Most companies big enough to have 100,000 pieces of paperwork already have a competent SysAdmin of their own, who will also be responsible for the maintenance of all their current electronic documents. In that case, we're not talking about setting up an entire infrastructure for the scanned documents, rather we just use the infrastructure that's already there, and add the scanned paperwork to the existing electronic documentation. Maybe they'll have to buy an extra disk, and add it to the backup routine.
but their SysAdmin costs are also likely sourced from the most inexpensive resources available on the planet.
Well, if you put it like that, it sounds like the perfect candidate to handle the only copy of my precious private documents.
Are you considering the total annual cost of servers, redundant storage, backup hardware, software and media, software licenses, real estate costs/taxes, and IT staff to run it all?
Having all those things done by some external party doesn't magically reduce the cost.
A single competent SysAdmin (fully loaded) would cost more than that for one year, and you've not even spent money on hardware and software yet.
Apparently, you don't need a single competent sysadmin to maintain 100,000 scanned pages, otherwise they could never offer it so cheap.
You're right. I just googled shit smells good and got millions of hits to read and study. Thank you for that tip.
I stand corrected. I had assumed people would be smart enough to enter the correct queries, but I've overestimated your skills. Please accept my apologies.
If you're looking at the very first start, yes, Christianity was a few centuries earlier, but it didn't really grow big until the 6th century. You can't really torture and kill people for religious reasons until you have some power in numbers. Same as we're seeing in European cities now. When the muslims were a tiny minority, they were quiet. Now that they start controlling bigger city areas, they want to impose their crazy ideas on the rest of us.
The dropped the bombs because they were in a war with Japan, not because they disagreed with them, or because they were predominantly Christian. If Harry Truman had not been a Christian, he still would have ordered the bombs to be dropped.
Correct, there are many other factors, especially over longer time scales. Some of them play a small role now, but nothing significant. Do you think current scientific theories about the Earth's climate have a problem explaining the events during Jurassic ?
It is therefore not possible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature
Of course that's possible, just by looking at the physical properties of the CO2 molecule.
Carbon is not the enemy. It is actually the reason that we are alive.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have harmful properties. A glass of water is nice, drowning in a pool is not.
Bullshit. Modern diseases are not caused by foods that have been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years. They've been caused by modern processed crap such as sugar, white flour and industrial vegetable oils.
As far as the environment is concerned, meat production is only a small problem.
So far, the "only" two nuclear weapons used against populated areas were used by Christians.
Not really. They were used by the USA, which happened to be a predominantly Christian country, but that doesn't mean there were any religious motives involved, or that it was carried out by a group of Christians.
There's AGW, anthropogenic global warming, and there's CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
There's also VIAGW, very inconvenient anthropogenic global warming. It's not black or white.
If the Democrats object to nuclear power given its potential to provide safe and carbon free energy then they must not see CAGW as a real threat
Or maybe they feel that replacing a bunch of ships with nuclear versions wouldn't make a significant contribution to averting the threat, at least not compared to whatever negative opinion they have about nukes.
The weather/climate system is a complicated, chaotic system. If we do enact this system then what happens to the countries that go through drought/floods/ etc. due to this system?
The same is true for adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but we're not stopping that either.
if a few minuscule tests look good, we should roll out a full-scale implementation on the whole planet
There's no reason to do it like that. Instead we could just gradually scale up the size of the tests, and stop at any time that we start seeing negative effects.
So even the Democrats don't seem concerned about CAGW any more.
A bit simplistic, right ? Just because someone is concerned about AGW, doesn't mean that don't have any other objections to things that could reduce CO2.
If only we had enough people that could get their heads out of their respective asses and do the math then they'd realize we had the answer to CAGW sixty years ago
The Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors were commissioned in the '70s and '80s, so sixty years ago would have been too early to start.
Notice that nobody ever addresses the objections, because it's simply not possible for the AGW supporters to do so.
On the contrary. All objections have been addressed over and over again. Deniers just keep repeating them. All the information is out there, and can be found with a few simple google queries, for those interested.
Slashdot Mirror
Most companies big enough to have 100,000 pieces of paperwork already have a competent SysAdmin of their own, who will also be responsible for the maintenance of all their current electronic documents. In that case, we're not talking about setting up an entire infrastructure for the scanned documents, rather we just use the infrastructure that's already there, and add the scanned paperwork to the existing electronic documentation. Maybe they'll have to buy an extra disk, and add it to the backup routine.
but their SysAdmin costs are also likely sourced from the most inexpensive resources available on the planet.
Well, if you put it like that, it sounds like the perfect candidate to handle the only copy of my precious private documents.
Are you considering the total annual cost of servers, redundant storage, backup hardware, software and media, software licenses, real estate costs/taxes, and IT staff to run it all?
Having all those things done by some external party doesn't magically reduce the cost.
A single competent SysAdmin (fully loaded) would cost more than that for one year, and you've not even spent money on hardware and software yet.
Apparently, you don't need a single competent sysadmin to maintain 100,000 scanned pages, otherwise they could never offer it so cheap.
You're right. I just googled shit smells good and got millions of hits to read and study. Thank you for that tip.
I stand corrected. I had assumed people would be smart enough to enter the correct queries, but I've overestimated your skills. Please accept my apologies.
Where do you live that you have concerns to be killed by Muslims? Sudan? Saudi Arabia?
London, Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Nice ?
If you're looking at the very first start, yes, Christianity was a few centuries earlier, but it didn't really grow big until the 6th century. You can't really torture and kill people for religious reasons until you have some power in numbers. Same as we're seeing in European cities now. When the muslims were a tiny minority, they were quiet. Now that they start controlling bigger city areas, they want to impose their crazy ideas on the rest of us.
The dropped the bombs because they were in a war with Japan, not because they disagreed with them, or because they were predominantly Christian. If Harry Truman had not been a Christian, he still would have ordered the bombs to be dropped.
It must be wonderful to have such a simple mind as yours.
CO2 and temperature have NOT moved in unison
Correct, there are many other factors, especially over longer time scales. Some of them play a small role now, but nothing significant. Do you think current scientific theories about the Earth's climate have a problem explaining the events during Jurassic ?
It is therefore not possible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature
Of course that's possible, just by looking at the physical properties of the CO2 molecule.
Carbon is not the enemy. It is actually the reason that we are alive.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have harmful properties. A glass of water is nice, drowning in a pool is not.
At what CO2 PPM do plants and vegetation begin shutting down - 200PPM? We are supposedly at 400PPM now.
Emissions, emissions... we must halve emissions....
You don't choose your tyranny, the tyranny chooses you!
Way to focus on one totally irrelevant fact and ignore the whole point he was making.
What if I agree with the rest ?
Bullshit. Modern diseases are not caused by foods that have been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years. They've been caused by modern processed crap such as sugar, white flour and industrial vegetable oils.
As far as the environment is concerned, meat production is only a small problem.
Scanning & handling paper - 0.004 cents per page
All your private data on someone else's server - priceless.
And christians have a much longer history of torturing or killing people they disagree with than muslims.
The religions are two branches of the same tree, so they started at about the same time.
So far, the "only" two nuclear weapons used against populated areas were used by Christians.
Not really. They were used by the USA, which happened to be a predominantly Christian country, but that doesn't mean there were any religious motives involved, or that it was carried out by a group of Christians.
There's AGW, anthropogenic global warming, and there's CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
There's also VIAGW, very inconvenient anthropogenic global warming. It's not black or white.
If the Democrats object to nuclear power given its potential to provide safe and carbon free energy then they must not see CAGW as a real threat
Or maybe they feel that replacing a bunch of ships with nuclear versions wouldn't make a significant contribution to averting the threat, at least not compared to whatever negative opinion they have about nukes.
The weather/climate system is a complicated, chaotic system. If we do enact this system then what happens to the countries that go through drought/floods/ etc. due to this system?
The same is true for adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but we're not stopping that either.
if a few minuscule tests look good, we should roll out a full-scale implementation on the whole planet
There's no reason to do it like that. Instead we could just gradually scale up the size of the tests, and stop at any time that we start seeing negative effects.
So even the Democrats don't seem concerned about CAGW any more.
A bit simplistic, right ? Just because someone is concerned about AGW, doesn't mean that don't have any other objections to things that could reduce CO2.
If only we had enough people that could get their heads out of their respective asses and do the math then they'd realize we had the answer to CAGW sixty years ago
The Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors were commissioned in the '70s and '80s, so sixty years ago would have been too early to start.
Why is there more than one predictive model for climate? Shouldn't there be only one model that everyone uses?
Simple. The models aren't perfect (models usually aren't), and there are different ideas from different groups of people on how to improve them.
Notice that nobody ever addresses the objections, because it's simply not possible for the AGW supporters to do so.
On the contrary. All objections have been addressed over and over again. Deniers just keep repeating them. All the information is out there, and can be found with a few simple google queries, for those interested.
I'd rather eat meat than have 10 times the current population.
200 parts co2 per million = end of the world
We currently have 35% more CO2 than a century or so ago, and there's no sign yet of it slowing down. That's quite a bit.
164 watts per square meter is the average across the earth's surface, which is far more meaningful here than the absolute peak magnitude.
The 1 Watt difference is also the peak. So, where still talking about a delta of less than 0.1% in solar output.
Funded by governments who use the results of these paid studies to do ... nothing.