Take something like, oh, an AK47 or SKS rifle. They're repairable and reliable. You can stick gravel down the barrel and clean it out by pissing on it (metaphorically speaking). There are instances of the design which have likely seen continual service since shortly after that time (in the 1960s, there about). They are still the preferred arm of choice by many people and nations.
Another counter-example would be the 'simple' diesel vehicles of yester-year (eg. Mercedes 300D, Chevy 6.2 Detroits, stuff with Cummins). They're meant to last forever, and for the most part, they do. The engines run many more miles than the odometers usually go. (I've got a friend with a Cummins that has seen over 1.2 million miles of operation without a rebuild, for instance).
Only 'slightly' larger than today's smartphones (most of that bulk due to an AA battery compartment and wasted space) is the original Nintendo Game Boy. I have one which has never needed to be repaired, but it has been run over by a truck, thrown, stepped on, and god knows what else - by roughly a dozen children at this point, continuously, for the better part of 2 decades. I have repaired or replaced the buttons on other gameboys for people, and I have cleaned the metal contacts ('fixing') thoroughly for people before as well.
I've fixed many other smaller, newer things of quality. Repairability has nothing to do with bulk, weight, or what have you (by necessity). Resilience is a big part of it (as with the gameboy I've got and well designed diesel engines). In the case of most modern things which fail or break, it's not so much that they weren't made to be repairable, it's that they were designed to break. There is a HUGE difference between the two. "Repairability" is being able to replace the commonly failed or damaged parts of the whole to maintain longevity. Not only is it unlikely you're able to do that on a modern product, but it's likely that they've got 'seals' on the product which, upon their removal, will render the product broken and unusable after 'repair'. (Rivets stronger than the material they bind where screws or clips would be fine comes to mind.)
Same thing goes for about 90% of small electric appliances today. They are not designed to be repairable.
Bullshit. They've not just side-stepped designing things for repair-ability, they've gone out of their way to make things un-repairable (or, at the very least, a huge minefield of "haha, gotcha, it's not that easy! go buy something new!")
A good example of this are some of the older (ie, at least not current generation) Apple laptops. To do something as trivial as get to the hard drive to replace it, you'd have to take out something like the following:
* a half dozen cosmetic fasteners, which were broken by their removal * 6 screws of type "a" with torx heads * 8 screws of thread type "b" with security heads * 3 screws of type "c", which happened to be philips * 2 screws of type "d" which look a LOT like type "a" but will crossthread and cause problems in the "a" hole (or vice versa) * two clasps, one of which requires something almost entirely different and unrelated to be removed first, just due to how they ducted wires
In essence, they were designed to have to be taken apart completely just to repair something relatively trival. At the same time, a Thinkpad laptop could have the hard drive completely removed (down to OEM disk) with 3 screws, or replaced with one (which could be removed with a strong fingernail, sometimes).
Most of this is not so much cultural as others have pointed out but it all comes down to the cost of labor.
If it takes 3+ hours to disassemble the device, and even longer to reassemble? Yeah, of course it's a disposable device. The story is different when it's almost as trivial as preparing a DVD for an evening movie...
I can't speak for a Finnish mobile telco, but I can say this: my experience as a sysadmin is that the above holds true almost 100%. You can't make an omelet without a couple broken eggs (and what good are eggs to anyone, anyway?).
The 'market' is what decided the rise of power of Lenin in Russia and Hitler in Germany.
The 'market' is also what led to the reactive response to said forces at later dates from the US (et al).
Just because a drastic market decision has been collectively made does not mean that the decision won't be reversed in short order, with another 'product' picked.
Incorrect. Chrome works just fine, both with the Exchange OWA as well as the Office 365 OWA.
Caveat: in order to not use the 'light' OWA for O365, you've got to forge your browser's ID string to IE. It worked nicely for a while, and then didn't, requiring this kludge.
What in essence this means is that pretty much every programming language, ever, is in for some idiot filing copyright infringement. I don't even want to think what this means for the 'open' Java implementations (which, ironically, Sun strongly supported - fuck Oracle).
I read somewhere that the 'offending' code was something like 9 lines long. Seriously? 9 lines? Because I can easily see 9 lines of code being implemented identically in multiple projects, independently, to perform the same functionality. And of course, some code is amazingly generic.
Now, if Google could prove that there's a -possibility- that they got that code elsewhere...
Launch costs are incredibly low. That was my point. A two-stage launch (high altitude plane ferry followed by boost rockets) is very cheap nowadays.
If technology isn't the primary expense, there seems to be no point in not reusing old designs which have served their role well for a decade or more already. Outfit those designs with new electronics packages and launch them.
As for operational costs: like I said before, the cost for doing this stuff is a lot less than it used to be, because integration and consolidation has resulted in many more effective tools, new techniques, and so on. You don't need a room full of mainframes today: the computational power in those mainframes is in your phone today. So, you need less equipment and fewer people to maintain it.
I didn't say it should be free, or 100k. I just said that they should be able to do a lot more today with less budget than they did a decade ago. There's a huge difference.
It's been demonstrated that the cost of launching small shiny objects into space has dropped drastically. The Mars rovers (Opportunity and Spirit) continued operational cost has cost under a billion dollars total (and that's including the projected 5th mission for them).
Yet, they were launched in 2003 - before Xprize, before UAVs and the many long-run high altitude planes/UAVs, and a myriad of other advancements. They weren't just a payload and delivery system, they were multiple payloads with multiple delivery systems.
Considering an amateur can go from nothing to a satellite in space for a fairly paltry sum (under $100k), and you can build some fairly impressive optics and com gear for a lot less than you could 10 years ago. There is absolutely no reason it should cost as much today to do the same thing we were doing 10 years ago. Moores Law applies here too. Just as a sysadmin today is expected to be able to do what would have been considered be absurdly complex/expansive things 10 years ago, a developer is expected to have more 'resulting output' than 10 years ago due to better tools, and so on. I mean, shit.
I can build a UAV for under $500 with a more capable, diverse 'monitoring' pattern than the first generation of prototype UAVs made by the big military contractors (post-Gulf War, early aughts) now, and look where the actual military UAVs are: they look like something out of a Cyberdyne future.
I won't get Verizon because their network implementation is CDMA/LTE, and incompatible with most of the good Android phones out there. How's that for an answer? I know I'm not alone in this.
I'm sure a lot of that depends on how the data use is metered.
Personally, I use about 100-300MB of data a month, closer to the low end of that. I have used less than 60MB on a couple occasions. How?
* turning off data when I'm busy and don't want to be bothered by notifications. * Using nearby wireless access points instead of data services, when available (work, home, friends' houses). I'm guessing many of these 'data usage' numbers are reflective of people using wifi, so the carrier has an excuse to make such claims. * However, I will use 600MB+/month while I'm traveling or not in the office much during the month.
Why do Android users use more data? Quite possibly because their phones are more capable, and they are more capable users (from what I've noticed). When your phone is unable to do things concurrently and makes it non-trivial to tether, you usually don't bother with more 'complex' things...
The AT&T/iPhone case is the most blatant: AT&T had an exclusive on what people wanted, and scored substantial sales despite constant whining about how their network sucked.
Not true. Windows CE devices did everything iPhones did (and more) when the iPhone came out, in a similar price range. The whiz-bang was better, but in terms of available applications, hardware capabilities, and OS features, it was way, way behind until at least the App Store came out for it (2008), at which time it didn't really matter (because Android was on the horizon and CE was basically abandoned by Microsoft, if only in name/platform).
Aside from a trendy aesthetically pleasing device which was 'like an iPod' that would also make calls, there's nothing much the iPhone had and was years and years behind CE capabilities. Despite having a multi-year leap ahead of Android, they're already behind there again, too.
The carriers, for the most part, play their part as you describe it: they play the OS/device makers off of each other to try to get the best, cheapest devices for themselves. Basically, they operate how Dell/HP/etc. would operate if it wasn't for Apple and Microsoft playing exclusivity games.
Since there are more features and functionality in Android, many of the features iPhones have were in Android first, and Android has a significantly higher market share than iPhone at this point, can I safely assume you're implying that Apple is a follow-along, me-too?
If that Manager can show min/max, inventory levels, turns, and value for it then the bean counters are less likely to blindly cut it. How many IT departments have a budget? Most, out of them how many of them have a signed a up a Budget for maintaining vs operating vs improving? Very Few.
We're at the point now where the "IT department" is 1 or 2 guys where it was previously 5-6, in many cases, or many IT groups have been outsourced to managed services. "Virtualization makes it easy", to a degree. At least that's the mindset.
Sorry, but when you're one person maintaining a fleet of aging equipment (say, for 200 users) which will maybe or maybe not need a new $15 video card, a $10 ethernet card, $50 in RAM, or a $30 power supply, the cost justification isn't there. We're basically talking about someone getting anal about how many legal pads and pencils a person has on their desk. And in this sort of organization, my experience is that no amount of justification and explanation of cost/benefit analysis will cause the powers-that-be realize "yes, it's a good idea to have spare parts" (aside from fully-functional systems sitting around).
This is a concept quite easily understood in other industries. Surveying companies, road crews, etc. which need a fleet of vehicles keep spare filters, oil, and other commonly worn out parts/pieces (assuming they do their own work); very few actually account for these things short of "we're running out" because it's not worth the time, and they realize they need those parts to keep things running.
Granted, with a larger shop I can see this not being the case, but by "larger" I think you'd need an IT staff of at least 15 people to justify it (or, say, around 1500 employees).
I agree with this 100%. 100GB drives are in the ballpark of 8 years old now: that's almost outside the failure curve. I would not trust them to consistently spin up at this point. (Granted, I've seen entirely too many 'enterprise' 36GB disks in use, still, and those keep going too...)
In terms of the possibility of the project, I would consider it impractical if not impossible. It is certainly not maintainable. In terms of software technology, you are basically looking at using either something like Linux md RAID with lvm, ZFS, or (god forbid) FreeBSD geom. Geom really has nothing going for it, but mdraid is going to probably fail for you due to having frequent disk errors and ZFS will likely fail due to not handling vdevs with differing performance characteristics well and not being able to be dynamically expanded (like mdraid). You'll need at least 2 disks of the same/similar size for each primary component of the system (eg. a 150G and 120G in a single parity 120G array (RAID1)) unless resiliency and total data loss is not a concern for you.
A limitation you may run into is number of disk controllers. Not knowing how many disks or systems you've got, I can't say how feasible this is. I can say that the 8-disk LSI 1068e controllers are well vetted and fairly cheap. IBM and many others have been bundling PCI cards with either these controllers or their crippled siblings (eg. only 4 disks) with their servers for years, so if you have a machine with 4 PCIe slots and know where you might be able to get some of these (and then flash with the latest LSI 1068/1064/etc. TI firmware) you've got something to look at. Once you start spending money, though, I would recommend just buying disks (again, if this is anything more than an experiment and your data is worth anything). My personal price cutoff for 'janky' is about $25 unless there's a ready personal benefit (satisfaction of something convoluted/difficult) in doing so.
It would be interesting as an experiment, however, to see how resilient something like ZFS is with such old and error prone drives. Personally, I would not even attempt to use anything like this for more than just a JBOD backup backup, or the like.
I suppose it depends on where you're from (in my experience, California has some of the worst meat in the country - and the Northern Midwest, the best).
A good cut of meat tastes just fine with a touch of salt and course ground black pepper. I'm not talking prime rib or backstrap on a trophy cow here, just a common lean sirloin from a healthy animal, cooked correctly. The same largely goes for poultry and (to a lesser degree, because I'm not fond of the 'better' cuts) pork.
Some people say grain/corn-finished meat tastes best. Personally? I like full range meat - the stuff that tastes "gamey". It really does taste better. The grain fed stuff tastes mealy.
I also completely agree with you regarding the 'meat only' statements. No, I don't eat 'only meat'. But primarily meat? Yes, please. If it's good meat, at least. There's a big difference between a meat sauce on pasta and pasta with meat sauce: one tends to be, well, primarily meat; the other tends to be primarily pasta. I'll leave it to you to consider which is more filling.
He was eating grain-fed animals, though. And not following his diet (if you're referring to Atkins).
Native Americans ate primarily animal meat and vegetables. They didn't have any significant heart disease until we started introducing them to cultivated grains (and alcohol).
IMO it's very easy to have a diet which is primarily meat. You don't have to eat a large pork rind for breakfast or a side of bacon every other week, but if you've got good quality meat available, short of filling up your cart with lots of different meats and a handful of odd veggies at the grocery, it's really not that hard.
You need less food (in volume) if you're eating meat than if you were eating a 'mixed' carb-heavy diet, too, which certainly helps. Judging from what I've seen vegans or even vegeterians deal with, it's certainly easier (in terms of food prep and quantity) and less costly.
Here in America, we also have processed grains in everything.
We also have a very high percentage of our diets consist of processed GMO grains (corn, wheat). If you're having 2 hamburgers with a handful of corn chips and two white wheat buns, the meat isn't going to be the primary component of the meal.
It seems that every couple months there's a news article about some old guy or gal who died after a fairly insignificant (not particularly active or sedentary, nothing really marked to note) life who spent their entire life having pork (ham/bacon) and eggs for breakfast every day. It wasn't until the inclusion of excess grains that Americans started to have issues in the late 1800s.
There is absolutely no information in the article. "Healthy fat found in seeds"?
What it sounds like they're doing is they've figured out how to genetically modify animals to produce omega 3 and similar types of fats instead of the fats commonly found in grain fed or industrially raised meats. That's actually fairly big (good) news, I think.
On the other hand, 'healthy' fat can be found in animals which are 'free range'. It's less environmentally intensive. The unhealthy fat found in animal meat is only unhealthy because of the way they're raised.
* Amateur craftsmen talk about whether Mikita or Black and Decker is better, whereas professionals talk about construction theory. * Amateur combatants talk about which firearms are better and why, whereas professional combatants talk about the pros and cons of different ways to kill. * Amateur netadmins talk about which brand of switch is better and professionals talk about how you can possibly arrange a network to get packets from one point to another.
You're confusing theoretical with professional. Amateurs are all talk about what can be done, not how to do it. (By this qualification, most sales and management are amateurs.) Professionals are about getting the job done and getting it done right - but significantly, getting it done at all. Professionals do, and the mechanics to get there are what is important.
(You're also conflating the topic on the presumption that there's a clear line.)
This may have been Nvidia's problem, but Apple is somewhat nefarious for problems like this going back over (almost?) 10 years. I've seen 5 different models of Apple laptop have BGA issues (some of which were able to be re-flowed, others were not). I'm not familiar with the 8400 issue, but the fact remains that Apple has always been fairly shit about honoring their hardware problems, in my experience. Even the major PC manufacturers that sucked (eg. Dell, at the time) did better during the capacitor issues circa 2003-2004 manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not necessarily true.
Take something like, oh, an AK47 or SKS rifle. They're repairable and reliable. You can stick gravel down the barrel and clean it out by pissing on it (metaphorically speaking). There are instances of the design which have likely seen continual service since shortly after that time (in the 1960s, there about). They are still the preferred arm of choice by many people and nations.
Another counter-example would be the 'simple' diesel vehicles of yester-year (eg. Mercedes 300D, Chevy 6.2 Detroits, stuff with Cummins). They're meant to last forever, and for the most part, they do. The engines run many more miles than the odometers usually go. (I've got a friend with a Cummins that has seen over 1.2 million miles of operation without a rebuild, for instance).
Only 'slightly' larger than today's smartphones (most of that bulk due to an AA battery compartment and wasted space) is the original Nintendo Game Boy. I have one which has never needed to be repaired, but it has been run over by a truck, thrown, stepped on, and god knows what else - by roughly a dozen children at this point, continuously, for the better part of 2 decades. I have repaired or replaced the buttons on other gameboys for people, and I have cleaned the metal contacts ('fixing') thoroughly for people before as well.
I've fixed many other smaller, newer things of quality. Repairability has nothing to do with bulk, weight, or what have you (by necessity). Resilience is a big part of it (as with the gameboy I've got and well designed diesel engines). In the case of most modern things which fail or break, it's not so much that they weren't made to be repairable, it's that they were designed to break. There is a HUGE difference between the two. "Repairability" is being able to replace the commonly failed or damaged parts of the whole to maintain longevity. Not only is it unlikely you're able to do that on a modern product, but it's likely that they've got 'seals' on the product which, upon their removal, will render the product broken and unusable after 'repair'. (Rivets stronger than the material they bind where screws or clips would be fine comes to mind.)
Same thing goes for about 90% of small electric appliances today. They are not designed to be repairable.
Bullshit. They've not just side-stepped designing things for repair-ability, they've gone out of their way to make things un-repairable (or, at the very least, a huge minefield of "haha, gotcha, it's not that easy! go buy something new!")
A good example of this are some of the older (ie, at least not current generation) Apple laptops. To do something as trivial as get to the hard drive to replace it, you'd have to take out something like the following:
* a half dozen cosmetic fasteners, which were broken by their removal
* 6 screws of type "a" with torx heads
* 8 screws of thread type "b" with security heads
* 3 screws of type "c", which happened to be philips
* 2 screws of type "d" which look a LOT like type "a" but will crossthread and cause problems in the "a" hole (or vice versa)
* two clasps, one of which requires something almost entirely different and unrelated to be removed first, just due to how they ducted wires
In essence, they were designed to have to be taken apart completely just to repair something relatively trival. At the same time, a Thinkpad laptop could have the hard drive completely removed (down to OEM disk) with 3 screws, or replaced with one (which could be removed with a strong fingernail, sometimes).
Most of this is not so much cultural as others have pointed out but it all comes down to the cost of labor.
If it takes 3+ hours to disassemble the device, and even longer to reassemble? Yeah, of course it's a disposable device. The story is different when it's almost as trivial as preparing a DVD for an evening movie...
I can't speak for a Finnish mobile telco, but I can say this: my experience as a sysadmin is that the above holds true almost 100%. You can't make an omelet without a couple broken eggs (and what good are eggs to anyone, anyway?).
Thank you for the lengthy post on etymology. While I have no idea whether or not it's true, I don't care, because it was still interesting. :)
The 'market' is never wrong, no.
The 'market' is what decided the rise of power of Lenin in Russia and Hitler in Germany.
The 'market' is also what led to the reactive response to said forces at later dates from the US (et al).
Just because a drastic market decision has been collectively made does not mean that the decision won't be reversed in short order, with another 'product' picked.
Incorrect. Chrome works just fine, both with the Exchange OWA as well as the Office 365 OWA.
Caveat: in order to not use the 'light' OWA for O365, you've got to forge your browser's ID string to IE. It worked nicely for a while, and then didn't, requiring this kludge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Java_implementations#After_the_May_2007_code_release
What in essence this means is that pretty much every programming language, ever, is in for some idiot filing copyright infringement. I don't even want to think what this means for the 'open' Java implementations (which, ironically, Sun strongly supported - fuck Oracle).
I read somewhere that the 'offending' code was something like 9 lines long. Seriously? 9 lines? Because I can easily see 9 lines of code being implemented identically in multiple projects, independently, to perform the same functionality. And of course, some code is amazingly generic.
Now, if Google could prove that there's a -possibility- that they got that code elsewhere...
Launch costs are incredibly low. That was my point. A two-stage launch (high altitude plane ferry followed by boost rockets) is very cheap nowadays.
If technology isn't the primary expense, there seems to be no point in not reusing old designs which have served their role well for a decade or more already. Outfit those designs with new electronics packages and launch them.
As for operational costs: like I said before, the cost for doing this stuff is a lot less than it used to be, because integration and consolidation has resulted in many more effective tools, new techniques, and so on. You don't need a room full of mainframes today: the computational power in those mainframes is in your phone today. So, you need less equipment and fewer people to maintain it.
I didn't say it should be free, or 100k. I just said that they should be able to do a lot more today with less budget than they did a decade ago. There's a huge difference.
It's been demonstrated that the cost of launching small shiny objects into space has dropped drastically. The Mars rovers (Opportunity and Spirit) continued operational cost has cost under a billion dollars total (and that's including the projected 5th mission for them).
Yet, they were launched in 2003 - before Xprize, before UAVs and the many long-run high altitude planes/UAVs, and a myriad of other advancements. They weren't just a payload and delivery system, they were multiple payloads with multiple delivery systems.
Considering an amateur can go from nothing to a satellite in space for a fairly paltry sum (under $100k), and you can build some fairly impressive optics and com gear for a lot less than you could 10 years ago. There is absolutely no reason it should cost as much today to do the same thing we were doing 10 years ago. Moores Law applies here too. Just as a sysadmin today is expected to be able to do what would have been considered be absurdly complex/expansive things 10 years ago, a developer is expected to have more 'resulting output' than 10 years ago due to better tools, and so on. I mean, shit.
I can build a UAV for under $500 with a more capable, diverse 'monitoring' pattern than the first generation of prototype UAVs made by the big military contractors (post-Gulf War, early aughts) now, and look where the actual military UAVs are: they look like something out of a Cyberdyne future.
I won't get Verizon because their network implementation is CDMA/LTE, and incompatible with most of the good Android phones out there. How's that for an answer? I know I'm not alone in this.
I'm sure a lot of that depends on how the data use is metered.
Personally, I use about 100-300MB of data a month, closer to the low end of that. I have used less than 60MB on a couple occasions. How?
* turning off data when I'm busy and don't want to be bothered by notifications.
* Using nearby wireless access points instead of data services, when available (work, home, friends' houses). I'm guessing many of these 'data usage' numbers are reflective of people using wifi, so the carrier has an excuse to make such claims.
* However, I will use 600MB+/month while I'm traveling or not in the office much during the month.
Why do Android users use more data? Quite possibly because their phones are more capable, and they are more capable users (from what I've noticed). When your phone is unable to do things concurrently and makes it non-trivial to tether, you usually don't bother with more 'complex' things...
The AT&T/iPhone case is the most blatant: AT&T had an exclusive on what people wanted, and scored substantial sales despite constant whining about how their network sucked.
Not true. Windows CE devices did everything iPhones did (and more) when the iPhone came out, in a similar price range. The whiz-bang was better, but in terms of available applications, hardware capabilities, and OS features, it was way, way behind until at least the App Store came out for it (2008), at which time it didn't really matter (because Android was on the horizon and CE was basically abandoned by Microsoft, if only in name/platform).
Aside from a trendy aesthetically pleasing device which was 'like an iPod' that would also make calls, there's nothing much the iPhone had and was years and years behind CE capabilities. Despite having a multi-year leap ahead of Android, they're already behind there again, too.
The carriers, for the most part, play their part as you describe it: they play the OS/device makers off of each other to try to get the best, cheapest devices for themselves. Basically, they operate how Dell/HP/etc. would operate if it wasn't for Apple and Microsoft playing exclusivity games.
Since there are more features and functionality in Android, many of the features iPhones have were in Android first, and Android has a significantly higher market share than iPhone at this point, can I safely assume you're implying that Apple is a follow-along, me-too?
Fucking fanboys.
If that Manager can show min/max, inventory levels, turns, and value for it then the bean counters are less likely to blindly cut it. How many IT departments have a budget? Most, out of them how many of them have a signed a up a Budget for maintaining vs operating vs improving? Very Few.
We're at the point now where the "IT department" is 1 or 2 guys where it was previously 5-6, in many cases, or many IT groups have been outsourced to managed services. "Virtualization makes it easy", to a degree. At least that's the mindset.
Sorry, but when you're one person maintaining a fleet of aging equipment (say, for 200 users) which will maybe or maybe not need a new $15 video card, a $10 ethernet card, $50 in RAM, or a $30 power supply, the cost justification isn't there. We're basically talking about someone getting anal about how many legal pads and pencils a person has on their desk. And in this sort of organization, my experience is that no amount of justification and explanation of cost/benefit analysis will cause the powers-that-be realize "yes, it's a good idea to have spare parts" (aside from fully-functional systems sitting around).
This is a concept quite easily understood in other industries. Surveying companies, road crews, etc. which need a fleet of vehicles keep spare filters, oil, and other commonly worn out parts/pieces (assuming they do their own work); very few actually account for these things short of "we're running out" because it's not worth the time, and they realize they need those parts to keep things running.
Granted, with a larger shop I can see this not being the case, but by "larger" I think you'd need an IT staff of at least 15 people to justify it (or, say, around 1500 employees).
I agree with this 100%. 100GB drives are in the ballpark of 8 years old now: that's almost outside the failure curve. I would not trust them to consistently spin up at this point. (Granted, I've seen entirely too many 'enterprise' 36GB disks in use, still, and those keep going too...)
In terms of the possibility of the project, I would consider it impractical if not impossible. It is certainly not maintainable. In terms of software technology, you are basically looking at using either something like Linux md RAID with lvm, ZFS, or (god forbid) FreeBSD geom. Geom really has nothing going for it, but mdraid is going to probably fail for you due to having frequent disk errors and ZFS will likely fail due to not handling vdevs with differing performance characteristics well and not being able to be dynamically expanded (like mdraid). You'll need at least 2 disks of the same/similar size for each primary component of the system (eg. a 150G and 120G in a single parity 120G array (RAID1)) unless resiliency and total data loss is not a concern for you.
A limitation you may run into is number of disk controllers. Not knowing how many disks or systems you've got, I can't say how feasible this is. I can say that the 8-disk LSI 1068e controllers are well vetted and fairly cheap. IBM and many others have been bundling PCI cards with either these controllers or their crippled siblings (eg. only 4 disks) with their servers for years, so if you have a machine with 4 PCIe slots and know where you might be able to get some of these (and then flash with the latest LSI 1068/1064/etc. TI firmware) you've got something to look at. Once you start spending money, though, I would recommend just buying disks (again, if this is anything more than an experiment and your data is worth anything). My personal price cutoff for 'janky' is about $25 unless there's a ready personal benefit (satisfaction of something convoluted/difficult) in doing so.
It would be interesting as an experiment, however, to see how resilient something like ZFS is with such old and error prone drives. Personally, I would not even attempt to use anything like this for more than just a JBOD backup backup, or the like.
I suppose it depends on where you're from (in my experience, California has some of the worst meat in the country - and the Northern Midwest, the best).
A good cut of meat tastes just fine with a touch of salt and course ground black pepper. I'm not talking prime rib or backstrap on a trophy cow here, just a common lean sirloin from a healthy animal, cooked correctly. The same largely goes for poultry and (to a lesser degree, because I'm not fond of the 'better' cuts) pork.
Some people say grain/corn-finished meat tastes best. Personally? I like full range meat - the stuff that tastes "gamey". It really does taste better. The grain fed stuff tastes mealy.
I also completely agree with you regarding the 'meat only' statements. No, I don't eat 'only meat'. But primarily meat? Yes, please. If it's good meat, at least. There's a big difference between a meat sauce on pasta and pasta with meat sauce: one tends to be, well, primarily meat; the other tends to be primarily pasta. I'll leave it to you to consider which is more filling.
Wait, so it's not a paid-for WebDAV account with a specialized (and well-done) client implementation?
Consider me uninterested.
He was eating grain-fed animals, though. And not following his diet (if you're referring to Atkins).
Native Americans ate primarily animal meat and vegetables. They didn't have any significant heart disease until we started introducing them to cultivated grains (and alcohol).
How is it difficult to eat "that way"?
IMO it's very easy to have a diet which is primarily meat. You don't have to eat a large pork rind for breakfast or a side of bacon every other week, but if you've got good quality meat available, short of filling up your cart with lots of different meats and a handful of odd veggies at the grocery, it's really not that hard.
You need less food (in volume) if you're eating meat than if you were eating a 'mixed' carb-heavy diet, too, which certainly helps. Judging from what I've seen vegans or even vegeterians deal with, it's certainly easier (in terms of food prep and quantity) and less costly.
Here in America, we also have processed grains in everything.
We also have a very high percentage of our diets consist of processed GMO grains (corn, wheat). If you're having 2 hamburgers with a handful of corn chips and two white wheat buns, the meat isn't going to be the primary component of the meal.
It seems that every couple months there's a news article about some old guy or gal who died after a fairly insignificant (not particularly active or sedentary, nothing really marked to note) life who spent their entire life having pork (ham/bacon) and eggs for breakfast every day. It wasn't until the inclusion of excess grains that Americans started to have issues in the late 1800s.
There is absolutely no information in the article. "Healthy fat found in seeds"?
What it sounds like they're doing is they've figured out how to genetically modify animals to produce omega 3 and similar types of fats instead of the fats commonly found in grain fed or industrially raised meats. That's actually fairly big (good) news, I think.
On the other hand, 'healthy' fat can be found in animals which are 'free range'. It's less environmentally intensive. The unhealthy fat found in animal meat is only unhealthy because of the way they're raised.
No kidding. I've seen a lot of horrible messes in my career, but OpenSSL tops them all.
I take it you don't have to work with OpenLDAP, then.
Yeah, and:
* Amateur craftsmen talk about whether Mikita or Black and Decker is better, whereas professionals talk about construction theory.
* Amateur combatants talk about which firearms are better and why, whereas professional combatants talk about the pros and cons of different ways to kill.
* Amateur netadmins talk about which brand of switch is better and professionals talk about how you can possibly arrange a network to get packets from one point to another.
You're confusing theoretical with professional. Amateurs are all talk about what can be done, not how to do it. (By this qualification, most sales and management are amateurs.) Professionals are about getting the job done and getting it done right - but significantly, getting it done at all. Professionals do, and the mechanics to get there are what is important.
(You're also conflating the topic on the presumption that there's a clear line.)
This may have been Nvidia's problem, but Apple is somewhat nefarious for problems like this going back over (almost?) 10 years. I've seen 5 different models of Apple laptop have BGA issues (some of which were able to be re-flowed, others were not). I'm not familiar with the 8400 issue, but the fact remains that Apple has always been fairly shit about honoring their hardware problems, in my experience. Even the major PC manufacturers that sucked (eg. Dell, at the time) did better during the capacitor issues circa 2003-2004 manufacturing.