn't slow them down much. They just said only a dozen people died, and got on with things.
I'm sure this group can do the same if something bad happens.
I have a very similar setup. It's mostly only limited by the number of PCI slots you have.
I didn't bother with "outdoor rated" cameras. I just used cheap B+W cube cameras, put a line of silicone around any seals on them, and used artic silver thermal epoxy to glue a small heat sink on the back of them (they get surprisingly hot).
The outdoor ones aren't in direct weather, but generally under eaves and the like.
Good move not saying exactly how many cameras you have, I would have probably let that slip.:)
If your key was liable to disintegrate at any time and the only ones that could replace it legally was the company you bought the house from, then your analogy might be more valid.
DRM, copy protection.. it's all the same stuff, and it's never worked. I don't know what makes people think it can work now, when it has failed for the last 25 years.
The only successful DRM has been to have a completely proprietary platform like Apple or SGI. You also get the side bonus of locking your customers into only buying your proprietary hardware upgrades.
These small business customers are probably now leeching bandwidth off a 'community' fedora mirror site at a college rather than paying for what they use to RH.
Yep, I meant to imply a bit of bitterness in that statement, i.e. "cheaper for the people willing to pay, at the cost everyone else". I don't think Red Hat has really helped Linux much in the long run with their current tactics, and has only hurt themselves.
How much it will hurt them is yet to be seen. Red Hat is known to change thier plans at a moment's notice, but their stronger short term revenue will probably make them think twice before making any more changes. I think they might be hurting their long-term revenues though.
Red Hat hasn't abandoned their non-paying users after all.
They did abandon their paying customers though. The small businesses and consultants that used to run many Red Hat servers and were willing to pay maybe $60 or $100 a year per server for updates.
I guess in the end it worked out cheaper, since now updates are free through fedora legacy, from White Box updates, or from Debian in the servers I moved to Debian.
Yes, Red Hat took care of the freeloaders, and they took care of the people that can afford $500 per year per server, but they cut out the small businesses that just wanted a Linux they could install and run for at least 2 years or so without upgrading, and were willing to pay a small amount for updates, and didn't need any "support" in the phone-in sense.
Don't oversize your system. This isn't a money making adventure.
That's a fair point, but the guy I was responding to said "your goal is to overproduce if possible", which as you and others pointed out, isn't a very good idea from a cost/benefit point of view.
Instead of responding to your grammar, I'll instead respond to your comment.:)
local energy untility has to BUY BACK power
At wholesale energy prices. So you pay them full retail price for power you use, and they pay you a lot less for the power you sell back to them.
Cloud cover and night are of no consequence. Cloud cover only reduces production - besides power IS STORED in batteries anywa
I wouldn't say no consequence. A couple overcast days pretty much mean you will have to use grid power to charge your batteries, unless you have a huge bank, or very small energy consumption.
Most off-grid people use very little eletricity, even to the point of unplugging wall warts when not in use, because they draw a few watts even when you aren't using what they are connected to.
It seems that the world of physics as it relates to lots of macro sized particles interacting isn't very well explored.
I remember reading an article years ago, about research into mixed nuts. Basically they wanted to find out why the brazil nuts always tended to come to the top. It turns out it's a semi-complex interaction, when the can is shaken vertically, the nuts closer to the walls are pulled down due to the friction and they fall into the gap created at the bottom of the can, creating a sort of convection current. The larger brazils had less contact area with the wall and were not as likely to be pulled back down IIRC.
It's just kinda funny that we understand all kinds of interactions down on the atomic level, but are still researching basic things like the way mixed nuts or raisin bran sort and settle.
Are you saying that CD drive makers are too unstable to use CDs as a backup format?
Anyway, as you can see from other threads, I'm an advocate for hard-disk based high reliability solutions. At least then you can make a cron job to check MD5s periodically if you are paranoid.
"copy on write." Basically, the operating system makes a map that notes the name and contents of every file. If an application tries to overwrite one of these files after the snapshot is made, the operating system writes the new file contents to an unused location of the hard drive and preserves the original contents.
Rsync incremental does the same thing, with no special software or hardware.
Basically, it does cp -al/source/somewhereElse/backup.0/
This makes a ghost tree that is just hard links to the real tree. When a file is rsynced, rsync actually deletes and replaces the old file instead of changing the original file. This means you can use these hard links to track file revisions, and the idea is very similar to "copy-on-write".
The only drawback is that it isn't atomic, but most backup applications aren't that sensitive to a non-atomic backup operation anyway.
Set up some rsync backups for your data to multiple separate systems, with at least one offsite.
You can do rsync-incremental backups too if you want a really good backup solution. Rdiff -backup uses similar ideas too, but the simlipcity of rsync-incrementals can't be beat.
Yeah, but why break into a Mac where open source stuff may or may not work, depending on many factors... When you can just as easily pass it up for a box where you can just apt-get whatever you need, or wget and rpm -i... etc.
Besides, the average script kiddie can easily dual-boot any cheapo computer to linux, whereas getting experience on a Mac isn't too easy, unless you have $5000 laying around.
I don't see how you can say that Linux "has never been put to the test".
There have been a handful of Linux worms in the wild, and thousands of script kiddies that will break into your server if it is unpatched.
A linux box is a very useful thing, because it is able to be completely remote controlled, with little effort, since that's the way it was designed. There are thousands of software programs that are a wget away, etc.
It's just not as useful to break into a Mac... I mean, what are you going to do, run photoshop in batch mode with applescript? Macs are just less useful, and thus, not worth breaking into.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never heard of a dichrotic filter?
Yeah, it'll look orange, but it is indeed blocking all blue frequencies.
If you don't trust your own system administrators, then what's the point? You might as well go home now.
You aren't understanding anything I'm saying, are you?
It's not a sort of test at all. It's something that pretty much anyone with two brain cells to rub together can get. It's bad because it isn't a valid test of anything.
Skilled people get it because they think they have to, due to the perceptions of employers. Employers require it because they think it indicates some skill.
Do you need me to draw you a Venn diagram?
Like the AC said, It was on a TV show called "Real TV". Sorry I don't remember many more details, other than images of an area at least the size of a city block completely decimated.
And if he were right that companies who care about degrees are doing a poor job of measuring competence then companies that don't would be able to outperform them. And that's not what happens. That's the only point I was trying to make.
That argument is bogus, because of the perception of value in the degree.
Those with skills will be more likely to get a degree to ensure they can get a job fitting their skills, whether they wanted to get a degree or not.
Yes, this means the a lot of the most skilled people will have a degree, but the degree itself had nothing to do with it.
It's a sort of catch-22. The skilled get the degree because the employers think it is important. The employers won't drop the degree requirement because they get in general, more skilled people with it.
The only way I see to break this vicious cycle of unnecessary waste is when a degree becomes such a common thing that "everyone has one". Once it hits that level, it will cease to become perceived as a valuable thing, and finally break this cycle of stupidity.
We are talking about Mac users here.
The same kind that tell me a file is broken just because I copied it through a unix box which lost the resource fork. They are just too stupid to know what an "application" is, and how it is different from "data".
If they were qualified without the "fake" degree why didn't they apply that way?
Because a lot of jobs require degrees for no reason.
I don't see how you can call it "overcompensation".
If they weren't doing the job they were hired to do, then they should have been fired for poor performance.
If they were doing the job well enough to command their compensation without getting fired, then that proves the degree is bullshit, by your own argument.
After a chinese rocket came down on a nearby town and killed thousands of people, that didn't slow them down much. They just said only a dozen people died, and got on with things.
I'm sure this group can do the same if something bad happens.
Well said. I don't agree with you, but that is an excellent post. :)
I have a very similar setup. It's mostly only limited by the number of PCI slots you have.
:)
I didn't bother with "outdoor rated" cameras. I just used cheap B+W cube cameras, put a line of silicone around any seals on them, and used artic silver thermal epoxy to glue a small heat sink on the back of them (they get surprisingly hot).
The outdoor ones aren't in direct weather, but generally under eaves and the like.
Good move not saying exactly how many cameras you have, I would have probably let that slip.
If your key was liable to disintegrate at any time and the only ones that could replace it legally was the company you bought the house from, then your analogy might be more valid.
DRM, copy protection.. it's all the same stuff, and it's never worked. I don't know what makes people think it can work now, when it has failed for the last 25 years.
The only successful DRM has been to have a completely proprietary platform like Apple or SGI. You also get the side bonus of locking your customers into only buying your proprietary hardware upgrades.
These small business customers are probably now leeching bandwidth off a 'community' fedora mirror site at a college rather than paying for what they use to RH.
Yep, I meant to imply a bit of bitterness in that statement, i.e. "cheaper for the people willing to pay, at the cost everyone else". I don't think Red Hat has really helped Linux much in the long run with their current tactics, and has only hurt themselves.
How much it will hurt them is yet to be seen. Red Hat is known to change thier plans at a moment's notice, but their stronger short term revenue will probably make them think twice before making any more changes. I think they might be hurting their long-term revenues though.
Red Hat hasn't abandoned their non-paying users after all.
They did abandon their paying customers though. The small businesses and consultants that used to run many Red Hat servers and were willing to pay maybe $60 or $100 a year per server for updates.
I guess in the end it worked out cheaper, since now updates are free through fedora legacy, from White Box updates, or from Debian in the servers I moved to Debian.
Yes, Red Hat took care of the freeloaders, and they took care of the people that can afford $500 per year per server, but they cut out the small businesses that just wanted a Linux they could install and run for at least 2 years or so without upgrading, and were willing to pay a small amount for updates, and didn't need any "support" in the phone-in sense.
Don't oversize your system. This isn't a money making adventure.
That's a fair point, but the guy I was responding to said "your goal is to overproduce if possible", which as you and others pointed out, isn't a very good idea from a cost/benefit point of view.
Instead of responding to your grammar, I'll instead respond to your comment. :)
local energy untility has to BUY BACK power
At wholesale energy prices. So you pay them full retail price for power you use, and they pay you a lot less for the power you sell back to them.
Cloud cover and night are of no consequence. Cloud cover only reduces production - besides power IS STORED in batteries anywa
I wouldn't say no consequence. A couple overcast days pretty much mean you will have to use grid power to charge your batteries, unless you have a huge bank, or very small energy consumption.
Most off-grid people use very little eletricity, even to the point of unplugging wall warts when not in use, because they draw a few watts even when you aren't using what they are connected to.
It seems that the world of physics as it relates to lots of macro sized particles interacting isn't very well explored.
I remember reading an article years ago, about research into mixed nuts. Basically they wanted to find out why the brazil nuts always tended to come to the top. It turns out it's a semi-complex interaction, when the can is shaken vertically, the nuts closer to the walls are pulled down due to the friction and they fall into the gap created at the bottom of the can, creating a sort of convection current. The larger brazils had less contact area with the wall and were not as likely to be pulled back down IIRC.
It's just kinda funny that we understand all kinds of interactions down on the atomic level, but are still researching basic things like the way mixed nuts or raisin bran sort and settle.
Are you saying that CD drive makers are too unstable to use CDs as a backup format?
Anyway, as you can see from other threads, I'm an advocate for hard-disk based high reliability solutions. At least then you can make a cron job to check MD5s periodically if you are paranoid.
"copy on write." Basically, the operating system makes a map that notes the name and contents of every file. If an application tries to overwrite one of these files after the snapshot is made, the operating system writes the new file contents to an unused location of the hard drive and preserves the original contents.
/source /somewhereElse/backup.0/
Rsync incremental does the same thing, with no special software or hardware.
Basically, it does
cp -al
This makes a ghost tree that is just hard links to the real tree. When a file is rsynced, rsync actually deletes and replaces the old file instead of changing the original file. This means you can use these hard links to track file revisions, and the idea is very similar to "copy-on-write".
The only drawback is that it isn't atomic, but most backup applications aren't that sensitive to a non-atomic backup operation anyway.
That message was kinda incoherent.
What do you mean?
RAID != backup though.
Malicious programs, accidental rm -rf... filesystem corruption.. bugs..
Set up some rsync backups for your data to multiple separate systems, with at least one offsite.
You can do rsync-incremental backups too if you want a really good backup solution. Rdiff -backup uses similar ideas too, but the simlipcity of rsync-incrementals can't be beat.
It's pointless to invest a lot in it now, unless you already have a lot of disks that are getting over 5 or 6 years old.
If you are just thinking about the future, you might as well just wait until the next big thing is out and the copy them when that time comes.
Well, yeah... it's part of that whole "avoiding being declared an illegal lottery" thing.
Yeah, but why break into a Mac where open source stuff may or may not work, depending on many factors... When you can just as easily pass it up for a box where you can just apt-get whatever you need, or wget and rpm -i... etc.
Besides, the average script kiddie can easily dual-boot any cheapo computer to linux, whereas getting experience on a Mac isn't too easy, unless you have $5000 laying around.
I don't see how you can say that Linux "has never been put to the test".
There have been a handful of Linux worms in the wild, and thousands of script kiddies that will break into your server if it is unpatched.
A linux box is a very useful thing, because it is able to be completely remote controlled, with little effort, since that's the way it was designed. There are thousands of software programs that are a wget away, etc.
It's just not as useful to break into a Mac... I mean, what are you going to do, run photoshop in batch mode with applescript? Macs are just less useful, and thus, not worth breaking into.