You are simplifying it to such an extent that you completely miss the point. The cost of the fuel is a small fraction of the cost of the launch - the cost of building the 1st stage dominates. When that stage is destroyed, it is an operational expense for that launch. When it is recovered, it is a capital expense with an additional smaller operational expense to refurbish and another expense to account for the reduced efficiency of the launch (some fuel held in reserve as you say).
Since converting the huge operating expense into a a huge capital expense that results in an asset that can continue delivering value minus some small additional operating expense, the net result is a more economic system.
without NAT as a first but relatively porous line of defense against random packets coming in from the open Internet, it's necessary to be much more deliberate about which types of packets to accept and which to reject.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
If only the US had some set of rules, encoded in a founding and fundamental document of some-sort, that limited the ability of the majority to commit tyranny on the minority through unfair legislation or otherwise.
Each province typically has laws establishing professional organizations as the gatekeepers, so for example in Alberta the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta is legislatively in charge of engineers. The law protects the use of the title "Engineer" such that a lot of tech companies actually violate the law by having employees whose title is something like "Systems Engineer" when they are not in fact members of the governing society. And before you ask, yes, they do have provisions for Software Engineers but in Alberta at least that is probably poorly developed.
I'm always amazed at how US tech companies get away with having non-engineers titled as engineers.
Technically you just need to take some cell samples, say by swabbing the cow's cheek, then sequence the DNA, interpret the sequence. You might have to wait for biology to catch up to decode all the source code you've collected.
In the article this: "it’s a reasonable assumption that there might not be anything new to find until energy scales of 100,000,000 TeV or more. " is asserted without supporting evidence.
That is just crazy. These are not high-risk/return investments funds. Just load up on a diversified bluechip portfolio, and make sure you follow all the other sheep so that you can't be singled out for getting something wrong.
Will that strategy net you a 20% return on your investment? Because that's what Yale's fund managers achieved.
The bigger the fund the higher the percent returns, but that's not because they are better at "investing" (i.e. moving capital from losing companies in a competitive market to winning companies), it is because there are successively more exclusive financial instruments whose benefit to the market is successively more dubious but return higher and higher margins. In other words the system is gamed at multiple levels and the more money you have, the more exclusive gamed systems you get to play, and you pay the gatekeepers more and more, but hey "everyone" wins (where everyone means everyone at this level of exclusivity and higher).
I've been working with AIX since 1990. Prior to that a bit of SunOS. AIX is is different but generally well thought out. Most people who hate it simply aren't used to the differences. Lots of feature that we take for granted in today's Linux existed in AIX 25 years ago.
Tivoli Storage Manager is a dream. I remember setting up a high-availability TSM (well, ADSM at the time) server and having a client backup running during fail over testing. Client connection failed, continued retrying until the server was back up on the other node, then the backup continued where is left off. Transaction backup with rollback and resumption after server fail over! Try that with NetBackup or Networker or Avamar or CommVault.
Btrfs, like ZFS and Netapp's WAFL, use a far more efficient copy-on-write strategy that avoids the write penalty.
WAFL doesn't do copy-on-write. Copy-on-write means a write to a block in a file requires the original block to be read, written elsewhere for the snapshot, then the new block written in the original location. That's exactly what WAFL doesn't do. WAFL writes all changed blocks for multiple files in big RAID stripes, updating pointers to current copies and leaving snapshot pointers pointing to old copies of the updated files. Very efficient for writes, but changes almost all reads, random or sequential (within a file) into random reads (within the filesystem) because file blocks get scattered according to write order, not location of the block within the file. That's why they want lots of spindles in an aggregate and they love RAM cache and flash cache.
But since you say that copy-on-write avoids the write penalty I think you know what is does but simply don't know that it isn't copy-on-write.
After that blunder, I was asked to check on all the cameras servers once a week and make sure I could actually open up and view recordings from days past. This is a preventative action, but not really a maintenance one.
No, it's not preventative. It does nothing to prevent the problem. It detects the problem earlier (before, say, a business user does). That's monitoring. It's proactive, not reactive - perhaps that's what you mean?
The glossy screen is the perfect Apple screen because I can simultaneously see the two most important things in the world: the blog I'm writing, and myself. Always myself.
Do you notice how you either can't recall or can't care to recall the father and son's names? That says something about the emotional attachment you didn't develop for the characters.
I guess people are worried that our state of the art igloo geometric designs, dogsled aerodymanics and maple syrup chemistry are in danger if poltical decisions are made without the benefit of science. Luckily there are only 78 of us in the whole country. We can probably sort it out in about a fortnight over a few Molson's beers while watching ice hockey.
duane "Who won the damn gold medals at the last Olympics anyways?"
Ha! You can tell you aren't Canadian because you put the word ice in front of hockey - that's redundant.
I've installed dozens of Linux distributions side-by-side on my various laptops over the years and invariably I would be booting into the Windows OS of the day (XP, skipped Vista, happy with 7). Partly because of need to access some Windows-only software but also a comfort level. Even though 90% of my laptop use is for web/Internet. This coming from someone who spent his PhD doing everything in CDE (and having an Amiga at home).
But then I tried Jolicloud 1.0. It is based on Ubuntu but feels a lot more like the iPhone in presentation. Applications arrayed on a home screen. Application windows maximized with very little OS clutter. Web applications promoted to feel like full apps.
It boots so fast on my SSD Thinkpad X200 Tablet and it feels comfortable. Perhaps this is the Linux Desktop everyone is waiting for?
Of course, I'm waiting for them to rev the Ubuntu base they are working on so the two-point multi-touch and Wacom pen of the X200 Tablet actually work (they work in Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10, if I recall correctly). That and supporting tethering to my iPhone (both of which work in Windows).
A $50 HDD does not store data by itself. How does the data get from the application to the drive? Cases, CPU, RAM. What about fault tolerance (RAID)? What about backup? What about labour? The figures cited include all that. What about speed? 450 GB 15k RPM verses a 1 TB 7200 RPM. What about advanced features (NetApp FlexClone, that allows copies as differentials, or SnapVault and SnapMirror (i.e. remote copy and syncronization)). What about backup (tape library, tape drives, tapes). What about floor space, racking, AC, Power, UPS, PDU?
Do you even realize all the costs that go into a burdened per GB cost? The physical hard drive may be a trivial part of the cost.
Don't local Chinese companies that compete with Google, such as Baidu, have to comply with the same censorship restrictions? For it to be an unfair trade barrier, don't local companies have to be treated differently?
For example, in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French. A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada, or, as is often the case, slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements of the law. Since the law treats local and imported goods the same, it is not considered an unfair trade barrier. It doesn't matter that it is inconvenient for a US company to have to modify its manufacturing process to accommodate that law.
Note I'm not making any statement about the censorship laws being fair or moral in and of themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
That word "knowingly". I do not think it means what you think it means.
You are simplifying it to such an extent that you completely miss the point. The cost of the fuel is a small fraction of the cost of the launch - the cost of building the 1st stage dominates. When that stage is destroyed, it is an operational expense for that launch. When it is recovered, it is a capital expense with an additional smaller operational expense to refurbish and another expense to account for the reduced efficiency of the launch (some fuel held in reserve as you say).
Since converting the huge operating expense into a a huge capital expense that results in an asset that can continue delivering value minus some small additional operating expense, the net result is a more economic system.
without NAT as a first but relatively porous line of defense against random packets coming in from the open Internet, it's necessary to be much more deliberate about which types of packets to accept and which to reject.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
Yes.
If only the US had some set of rules, encoded in a founding and fundamental document of some-sort, that limited the ability of the majority to commit tyranny on the minority through unfair legislation or otherwise.
Each province typically has laws establishing professional organizations as the gatekeepers, so for example in Alberta the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta is legislatively in charge of engineers. The law protects the use of the title "Engineer" such that a lot of tech companies actually violate the law by having employees whose title is something like "Systems Engineer" when they are not in fact members of the governing society. And before you ask, yes, they do have provisions for Software Engineers but in Alberta at least that is probably poorly developed.
I'm always amazed at how US tech companies get away with having non-engineers titled as engineers.
Technically you just need to take some cell samples, say by swabbing the cow's cheek, then sequence the DNA, interpret the sequence. You might have to wait for biology to catch up to decode all the source code you've collected.
In the article this: "it’s a reasonable assumption that there might not be anything new to find until energy scales of 100,000,000 TeV or more. " is asserted without supporting evidence.
That is just crazy. These are not high-risk/return investments funds. Just load up on a diversified bluechip portfolio, and make sure you follow all the other sheep so that you can't be singled out for getting something wrong.
Will that strategy net you a 20% return on your investment? Because that's what Yale's fund managers achieved.
The bigger the fund the higher the percent returns, but that's not because they are better at "investing" (i.e. moving capital from losing companies in a competitive market to winning companies), it is because there are successively more exclusive financial instruments whose benefit to the market is successively more dubious but return higher and higher margins. In other words the system is gamed at multiple levels and the more money you have, the more exclusive gamed systems you get to play, and you pay the gatekeepers more and more, but hey "everyone" wins (where everyone means everyone at this level of exclusivity and higher).
I wonder how they handle all those cases with respect to activities such as:
1) RC model airplanes
2) Model rocketry
3) Sporting (think golf, skeet shooting, baseball)
all of which may involve objects exceeding 200 ft but below 500 feet. Whatever do the poor misunderstood helicopters do?!?
They are called "angels", thank you very much.
"If you ignore costs"???
That's rich, considering the immense externalities of oil, gas, and coal burning.
Ignoring costs for solar ... Do you even understand economics?
I've been working with AIX since 1990. Prior to that a bit of SunOS. AIX is is different but generally well thought out. Most people who hate it simply aren't used to the differences. Lots of feature that we take for granted in today's Linux existed in AIX 25 years ago.
Tivoli Storage Manager is a dream. I remember setting up a high-availability TSM (well, ADSM at the time) server and having a client backup running during fail over testing. Client connection failed, continued retrying until the server was back up on the other node, then the backup continued where is left off. Transaction backup with rollback and resumption after server fail over! Try that with NetBackup or Networker or Avamar or CommVault.
B
I have a tiny search program written in perl (http://tmsw.no/pi-search/) ...
This is about the most useful comment I've seen on Slashdot in a while
No, that would be something like finger+talk. Or something older. I remember using Bitnet talk before getting a U account with Internet access
Btrfs, like ZFS and Netapp's WAFL, use a far more efficient copy-on-write strategy that avoids the write penalty.
WAFL doesn't do copy-on-write. Copy-on-write means a write to a block in a file requires the original block to be read, written elsewhere for the snapshot, then the new block written in the original location. That's exactly what WAFL doesn't do. WAFL writes all changed blocks for multiple files in big RAID stripes, updating pointers to current copies and leaving snapshot pointers pointing to old copies of the updated files. Very efficient for writes, but changes almost all reads, random or sequential (within a file) into random reads (within the filesystem) because file blocks get scattered according to write order, not location of the block within the file. That's why they want lots of spindles in an aggregate and they love RAM cache and flash cache.
But since you say that copy-on-write avoids the write penalty I think you know what is does but simply don't know that it isn't copy-on-write.
After that blunder, I was asked to check on all the cameras servers once a week and make sure I could actually open up and view recordings from days past. This is a preventative action, but not really a maintenance one.
No, it's not preventative. It does nothing to prevent the problem. It detects the problem earlier (before, say, a business user does). That's monitoring. It's proactive, not reactive - perhaps that's what you mean?
The glossy screen is the perfect Apple screen because I can simultaneously see the two most important things in the world: the blog I'm writing, and myself. Always myself.
There, fixed that for you.
Do you notice how you either can't recall or can't care to recall the father and son's names? That says something about the emotional attachment you didn't develop for the characters.
I guess people are worried that our state of the art igloo geometric designs, dogsled aerodymanics and maple syrup chemistry are in danger if poltical decisions are made without the benefit of science. Luckily there are only 78 of us in the whole country. We can probably sort it out in about a fortnight over a few Molson's beers while watching ice hockey.
duane
"Who won the damn gold medals at the last Olympics anyways?"
Ha! You can tell you aren't Canadian because you put the word ice in front of hockey - that's redundant.
I've installed dozens of Linux distributions side-by-side on my various laptops over the years and invariably I would be booting into the Windows OS of the day (XP, skipped Vista, happy with 7). Partly because of need to access some Windows-only software but also a comfort level. Even though 90% of my laptop use is for web/Internet. This coming from someone who spent his PhD doing everything in CDE (and having an Amiga at home).
But then I tried Jolicloud 1.0. It is based on Ubuntu but feels a lot more like the iPhone in presentation. Applications arrayed on a home screen. Application windows maximized with very little OS clutter. Web applications promoted to feel like full apps.
It boots so fast on my SSD Thinkpad X200 Tablet and it feels comfortable. Perhaps this is the Linux Desktop everyone is waiting for?
Of course, I'm waiting for them to rev the Ubuntu base they are working on so the two-point multi-touch and Wacom pen of the X200 Tablet actually work (they work in Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10, if I recall correctly). That and supporting tethering to my iPhone (both of which work in Windows).
Yes, rationality and irrationality clearly don't mix.
A $50 HDD does not store data by itself. How does the data get from the application to the drive? Cases, CPU, RAM. What about fault tolerance (RAID)? What about backup? What about labour? The figures cited include all that. What about speed? 450 GB 15k RPM verses a 1 TB 7200 RPM. What about advanced features (NetApp FlexClone, that allows copies as differentials, or SnapVault and SnapMirror (i.e. remote copy and syncronization)). What about backup (tape library, tape drives, tapes). What about floor space, racking, AC, Power, UPS, PDU?
Do you even realize all the costs that go into a burdened per GB cost? The physical hard drive may be a trivial part of the cost.
Why not generate PDF for printing purposes?
The reason that they're restricting it to .edu is because Google Voice is only available in the US for everyone.
There are Canadian Universities that have .edu domains - the University of Toronto has both utoronto.ca and toronto.edu.
Don't local Chinese companies that compete with Google, such as Baidu, have to comply with the same censorship restrictions? For it to be an unfair trade barrier, don't local companies have to be treated differently?
For example, in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French. A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada, or, as is often the case, slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements of the law. Since the law treats local and imported goods the same, it is not considered an unfair trade barrier. It doesn't matter that it is inconvenient for a US company to have to modify its manufacturing process to accommodate that law.
Note I'm not making any statement about the censorship laws being fair or moral in and of themselves.