Ah, let's put power generations on mountains and base it on weather. Great idea. I love getting stuck because the fuel is based on something that never restricted me.
The point is that independence is about reducing dependencies, not having different dependencies.
Norway is small. Tiny. Compact. Welcome to non-representative.
Do you have any idea just how many solar panels you would need in order to power the rockies? Think about it! So many peaks, so many mountains, so much weather to resist. These are hard installations, over very long distances from cities. With difficult machinery too. And very harsh climates. You want that bolted panel to stay? Great. What about the huge battery to hold the power? And what about all of the lines to move the power from the light side to the dark side of the mountain?
Or, you could have a big tank. A big heavy box. Installed once. Virtually zero maintenance. Underground, so weather doesn't matter. Then a truck brings fuel, and dumps it in.
See, you're missing the big point. My car can get there. That's the reason my car gets there. If my car can get there, then a truck can also get there. As long as "there" can fit a big fuel tank, and a small pump, then we're done.
Any other solution that you can possibly describe, will need more than my car needs. That makes it unreliable to my car. Plain and simple.
Plugging my car into my friend's house? Really? So I can't park on the street. And I can't part around the corner. And I can't meet him at a restaurant. And we can't hop into the car and head to the casino because it's not charged enough yet.
I'm not renting someone else's shitty car. I want my own dirt, thank you very much. I want my own finances too. My own car costs nothing to keep using. Renting feeds someone else's family instead of my own.
You suck at brain-work. You've forgotten about all of the people who live on the east side of the mountain, but used to live on the west side of the mountain.
You've, instead, re-stated my point. The reason that the mountains aren't full of people is exactly because there was fuel to let them continue on to the other side.
That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.
But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.
Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.
Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.
Forget daily-commute-to-work times. Think road-trip, vacation, drive-to-parents, drive-to-children, thanksgiving, skiing, apple-picking, outlet-mall. I drive to friends, weekly, more than 100km away. I drive to wine-country five times annually.
White tube socks are modern technology -- they are used by lots of people today, and they haven't been replaced. One of my clients manufactures tube socks in 2017, the same way they did in 1980. They don't need windows 10.
So, my question is very simply this: which businesses/industries need modern technology to operate? Oh, right, computer industries.
Well, computers for computer industries. Not a big surprise. For for everything else, for every business that existed 100 years ago, no need.
I don't understand people. I can't drive to the middle of a mountain range, and charge an electric car. There's no electric grid there. I can easily fill up on fuel wherever a fuel truck can drop some off -- which is basically the very same places that my car can go.
North America is very different than Europe. Paris and London are how many hours away? A European train can take you through ten countries in a single day. In North America, you'd be lucky to hit five major cities in 24 hours of driving.
There's a lot more middle-of-nowhere around here. It's not about electric vs gasolene. It's about portable fuel vs transmission-over-infrastructure. We don't have any infrastructure -- that's why we have roads to get between places.
You shouldn't have any trouble finding a watchmaker to repair your existing watch. A waterproof gasket is an easy fix. I wouldn't suggest doing it yourself only because tiny parts tend to fall out when you don't know how to open it.
Still stuck with vista, I've been refusing windows 10 because it lacks aero glass. I don't want windows 3.1 graphics again, thank you. So this is very hopeful for me!
If you've ever lived and died by contractual agreements, then you've heard the term: "teeth". You can write anything you want into a contract. You can write that "the driver will do jumping jacks every morning, and take ballet lessons at night, before watching jay leno". All parties can sign, and it can be completely legal.
But you've forgotten the teeth.
What happens when the driver doesn't watch jay leno one night? Your agreement doesn't have any cansequences. And hence, if the driver doesn't watch jay leno, you can say that he breached the agreement. And you can be right. Good job. But you'll get nothing for it -- because your contract says nothing about what happens next.
So, you wind up in front of a judge, who gives you a very simple option -- you can say that the agreement is now breached, and hence is over, or you can ignore the scenario. Presuming that the relationship is in your interest, as it always was, you don't want to end it. And then, you've created a nice little precedent whereby next time, the judge is going to say that you allowed it last time, and hence the driver had reason to believe that you'd allow it again.
Again, no one cares about "correct" "right" or "agreed". The only thing that matters is what happens as a result.
That's why the second thing you learn, when you live and die by contracts, is that if you aren't going to put in any teeth, you're actually way better off not putting in the policy either. You've no-doubt included termination clauses, so you can always terminate the agreement unilaterally.
It's not about "bearing" it's about accountability.
If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.
But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors. There is zero relationship. It's actually the client's fault more than corporate's fault.
It's no difference than if uber sells me the car, and I go hire some random driver. They want to be a recruiting agency between me and the driver. A broker. Brokers don't set policies, they simply decide whom to broker. Recruiting agencies don't set hiring requirements either.
Ah, poor lass: "how much control" is directly proportional to percentage of revenue. It always comes down to money.
Everything's a big long complicated thing. But there are instant outs. For example, your words have zero value, because you're not willing to put your name to them. Similarly, I'm not loading your random ppt file; nice try.
Put your own neck through the system, then comment on how it actually works. As anyone who's been through it can tell you, it makes absolutely no difference what "a legal expect" has to say. "Legal experts" don't decide anything. It takes three legal experts to make any legal decision. It's an adversarial system for a reason.
I can tell you exactly what happened to me, with my money, with my time, with my livelihood. That's not my advice, that's my experience, and my expertise. You're just guessing.
No one cares what you think is absurd. It's not about you. Write your local representative if you have an opinion. We're talking about what is, not about what you'd like it to be.
"at any one time" -- taxation year. When it comes time to declare revenue, write-off expenses, and pay taxes, you'll need to have more than one client.
Obviously, everyone understands ramp-up periods, and slow-down periods. So generally, like any depression, you'll get a year of flux. And obviously, if you're small, no one's going to look close enough for a few years at least.
But you won't survive an audit with two contiguous years of only one client -- presuming that you're spending full-time on that one client, and they are paying you thusly.
As for your dumbass comment about no one to hire, just because I'm the first to invent red paint, doesn't mean that any painter I hire can't also paint with blue for others.
I know it's got vision in the name. I know we watch it. But still, good tv is more audio than video.
Think about it. You can be watching tv, turn up the sound, and go to the bathroom. You can cook dinner. You can talk to friends. You can eat chicken wings and chips and drink beer. All while the tv is on in the background.
But, mute the audio, and there's very little that you can watch at all. Sure, sports work, but anything else?
The initial attraction was the novelty, as always. Focus on it, and it's great. But when was the last time that you sat down to watch tvision, and stayed focused on the picture? Even when I'm doing nothing else, I'm lying down on the couch, resting my eyes.
As for movies in the theatre, I barely notice the 3D at all anymore -- which is way better than the original dizziness of yore. I can't say that 3D is any better than 2D for any of the entertainment value of it all.
So really, it comes down to just how little 3D adds. Audio vs silent is a huge difference. Video vs radio is a huge difference. 2D vs fake 3D (you still can't see what's behind the car) adds absolutely nothing that my imagination wasn't already doing.
So, it doesn't convey any artistic expression. Movies beat books because I can see what the author wants me to see, which makes in his expression as opposed to my imagination. 3D adds absolutely nothing new.
Agreed with all. But I'll take a stab at those other reasons.
First, around here anyway, any "business owner" needs to have more than one client, to be able to call that business a business and pay taxes accordingly. That means that an Uber driver would need to drive for more than just Uber to be considered a driver-for-hire. It's true for bakers, and for candlestick makers around here. I can't have a programming business if I only program for one client. I used to need to prove that to my clients' accounting departments, or they'd start taxing my business revenue, as though it were personal income.
Second, Uber just set a policy of zero sexual conduct between drivers and passengers. That's not a thing that a client can do to contractors. Can certainly fire contractors for it, but can't promise passengers that contractors will do or not do anything. Can only refund payments at the Uber level. Can't even dodge paying the drivers -- because policies aren't contractual.
All good. But you're missing the one very vital part: consistency. I'd like you to do two things.
First, run your same thought-experiment, but vary the internet speed a few times. See the significance variation between 100 kb/s and 1'000 kb/s, et cetera.
Second, vary the disk activity, the processor activity, and the network activity. "connect" can take a very long time, just suddenly at random. "disk" can be busy doing other things -- especially if the workstation is actually being used in the background, say converting a video, or downloading a few things. That antivirus has lots of stuff to do, not just that one download. Similarly, the firewall is working away continuously.
And finally, please realize that you've got multiple tabs open, and many of them have iframes. So it's very likely that a typical consumer user has twenty or thirty internet streams running -- god help you if they have a few items getting "updated" in the background: maybe a game on steam, maybe the entire operating system, and maybe the virus scanner itself.
And, of course, cache control smache control, sometimes the expires: has expired.
So, it's time to leave the lab, and actually run some real-world, numbers. Consumer reports couldn't get a laptop to have consistent battery life. See if you can get a typical in-use computer to access the same content, at the same speed, a hundred times over the course of a week.
Here's what I think you'll find.
All the caching in the world will make the fastest time much faster. It will also make the slower time more slower. I actually think that often it'll make the average time faster, but it will always make the typical time slower.
And, in the end, you'll have that much more complexity to deal with. Which means that once all of the numbers are in, the complexity of the system will fail you at some future rare scenario, and that'll just kill all of the averages. You'll say: it was completely unexpected. I'll say: yeah, it I know; it always is.
All I can say, is that I've got three decades of trials and errors. I'm telling you that caching has never won over-all. It's great in narrowly defined situations -- which is why large companies can benefit from such things in general, often by crafting and bounding their abilities. But it just totally sucks as a general rule, and it's just so much more to deal with. It only needs to fail once to cause you 100 man-hours of debugging and fixing. You'll be cursing for months.
This other user did not present problems with any facts of my claim. First, the user asked me if I'd done more work. Then the user stated some things. Then the user asked me for some information.
My "claim", as is your prefered vocabulary, was a statement of my experience. I said that I did it, I said how it turned out. I described my experience, in great detail. The only way for you, or anyone, to present a problem is to argue my memory of events. My experience is nothing more than that.
Do your own benchmarking, do you own work, and do your own experiments. Then, you're welcome to come back to me and present your experience as differing from mine. Then we can, together, figure out why. You want to come with nothing of your own, and get more from me. Contribute nothing, and you simply won't get enough of my respect to provide you with anything more.
I did what I set-out to do. I presented you with an account of my experience. I didn't give you data. I didn't give you experimental procedures. I didn't give you observations. I merely gave you conclusions.
Now, if someone else's conclusions are sufficient for your use, then, by all means, develop your own, or hire them to give you additional details. You're trying to refute conclusions with hypotheses. That's not science. That's not valid logic. That's not rational. Test your hypotheses, and then you can battle conclusions with other conclusions.
You're slow. Is that "real" work for your server? I'll re-phrase, for your slow processor: output your logo as quickly as you can, postponing all unnecessary server-side work until thereafter.
Slashdot Mirror
Those aren't "costs" to the system. You're talking about dollar costs. I'm talking about efficiency costs.
Those are called "jobs". Given a world where every adult needs a job, jobs are good things.
It would be nice for you to be right.
Ah, let's put power generations on mountains and base it on weather. Great idea. I love getting stuck because the fuel is based on something that never restricted me.
The point is that independence is about reducing dependencies, not having different dependencies.
Norway is small. Tiny. Compact. Welcome to non-representative.
Do you have any idea just how many solar panels you would need in order to power the rockies? Think about it! So many peaks, so many mountains, so much weather to resist. These are hard installations, over very long distances from cities. With difficult machinery too. And very harsh climates. You want that bolted panel to stay? Great. What about the huge battery to hold the power? And what about all of the lines to move the power from the light side to the dark side of the mountain?
Or, you could have a big tank. A big heavy box. Installed once. Virtually zero maintenance. Underground, so weather doesn't matter. Then a truck brings fuel, and dumps it in.
See, you're missing the big point. My car can get there. That's the reason my car gets there. If my car can get there, then a truck can also get there. As long as "there" can fit a big fuel tank, and a small pump, then we're done.
Any other solution that you can possibly describe, will need more than my car needs. That makes it unreliable to my car. Plain and simple.
Plugging my car into my friend's house? Really? So I can't park on the street. And I can't part around the corner. And I can't meet him at a restaurant. And we can't hop into the car and head to the casino because it's not charged enough yet.
I'm not renting someone else's shitty car. I want my own dirt, thank you very much. I want my own finances too. My own car costs nothing to keep using. Renting feeds someone else's family instead of my own.
You suck at brain-work.
You've forgotten about all of the people who live on the east side of the mountain, but used to live on the west side of the mountain.
You've, instead, re-stated my point. The reason that the mountains aren't full of people is exactly because there was fuel to let them continue on to the other side.
That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.
But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.
Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.
Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.
Forget daily-commute-to-work times. Think road-trip, vacation, drive-to-parents, drive-to-children, thanksgiving, skiing, apple-picking, outlet-mall. I drive to friends, weekly, more than 100km away. I drive to wine-country five times annually.
White tube socks are modern technology -- they are used by lots of people today, and they haven't been replaced. One of my clients manufactures tube socks in 2017, the same way they did in 1980. They don't need windows 10.
So, my question is very simply this: which businesses/industries need modern technology to operate? Oh, right, computer industries.
Well, computers for computer industries. Not a big surprise. For for everything else, for every business that existed 100 years ago, no need.
I don't understand people. I can't drive to the middle of a mountain range, and charge an electric car. There's no electric grid there. I can easily fill up on fuel wherever a fuel truck can drop some off -- which is basically the very same places that my car can go.
North America is very different than Europe. Paris and London are how many hours away? A European train can take you through ten countries in a single day. In North America, you'd be lucky to hit five major cities in 24 hours of driving.
There's a lot more middle-of-nowhere around here. It's not about electric vs gasolene. It's about portable fuel vs transmission-over-infrastructure. We don't have any infrastructure -- that's why we have roads to get between places.
You shouldn't have any trouble finding a watchmaker to repair your existing watch. A waterproof gasket is an easy fix. I wouldn't suggest doing it yourself only because tiny parts tend to fall out when you don't know how to open it.
Still stuck with vista, I've been refusing windows 10 because it lacks aero glass. I don't want windows 3.1 graphics again, thank you. So this is very hopeful for me!
If you've ever lived and died by contractual agreements, then you've heard the term: "teeth". You can write anything you want into a contract. You can write that "the driver will do jumping jacks every morning, and take ballet lessons at night, before watching jay leno". All parties can sign, and it can be completely legal.
But you've forgotten the teeth.
What happens when the driver doesn't watch jay leno one night? Your agreement doesn't have any cansequences. And hence, if the driver doesn't watch jay leno, you can say that he breached the agreement. And you can be right. Good job. But you'll get nothing for it -- because your contract says nothing about what happens next.
So, you wind up in front of a judge, who gives you a very simple option -- you can say that the agreement is now breached, and hence is over, or you can ignore the scenario. Presuming that the relationship is in your interest, as it always was, you don't want to end it. And then, you've created a nice little precedent whereby next time, the judge is going to say that you allowed it last time, and hence the driver had reason to believe that you'd allow it again.
Again, no one cares about "correct" "right" or "agreed". The only thing that matters is what happens as a result.
That's why the second thing you learn, when you live and die by contracts, is that if you aren't going to put in any teeth, you're actually way better off not putting in the policy either. You've no-doubt included termination clauses, so you can always terminate the agreement unilaterally.
It's not about "bearing" it's about accountability.
If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.
But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors. There is zero relationship. It's actually the client's fault more than corporate's fault.
It's no difference than if uber sells me the car, and I go hire some random driver. They want to be a recruiting agency between me and the driver. A broker. Brokers don't set policies, they simply decide whom to broker. Recruiting agencies don't set hiring requirements either.
Ah, poor lass: "how much control" is directly proportional to percentage of revenue. It always comes down to money.
Everything's a big long complicated thing. But there are instant outs. For example, your words have zero value, because you're not willing to put your name to them. Similarly, I'm not loading your random ppt file; nice try.
Put your own neck through the system, then comment on how it actually works. As anyone who's been through it can tell you, it makes absolutely no difference what "a legal expect" has to say. "Legal experts" don't decide anything. It takes three legal experts to make any legal decision. It's an adversarial system for a reason.
I can tell you exactly what happened to me, with my money, with my time, with my livelihood. That's not my advice, that's my experience, and my expertise. You're just guessing.
No one cares what you think is absurd. It's not about you. Write your local representative if you have an opinion. We're talking about what is, not about what you'd like it to be.
"at any one time" -- taxation year. When it comes time to declare revenue, write-off expenses, and pay taxes, you'll need to have more than one client.
Obviously, everyone understands ramp-up periods, and slow-down periods. So generally, like any depression, you'll get a year of flux. And obviously, if you're small, no one's going to look close enough for a few years at least.
But you won't survive an audit with two contiguous years of only one client -- presuming that you're spending full-time on that one client, and they are paying you thusly.
As for your dumbass comment about no one to hire, just because I'm the first to invent red paint, doesn't mean that any painter I hire can't also paint with blue for others.
Ontario.
Best point here. Mod up.
Ah, the mid 2000's. Anyone else understand the year 2500ish?
I know it's got vision in the name. I know we watch it. But still, good tv is more audio than video.
Think about it. You can be watching tv, turn up the sound, and go to the bathroom. You can cook dinner. You can talk to friends. You can eat chicken wings and chips and drink beer. All while the tv is on in the background.
But, mute the audio, and there's very little that you can watch at all. Sure, sports work, but anything else?
The initial attraction was the novelty, as always. Focus on it, and it's great. But when was the last time that you sat down to watch tvision, and stayed focused on the picture? Even when I'm doing nothing else, I'm lying down on the couch, resting my eyes.
As for movies in the theatre, I barely notice the 3D at all anymore -- which is way better than the original dizziness of yore. I can't say that 3D is any better than 2D for any of the entertainment value of it all.
So really, it comes down to just how little 3D adds. Audio vs silent is a huge difference. Video vs radio is a huge difference. 2D vs fake 3D (you still can't see what's behind the car) adds absolutely nothing that my imagination wasn't already doing.
So, it doesn't convey any artistic expression. Movies beat books because I can see what the author wants me to see, which makes in his expression as opposed to my imagination. 3D adds absolutely nothing new.
Agreed with all. But I'll take a stab at those other reasons.
First, around here anyway, any "business owner" needs to have more than one client, to be able to call that business a business and pay taxes accordingly. That means that an Uber driver would need to drive for more than just Uber to be considered a driver-for-hire. It's true for bakers, and for candlestick makers around here. I can't have a programming business if I only program for one client. I used to need to prove that to my clients' accounting departments, or they'd start taxing my business revenue, as though it were personal income.
Second, Uber just set a policy of zero sexual conduct between drivers and passengers. That's not a thing that a client can do to contractors. Can certainly fire contractors for it, but can't promise passengers that contractors will do or not do anything. Can only refund payments at the Uber level. Can't even dodge paying the drivers -- because policies aren't contractual.
How'd I do?
All good. But you're missing the one very vital part: consistency. I'd like you to do two things.
First, run your same thought-experiment, but vary the internet speed a few times. See the significance variation between 100 kb/s and 1'000 kb/s, et cetera.
Second, vary the disk activity, the processor activity, and the network activity. "connect" can take a very long time, just suddenly at random. "disk" can be busy doing other things -- especially if the workstation is actually being used in the background, say converting a video, or downloading a few things. That antivirus has lots of stuff to do, not just that one download. Similarly, the firewall is working away continuously.
And finally, please realize that you've got multiple tabs open, and many of them have iframes. So it's very likely that a typical consumer user has twenty or thirty internet streams running -- god help you if they have a few items getting "updated" in the background: maybe a game on steam, maybe the entire operating system, and maybe the virus scanner itself.
And, of course, cache control smache control, sometimes the expires: has expired.
So, it's time to leave the lab, and actually run some real-world, numbers. Consumer reports couldn't get a laptop to have consistent battery life. See if you can get a typical in-use computer to access the same content, at the same speed, a hundred times over the course of a week.
Here's what I think you'll find.
All the caching in the world will make the fastest time much faster. It will also make the slower time more slower. I actually think that often it'll make the average time faster, but it will always make the typical time slower.
And, in the end, you'll have that much more complexity to deal with. Which means that once all of the numbers are in, the complexity of the system will fail you at some future rare scenario, and that'll just kill all of the averages. You'll say: it was completely unexpected. I'll say: yeah, it I know; it always is.
All I can say, is that I've got three decades of trials and errors. I'm telling you that caching has never won over-all. It's great in narrowly defined situations -- which is why large companies can benefit from such things in general, often by crafting and bounding their abilities. But it just totally sucks as a general rule, and it's just so much more to deal with. It only needs to fail once to cause you 100 man-hours of debugging and fixing. You'll be cursing for months.
This other user did not present problems with any facts of my claim. First, the user asked me if I'd done more work. Then the user stated some things. Then the user asked me for some information.
My "claim", as is your prefered vocabulary, was a statement of my experience. I said that I did it, I said how it turned out. I described my experience, in great detail. The only way for you, or anyone, to present a problem is to argue my memory of events. My experience is nothing more than that.
Do your own benchmarking, do you own work, and do your own experiments. Then, you're welcome to come back to me and present your experience as differing from mine. Then we can, together, figure out why. You want to come with nothing of your own, and get more from me. Contribute nothing, and you simply won't get enough of my respect to provide you with anything more.
I did what I set-out to do. I presented you with an account of my experience. I didn't give you data. I didn't give you experimental procedures. I didn't give you observations. I merely gave you conclusions.
Now, if someone else's conclusions are sufficient for your use, then, by all means, develop your own, or hire them to give you additional details. You're trying to refute conclusions with hypotheses. That's not science. That's not valid logic. That's not rational. Test your hypotheses, and then you can battle conclusions with other conclusions.
Until then, my apple trumps your orange.
You're slow. Is that "real" work for your server? I'll re-phrase, for your slow processor: output your logo as quickly as you can, postponing all unnecessary server-side work until thereafter.
Is that clear enough for you?
You're talking to me as though I owe you something. Do you own work, or pay for mine.