Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I sure hope you don't find your organs being harvested because the doctor prefers to say "probably won't live" rather than "possibly will survive".
As they anesthetize the donor, I guess you won't wake up before they pull your organs. It leaves absolutely no chance that you'll open your eyes and say "Why is my chest open? Close it!"
My standing order regarding my life is this. If there's a chance I will live, give me the chance. If there's absolutely no chance that I will survive, let me go. If I am looking at a long, painful, terminal condition, give me the means to end it myself, and you can take what you want.
At some point, we all die. That's a given. If you die wishing someone else would die so you can get their organs, you don't deserve to live. You're wishing the early termination of another, when they may have had a chance, so you may have a chance. Why not go take organs from homeless, and give them to those who can afford such things? Pretend I didn't say that, it'll be the new Republican health care and economy saving plan.
I prefer to ask them "which god".:) There are thousands of active religions world wide, and more "gods" than that. There are plenty of older religions, which are not actively followed.
If you ask a conservative who "god" is, they will most likely describe the Christian "god". Propose it as I did, and they will be confused, as in their mind there is only "one god", and yes, your statement of zero-tolerance applies perfectly.
Florida just passed a bill allowing prayer in school, which is in direct violation of federal law and the US constitution. In other actions, they have defined non-secular activity as allowing those of "other" faiths to lead prayers before events (city council, school board, and county commission meetings specifically). All of the "other" faiths were Christian faiths of other denominations. Those of other faiths were explicitly excluded from such events.
There is some tolerance for other Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). According to the 2008 US Census, there were over 680,000 who identified their religion as "Pagan" or "Wiccan". There were over 34 million who identified as no religion (Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, "No religion", and "Other no religion". Over 11 million refused to answer the question. That does not account for error in the tabulations cause by social pressures. Plenty of people who believe other than the local norm will claim the local norm rather than risk being identified as believing otherwise.
Not necessarily. It depends on the state you work in. The officially recorded reason for termination rarely is the accurate one.
My girlfriend is one of those cases. It wasn't termination for drug violations, but that was part of the verbally stated, but not written, termination.
She was in a car accident a few years ago. It messed up her back, which was confirmed through medical examination. She already had some back problems, so there was a good medical record including MRIs and X-rays. Her last examination was one week before the accident.
Subsequent accidents showed new herniated discs. Further examination showed various soft tissue damage.
She had worked for over a decade with the chain, and had just changed over to another branch before the accident. After the accident, she required frequent doctor visits, and time off due to migraine headaches. I suffer from the same thing, except mine was from an accident years before. Basically if there is an irritation to the disc, which can include just moving the wrong way, it will cause nerve pain, and muscle contractions/spasms. When that happens in the neck, it can extend up the neck, and become a migraine.
She was told that she could not take any, or be under the influence of any, doctor prescribed drugs while at work. We're not talking about drugged out of your skull, and drooling on yourself. Muscle relaxers to reduce the contractions. Low dosage pain killers take the edge off the pain.
Because she went to the doctor and doctor prescribed therapy, she was terminated. That's what she was told when she was fired.
Her official termination reason was for disrespectful conduct on the telephone. It was claimed that she said something unbecoming to the company while on the telephone. They claim to have a recording of it, but will not release the recording for evidence. They won't even release information relating to the other party on the call, the phone number, or transcripts of any part of the call. She does not recall such a conversation happening.
Basically, they say there was a reason. They don't have to prove the reason.
As employment attorneys in this state say, "you can be fired because of the color of your shoes.". It's not that your shoe color is any different than anyone else.
I was fired from a job because I was at my step son's funeral. The boss told me to take as much time as I needed. I kept him informed of what was happening. We had two wakes. One was where we lived, and where he is buried. The other was where he grew up, and there were family and friends who needed to mourn him. We obviously were at both. The day before I was to return home, and return to work, I got the call saying I no longer had a job. There are a stack of loopholes that need minimal evidence, where you *can* be fired for such things, and have no legal recourse.
Ya, it's a great state to work in. Employees only have the privilege of working because the employer wants them to. I've heard of people being terminated for their desk being too messy, or too clean. Do you have not enough, or too much "personal" stuff (in the opinion of the employer)? You're gone. I've learned not to keep personal items at work, because an employer can and will terminate you without any warning. I've collected personal stuff for ex-coworkers, because they were escorted from the building without being allowed to return to their desk.
One guy was fired, because he asked for a raise, to bring his pay closer, but not matching to new hires. New sysadmins with less experience were being hired on at $75k/yr. He had made $30k/yr for several years with the company. On the record, it was because he had a "disrespectful" attitude towards his manager. He played the game properly, and was still fired. And to this day I will be a job reference for him, because he was really a good employee.
It's funny how each side points at the other side when something goes too far to an extreme. But you are correct.
Liberals, by definition, would not set a zero-tolerance stance on much of anything. The final decisions on if something should or shouldn't be allowed, would remain with the the citizen. People are rational enough to make their own decisions, and it does not require government intervention to make choices for them. Those unable to make their own choices would most likely be eliminated from the society, and the species, by natural selection.
The contrasting Conservative, wouldn't believe in natural selection, nor the rights of citizens to make decisions for themselves. Strict laws must be put in place to ensure society follows their beliefs, and strict penalties for disobedience.
In my state, you have the right to demand a blood test.
By refusing an alcohol test, you will have your license revoked, and the refusal will be considered an admission of guilt. I've been told by numerous defense attorneys to demand the blood test if I *ever* get stopped for suspicion of DUI. It doesn't matter if I haven't touched alcohol in weeks.
And yes, you will get handcuffed, dragged down to the station, processed, and then taken to the hospital for the test.
There are two reasons for demanding the blood test. The first is to avoid inaccuracy with the breath test. The second is that time passes between the road-side stop and the blood being drawn. If you were drinking, and you would have been a borderline fail when you were stopped, you'll have metabolized enough to allow for a pass at the hospital.
There are folks like me, who have a high tolerance for alcohol. I pick the safe alternative, getting a ride rather than driving even still, if I have a few drinks and get pulled over, I will pass the general roadside tests (walking a line, reciting the alphabet, etc).
There are plenty of days which I would fail the physical parts, because I have back problems. Because of this, it is in my best interest to demand a blood test. For example, right now the herniated disks in my back are killing me. I haven't touched any alcohol for months. I couldn't pass a road side test. I'd find it difficult to stand up straight. I have a well documented history of this, but it would mean I'd end up unjustly arrested, and it would cost me money to fight it in court.
Actually, testing for alcohol consumption 14 days later makes perfect sense.
If the incident happened on a Friday night, 14 days later is again a Friday night. If you go drinking with the guys (or girls, or whatevers), you'll most likely test positive again.:)
Honestly though, you're right. You'll can register a BAC up to about 12 hours after drinking. That's an extreme, and you'd probably be in the hospital (or morgue).
An EtG test (testing to if you did metabolize alcohol) is reported to be viable up to about 80 hours (3.4 days) after consumption. That only says you were exposed, not how much you drank. That's only useful if you are forbidden from drinking, and can give false positive reports from using alcohol based mouthwash or hand sanitizer (among other things).
Labs can report how much was present, or if a trace was present. There are plenty of people who function normally, that will test positive for a variety of drugs. Unfortunately, the prosecution will use any detection as proof of impairment. It's up to the defense to show that it wasn't an amount for impairment.
I've seen this in the workplace too. Someone tested positive for opiates. They were prescribed opiate based pain killers, and were not taking them in excess. Because the company had a zero tolerance policy, that person was fired. They did not allow introduction of evidence to counter the drug test report. As the rumor mill retold the story, she tested positive for "heroin", but as the drug tests aren't that specific, that was an incorrect assertion. I don't know if she sued or not, but I hope she did.
I used that as an example. A lot of people swear by it. I normally keep my DNS servers as *just* DNS servers. It's a great way to repurpose old equipment. Even in an environment where we had millions of daily viewers, the DNS servers were pretty much idle all the time.
I suspect the idea was from the "good old days", where people may have everything tied together with a 10Mb/s hub, which would suffer from massive collisions all the time anyways.
They probably intended it to just be a caching DNS server, but plenty of people misinterpreted that as their public DNS server. In either case, it's a DNS server. Caching or not, if it's the only listed resolver in resolv.conf, it has to be there.
I could extend the insanity out. -ssh- on Linux machines. -RDP- on Windows machines.
Like someone else said, DNS isn't and shouldn't be used as an asset management system. 01-19.nyc.example.com should be sufficient. If you want to know *what* that machine does, it should be cross referenced with the asset management system. Database, flat file, whiteboard, or scribbled notes thumb-tacked to the wall, it doesn't matter. Sadly, I've seen quite a few places that don't even have the scribbled notes. Asset management is in someone's head, and probably should be extracted with a fire axe.
Well changing hostnames *is* a big deal, if you aren't local to the servers. Who's going to change the sticker on the machine? Helping hands? That'll get expensive real quick. So don't change the sticker? Good luck when the day comes that you have to get helping hands to reboot it. Or when you send someone out to work on obscure129551, just to find that it's now named obscure95128.
I've been that guy. I showed up at the datacenter. Luckily they had one rack. So only 1/3 of the machines had labels that weren't in the inventory. I spent a couple hours on the phone with the office, where people kept asking each other what the real machines were.
They actually used city names in the hostnames. Unfortunately, a bunch of machines were moved in from other datacenters, and the labels were never changed. Most of the people hadn't even heard of servers ever being in the city that the stickers said.
These particular machines were quirky. If they had been rebooted without a monitor attached, the screen was dead til it was rebooted. I wanted to just reboot them so I could see them. The refused, because there were "essential" production machines running in the same space, that couldn't be rebooted. Couldn't as in they had a 15 page restart document. If you rebooted a box, you had to carry out 15 pages of procedures across a half dozen other machines to bring it back up. That took 1.5 to 2 hours.
VirtualBox has a "teleport" function. It's CLI, not GUI.
If you're using a small setup, that uses local storage, you'll have to take it down, copy it over, and bring it back up on the new server. On any of them, that will be required to adjust load. If one VM gets real busy, you'll want to move it over to a host with less activity on it. That, or move others away from it.
I have a small environment of a couple dozen VMs using VirtualBox. It takes less time to move a VM to another host, than it would have to move a physical server between racks.:)
You should put a sticker on the rack too.:) It'll help new sysadmins. Third rack from the left? Is that when facing the front or back? I guess it'd work for the 3rd rack, if you only had 5 racks in there.
I've seen planets, animals, countries, and all kinds of arbitrary names. One place we had: mx, nic, noc, steak, smart, stupid, free, gen, It's been a while, I can't remember the other names, but they were just as bad.
I try to standardize names, with something like unit.rack.city/airport.company.tld. It becomes *very* important when you have multiple racks, in multiple cities.
Once upon a time, one of my machines was p01.yyz.example.com. We combined the rack and unit, as we (hopefully) wouldn't use up the alphabet in that one location. That was, rack P, machine 01, Toronto datacenter.
Without such a designation, and if you have a lot of machines, it gets to be *really* hard to figure out where to fix something.
One place had web01.example.com through web15.example.com. Those were spread across 4 datacenters, and in no particular order. Some datacenters used multiple racks in the same IP address space. Which datacenter do you call when the machine crashes and won't come back up?
I like sequential numbering. When you're doing upgrades, it's easier to go straight down the list, and assign blocks of machines to different people to do. You take a01.nyc through c40.nyc. I'll take d01.nyc through f40.nyc. I'd usually do it in smaller blocks of say 10 or so. That way, we could do blocks, and when someone finished their assigned block, I could assign them the next one.
Switching names can be hard. Where I am now, we have logical names assigned. Some people *still* call them by their old names. Even though we have maps and lists, I get asked "where are fubar, mouse, rat, elvis, and estonia?"
There's nothing so wrong with having more than one thing on a server. Using that for the name is a bad idea. mail-dns-web-imap-pop3-smtp.example.com .
Having a DNS server on the mail server can help cut down latency looking up hostnames. You may have a web interface to manage it, or for users to check email.
The question would be, would anyone look for that? Consider the crime scene. El Presidente's bedroom. Witnesses heard a loud explosion. There may or may not have been witnesses who saw a light moments before impact.
Inspection of the room would show damage from an explosion. I haven't worked with objects smacking into each other at mach 10, so I don't know what kind of heat energy would be released. It's likely some would. At very least, the rod would likely be hot, and potentially catch objects around it on fire.
If the rod were stuffed with thermite, that could help with the effect. There would be a crater, that would be consistent with an explosion. They wouldn't even need a detonator, if they built it right. The heat from entering the atmosphere could likely ignite it. Alternatively, a glass vile on top with separate parts of... well, I won't make this any more of a cookbook than necessary... would shatter on impact, and in a short while start combustion. All you'd have is some molten metal by the time crime scene investigators got to it.
What's easier to believe? That someone got a bomb into the building, that someone shot a rocket at the building, or that self destructing rods was launched from orbit to destroy the building?
Yup, you got me. Of the tens of thousands of words I type a day, I made a little mistake. Congratulations. Ed McMahon will be by with your prize shortly.
Simple answer for your complex question. "X-37C or X-37D".
It wouldn't necessarily *have* to be a kinetic weapon, that was just an example. How about a titanium cased nuclear warhead? What about, the contents of a XM1028 would make a pretty nasty impression on a populated area. Titanium rain, falling at Mach 10 doesn't sound like somewhere I'd want to be standing.
Not all strategic strikes are made to level an entire country. Sometimes you just need to put a meteorite through the bedroom of a world leader.
Snipers can be captured, and interrogated. A piece of rebar in the destroyed floor of a room is just another piece of rebar.
Remember, humans are really great at one thing, finding new ways to kill each other. I have no reason to believe the agency who owns the biggest weapon in the world would be doing something secretively for a humanitarian mission. That kind of conflicts with their job description.
Like I said, depending on *where* it hit. If it hit a few hundred feet into the ocean near Los Angeles or New York, that could be serious. If it hit in the middle of the ocean, well, not so much.:)
For arguments sake, you have an early warning of 27 minutes from launch to impact, if you detected the launch.
If you didn't, but you spotted it at the apogee, then you have roughly half the time.
And if you didn't detect the launch nor approach, your early warning time could be damned close to 0.
As the package isn't all that big, it may register as a flash on someone's radar.
Early warning is all about getting the target out of the way of the weapon, and returning the favor. During the Cold War, we had mutually assured destruction. If someone launches at us, we launch at them. We are also getting our "important" people out of the target zone. How politicians make the list of "important" people is still beyond me.
And I will agree, there's likely questionable things on quite a few objects we've put into orbit over the years on "top secret" flights. Spy gear has generally been more useful than weapons we may never use. Now, having the DoD with their own private shuttles becomes a bigger concern.
If the US DoD were to stage troops and/or weapons at any countries border, that would be indicative of a plan for near future action. Having a fighter jet fly over is a hostile act. So the only difference between the X-37B fly over, and F-15 fly over during the Cold War was, you know what the F-15 is capable of.
If we're lucky, it will be a DoD sponsored replacement for the shuttle, to efficiently move crew to and from the ISS. That's one of the suggested purposes for the X-37C. Who knows if that will happen though.
Who's to say that they aren't. It's not like you or I work for NASA. Beyond that, there are an awful lot of people working there on different projects.
There is one problem with trying to make a catch-all plan. It's impractical. Planning for an object coming in on the orbital path of the Earth may be practical. Last time I checked, space is 3 dimensional. Look North at night (or South for those in the Southern hemisphere), there's stuff up there too.:) Intersecting with an object a year, or years away that wouldn't have a good escape vector from an equatorial orbit would be difficult to impossible with our current technology.
So, the idea of a catch-all asteroid playbook would be nice. It would be nicer if it wouldn't take dozens of launches to get the materials and fuel up there to do it. In 20 or 30 years, we'll hopefully have advanced, if our space travel advancements haven't crawled to a halt. Right now, we're pretty close to that.
You know, I've seen weirder things come out of Washington. If it were real, it wouldn't have made an obscure footnote in the paper. Well, except on Fox News. They'd be carrying the party line to unreasonable extremes.
That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.
We've identified what we believe to be other rarer objects. Say it was a chunk of something like BPM 37093. I suspect that would be dangerous on reentry. I'm not a geologist, so I won't attempt to guess what would happen to it. Would it shatter, melt, or remain one relatively solid mass the whole way down.
If so, I don't think it would be an ELE. Tragic? Possibly, depending on where it hit. Catastrophic? probably not. Despite the way things look in population centers, there are vast areas of relatively uninhabited land around the world. If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.
Well, if it has the same speed of a shuttle, a full orbit is 90 minutes.
27 minutes from launch to impact depends on being able to detect the launch. With no launch detection, because it's just dropped, means they have to hope to pick up a 2m x 1m deorbiting.
Look for "hypervelocity rod bundles", and "Project Thor". This appears to be the initial implementation of that project.
Officially, we've agreed to not weaponize space. I'd be willing to be they'd say "It's not space, it's a high altitude aircraft."
Ya, I guess it is safer in orbit than say in Modesto, CA (2010 highest per capita vehicle theft rate). Now I want to go steal it, just to ruin that stat. How bad would it skew the numbers, with a population of 0 and 1 theft.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure hope you don't find your organs being harvested because the doctor prefers to say "probably won't live" rather than "possibly will survive".
As they anesthetize the donor, I guess you won't wake up before they pull your organs. It leaves absolutely no chance that you'll open your eyes and say "Why is my chest open? Close it!"
My standing order regarding my life is this. If there's a chance I will live, give me the chance. If there's absolutely no chance that I will survive, let me go. If I am looking at a long, painful, terminal condition, give me the means to end it myself, and you can take what you want.
At some point, we all die. That's a given. If you die wishing someone else would die so you can get their organs, you don't deserve to live. You're wishing the early termination of another, when they may have had a chance, so you may have a chance. Why not go take organs from homeless, and give them to those who can afford such things? Pretend I didn't say that, it'll be the new Republican health care and economy saving plan.
I prefer to ask them "which god". :) There are thousands of active religions world wide, and more "gods" than that. There are plenty of older religions, which are not actively followed.
If you ask a conservative who "god" is, they will most likely describe the Christian "god". Propose it as I did, and they will be confused, as in their mind there is only "one god", and yes, your statement of zero-tolerance applies perfectly.
Florida just passed a bill allowing prayer in school, which is in direct violation of federal law and the US constitution. In other actions, they have defined non-secular activity as allowing those of "other" faiths to lead prayers before events (city council, school board, and county commission meetings specifically). All of the "other" faiths were Christian faiths of other denominations. Those of other faiths were explicitly excluded from such events.
There is some tolerance for other Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). According to the 2008 US Census, there were over 680,000 who identified their religion as "Pagan" or "Wiccan". There were over 34 million who identified as no religion (Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, "No religion", and "Other no religion". Over 11 million refused to answer the question. That does not account for error in the tabulations cause by social pressures. Plenty of people who believe other than the local norm will claim the local norm rather than risk being identified as believing otherwise.
Citations:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf [PDF]
Not necessarily. It depends on the state you work in. The officially recorded reason for termination rarely is the accurate one.
My girlfriend is one of those cases. It wasn't termination for drug violations, but that was part of the verbally stated, but not written, termination.
She was in a car accident a few years ago. It messed up her back, which was confirmed through medical examination. She already had some back problems, so there was a good medical record including MRIs and X-rays. Her last examination was one week before the accident.
Subsequent accidents showed new herniated discs. Further examination showed various soft tissue damage.
She had worked for over a decade with the chain, and had just changed over to another branch before the accident. After the accident, she required frequent doctor visits, and time off due to migraine headaches. I suffer from the same thing, except mine was from an accident years before. Basically if there is an irritation to the disc, which can include just moving the wrong way, it will cause nerve pain, and muscle contractions/spasms. When that happens in the neck, it can extend up the neck, and become a migraine.
She was told that she could not take any, or be under the influence of any, doctor prescribed drugs while at work. We're not talking about drugged out of your skull, and drooling on yourself. Muscle relaxers to reduce the contractions. Low dosage pain killers take the edge off the pain.
Because she went to the doctor and doctor prescribed therapy, she was terminated. That's what she was told when she was fired.
Her official termination reason was for disrespectful conduct on the telephone. It was claimed that she said something unbecoming to the company while on the telephone. They claim to have a recording of it, but will not release the recording for evidence. They won't even release information relating to the other party on the call, the phone number, or transcripts of any part of the call. She does not recall such a conversation happening.
Basically, they say there was a reason. They don't have to prove the reason.
As employment attorneys in this state say, "you can be fired because of the color of your shoes.". It's not that your shoe color is any different than anyone else.
I was fired from a job because I was at my step son's funeral. The boss told me to take as much time as I needed. I kept him informed of what was happening. We had two wakes. One was where we lived, and where he is buried. The other was where he grew up, and there were family and friends who needed to mourn him. We obviously were at both. The day before I was to return home, and return to work, I got the call saying I no longer had a job. There are a stack of loopholes that need minimal evidence, where you *can* be fired for such things, and have no legal recourse.
Ya, it's a great state to work in. Employees only have the privilege of working because the employer wants them to. I've heard of people being terminated for their desk being too messy, or too clean. Do you have not enough, or too much "personal" stuff (in the opinion of the employer)? You're gone. I've learned not to keep personal items at work, because an employer can and will terminate you without any warning. I've collected personal stuff for ex-coworkers, because they were escorted from the building without being allowed to return to their desk.
One guy was fired, because he asked for a raise, to bring his pay closer, but not matching to new hires. New sysadmins with less experience were being hired on at $75k/yr. He had made $30k/yr for several years with the company. On the record, it was because he had a "disrespectful" attitude towards his manager. He played the game properly, and was still fired. And to this day I will be a job reference for him, because he was really a good employee.
It's funny how each side points at the other side when something goes too far to an extreme. But you are correct.
Liberals, by definition, would not set a zero-tolerance stance on much of anything. The final decisions on if something should or shouldn't be allowed, would remain with the the citizen. People are rational enough to make their own decisions, and it does not require government intervention to make choices for them. Those unable to make their own choices would most likely be eliminated from the society, and the species, by natural selection.
The contrasting Conservative, wouldn't believe in natural selection, nor the rights of citizens to make decisions for themselves. Strict laws must be put in place to ensure society follows their beliefs, and strict penalties for disobedience.
In my state, you have the right to demand a blood test.
By refusing an alcohol test, you will have your license revoked, and the refusal will be considered an admission of guilt. I've been told by numerous defense attorneys to demand the blood test if I *ever* get stopped for suspicion of DUI. It doesn't matter if I haven't touched alcohol in weeks.
And yes, you will get handcuffed, dragged down to the station, processed, and then taken to the hospital for the test.
There are two reasons for demanding the blood test. The first is to avoid inaccuracy with the breath test. The second is that time passes between the road-side stop and the blood being drawn. If you were drinking, and you would have been a borderline fail when you were stopped, you'll have metabolized enough to allow for a pass at the hospital.
There are folks like me, who have a high tolerance for alcohol. I pick the safe alternative, getting a ride rather than driving even still, if I have a few drinks and get pulled over, I will pass the general roadside tests (walking a line, reciting the alphabet, etc).
There are plenty of days which I would fail the physical parts, because I have back problems. Because of this, it is in my best interest to demand a blood test. For example, right now the herniated disks in my back are killing me. I haven't touched any alcohol for months. I couldn't pass a road side test. I'd find it difficult to stand up straight. I have a well documented history of this, but it would mean I'd end up unjustly arrested, and it would cost me money to fight it in court.
Actually, testing for alcohol consumption 14 days later makes perfect sense.
If the incident happened on a Friday night, 14 days later is again a Friday night. If you go drinking with the guys (or girls, or whatevers), you'll most likely test positive again. :)
Honestly though, you're right. You'll can register a BAC up to about 12 hours after drinking. That's an extreme, and you'd probably be in the hospital (or morgue).
An EtG test (testing to if you did metabolize alcohol) is reported to be viable up to about 80 hours (3.4 days) after consumption. That only says you were exposed, not how much you drank. That's only useful if you are forbidden from drinking, and can give false positive reports from using alcohol based mouthwash or hand sanitizer (among other things).
Labs can report how much was present, or if a trace was present. There are plenty of people who function normally, that will test positive for a variety of drugs. Unfortunately, the prosecution will use any detection as proof of impairment. It's up to the defense to show that it wasn't an amount for impairment.
I've seen this in the workplace too. Someone tested positive for opiates. They were prescribed opiate based pain killers, and were not taking them in excess. Because the company had a zero tolerance policy, that person was fired. They did not allow introduction of evidence to counter the drug test report. As the rumor mill retold the story, she tested positive for "heroin", but as the drug tests aren't that specific, that was an incorrect assertion. I don't know if she sued or not, but I hope she did.
I used that as an example. A lot of people swear by it. I normally keep my DNS servers as *just* DNS servers. It's a great way to repurpose old equipment. Even in an environment where we had millions of daily viewers, the DNS servers were pretty much idle all the time.
I suspect the idea was from the "good old days", where people may have everything tied together with a 10Mb/s hub, which would suffer from massive collisions all the time anyways.
They probably intended it to just be a caching DNS server, but plenty of people misinterpreted that as their public DNS server. In either case, it's a DNS server. Caching or not, if it's the only listed resolver in resolv.conf, it has to be there.
I could extend the insanity out. -ssh- on Linux machines. -RDP- on Windows machines.
Like someone else said, DNS isn't and shouldn't be used as an asset management system. 01-19.nyc.example.com should be sufficient. If you want to know *what* that machine does, it should be cross referenced with the asset management system. Database, flat file, whiteboard, or scribbled notes thumb-tacked to the wall, it doesn't matter. Sadly, I've seen quite a few places that don't even have the scribbled notes. Asset management is in someone's head, and probably should be extracted with a fire axe.
The flaw was exposed in February 2011 by an undercover TSA agent. He tested a known, unpatched, exploit.
Here's more links to stories.
Well changing hostnames *is* a big deal, if you aren't local to the servers. Who's going to change the sticker on the machine? Helping hands? That'll get expensive real quick. So don't change the sticker? Good luck when the day comes that you have to get helping hands to reboot it. Or when you send someone out to work on obscure129551, just to find that it's now named obscure95128.
I've been that guy. I showed up at the datacenter. Luckily they had one rack. So only 1/3 of the machines had labels that weren't in the inventory. I spent a couple hours on the phone with the office, where people kept asking each other what the real machines were.
They actually used city names in the hostnames. Unfortunately, a bunch of machines were moved in from other datacenters, and the labels were never changed. Most of the people hadn't even heard of servers ever being in the city that the stickers said.
These particular machines were quirky. If they had been rebooted without a monitor attached, the screen was dead til it was rebooted. I wanted to just reboot them so I could see them. The refused, because there were "essential" production machines running in the same space, that couldn't be rebooted. Couldn't as in they had a 15 page restart document. If you rebooted a box, you had to carry out 15 pages of procedures across a half dozen other machines to bring it back up. That took 1.5 to 2 hours.
VirtualBox has a "teleport" function. It's CLI, not GUI.
If you're using a small setup, that uses local storage, you'll have to take it down, copy it over, and bring it back up on the new server. On any of them, that will be required to adjust load. If one VM gets real busy, you'll want to move it over to a host with less activity on it. That, or move others away from it.
I have a small environment of a couple dozen VMs using VirtualBox. It takes less time to move a VM to another host, than it would have to move a physical server between racks. :)
You should put a sticker on the rack too. :) It'll help new sysadmins. Third rack from the left? Is that when facing the front or back? I guess it'd work for the 3rd rack, if you only had 5 racks in there.
What server room and rack is gold.berkeley.edu sit in? Would that be by chemistry, geology, or finance?
I've seen planets, animals, countries, and all kinds of arbitrary names. One place we had: mx, nic, noc, steak, smart, stupid, free, gen, It's been a while, I can't remember the other names, but they were just as bad.
I try to standardize names, with something like unit.rack.city/airport.company.tld. It becomes *very* important when you have multiple racks, in multiple cities.
Once upon a time, one of my machines was p01.yyz.example.com. We combined the rack and unit, as we (hopefully) wouldn't use up the alphabet in that one location. That was, rack P, machine 01, Toronto datacenter.
Without such a designation, and if you have a lot of machines, it gets to be *really* hard to figure out where to fix something.
One place had web01.example.com through web15.example.com. Those were spread across 4 datacenters, and in no particular order. Some datacenters used multiple racks in the same IP address space. Which datacenter do you call when the machine crashes and won't come back up?
I like sequential numbering. When you're doing upgrades, it's easier to go straight down the list, and assign blocks of machines to different people to do. You take a01.nyc through c40.nyc. I'll take d01.nyc through f40.nyc. I'd usually do it in smaller blocks of say 10 or so. That way, we could do blocks, and when someone finished their assigned block, I could assign them the next one.
Switching names can be hard. Where I am now, we have logical names assigned. Some people *still* call them by their old names. Even though we have maps and lists, I get asked "where are fubar, mouse, rat, elvis, and estonia?"
There's nothing so wrong with having more than one thing on a server. Using that for the name is a bad idea. mail-dns-web-imap-pop3-smtp.example.com .
Having a DNS server on the mail server can help cut down latency looking up hostnames. You may have a web interface to manage it, or for users to check email.
The question would be, would anyone look for that? Consider the crime scene. El Presidente's bedroom. Witnesses heard a loud explosion. There may or may not have been witnesses who saw a light moments before impact.
Inspection of the room would show damage from an explosion. I haven't worked with objects smacking into each other at mach 10, so I don't know what kind of heat energy would be released. It's likely some would. At very least, the rod would likely be hot, and potentially catch objects around it on fire.
If the rod were stuffed with thermite, that could help with the effect. There would be a crater, that would be consistent with an explosion. They wouldn't even need a detonator, if they built it right. The heat from entering the atmosphere could likely ignite it. Alternatively, a glass vile on top with separate parts of ... well, I won't make this any more of a cookbook than necessary ... would shatter on impact, and in a short while start combustion. All you'd have is some molten metal by the time crime scene investigators got to it.
What's easier to believe? That someone got a bomb into the building, that someone shot a rocket at the building, or that self destructing rods was launched from orbit to destroy the building?
And I still wonder why the DoD hasn't hired me. :)
Sorry sir, you damaged the license. You'll need to purchase a new license at full retail value.
Yup, you got me. Of the tens of thousands of words I type a day, I made a little mistake. Congratulations. Ed McMahon will be by with your prize shortly.
Simple answer for your complex question. "X-37C or X-37D".
It wouldn't necessarily *have* to be a kinetic weapon, that was just an example. How about a titanium cased nuclear warhead? What about, the contents of a XM1028 would make a pretty nasty impression on a populated area. Titanium rain, falling at Mach 10 doesn't sound like somewhere I'd want to be standing.
Not all strategic strikes are made to level an entire country. Sometimes you just need to put a meteorite through the bedroom of a world leader.
Snipers can be captured, and interrogated. A piece of rebar in the destroyed floor of a room is just another piece of rebar.
Remember, humans are really great at one thing, finding new ways to kill each other. I have no reason to believe the agency who owns the biggest weapon in the world would be doing something secretively for a humanitarian mission. That kind of conflicts with their job description.
Like I said, depending on *where* it hit. If it hit a few hundred feet into the ocean near Los Angeles or New York, that could be serious. If it hit in the middle of the ocean, well, not so much. :)
For arguments sake, you have an early warning of 27 minutes from launch to impact, if you detected the launch.
If you didn't, but you spotted it at the apogee, then you have roughly half the time.
And if you didn't detect the launch nor approach, your early warning time could be damned close to 0.
As the package isn't all that big, it may register as a flash on someone's radar.
Early warning is all about getting the target out of the way of the weapon, and returning the favor. During the Cold War, we had mutually assured destruction. If someone launches at us, we launch at them. We are also getting our "important" people out of the target zone. How politicians make the list of "important" people is still beyond me.
And I will agree, there's likely questionable things on quite a few objects we've put into orbit over the years on "top secret" flights. Spy gear has generally been more useful than weapons we may never use. Now, having the DoD with their own private shuttles becomes a bigger concern.
If the US DoD were to stage troops and/or weapons at any countries border, that would be indicative of a plan for near future action. Having a fighter jet fly over is a hostile act. So the only difference between the X-37B fly over, and F-15 fly over during the Cold War was, you know what the F-15 is capable of.
If we're lucky, it will be a DoD sponsored replacement for the shuttle, to efficiently move crew to and from the ISS. That's one of the suggested purposes for the X-37C. Who knows if that will happen though.
Who's to say that they aren't. It's not like you or I work for NASA. Beyond that, there are an awful lot of people working there on different projects.
There is one problem with trying to make a catch-all plan. It's impractical. Planning for an object coming in on the orbital path of the Earth may be practical. Last time I checked, space is 3 dimensional. Look North at night (or South for those in the Southern hemisphere), there's stuff up there too. :) Intersecting with an object a year, or years away that wouldn't have a good escape vector from an equatorial orbit would be difficult to impossible with our current technology.
So, the idea of a catch-all asteroid playbook would be nice. It would be nicer if it wouldn't take dozens of launches to get the materials and fuel up there to do it. In 20 or 30 years, we'll hopefully have advanced, if our space travel advancements haven't crawled to a halt. Right now, we're pretty close to that.
You know, I've seen weirder things come out of Washington. If it were real, it wouldn't have made an obscure footnote in the paper. Well, except on Fox News. They'd be carrying the party line to unreasonable extremes.
That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.
We've identified what we believe to be other rarer objects. Say it was a chunk of something like BPM 37093. I suspect that would be dangerous on reentry. I'm not a geologist, so I won't attempt to guess what would happen to it. Would it shatter, melt, or remain one relatively solid mass the whole way down.
If so, I don't think it would be an ELE. Tragic? Possibly, depending on where it hit. Catastrophic? probably not. Despite the way things look in population centers, there are vast areas of relatively uninhabited land around the world. If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.
Well, if it has the same speed of a shuttle, a full orbit is 90 minutes.
27 minutes from launch to impact depends on being able to detect the launch. With no launch detection, because it's just dropped, means they have to hope to pick up a 2m x 1m deorbiting.
Look for "hypervelocity rod bundles", and "Project Thor". This appears to be the initial implementation of that project.
Officially, we've agreed to not weaponize space. I'd be willing to be they'd say "It's not space, it's a high altitude aircraft."
Ya, I guess it is safer in orbit than say in Modesto, CA (2010 highest per capita vehicle theft rate). Now I want to go steal it, just to ruin that stat. How bad would it skew the numbers, with a population of 0 and 1 theft.