Dr. Who, as it is in demand worldwide, makes the BBC, and effectively the UK tax payer, a profit. So defending it is defending that revenue stream. However, I am not sure a 53 second clip makes much odds to that revenue stream.
Ideally you would, but an opportunity for faster growth may present itself, and the options might be to not take it, and risk losing market share and later vanishing. But the other danger is botching expansion and collapsing.
Unless a task can be broken down into trivial chunks, adding people doesn't always work. But to some extent that is a function of the design of the task, allocation of work, and organisation of teams. It can be effective to add people if those preceeding things are true, or can be made true.
If millions of dollars are on the line, you should be running your own systems. Seriously. I'm not an IT expert, data infrastructure guy or anything. I'm just a dumb nerd, and I know that. Never trust your data to a third party when millions are at stake -- let alone critical infrastructure reliability.
A better option, if you have a rapidly expanding business, might be to look at either signing assurances on the behaviour of your host (only works if you are a big enough player), or look at multiple clouds. The latter is complex in terms of ensuring deployment across multiple clouds, interoperability, and database consistency, and failover and ramp up of resources in a new location that allows you to run without interruption. In reality, you are going to have some temporary reduction in service as you ramp up on one of the alternative providers. You need to have good monitoring.
As if servers doing down can't happen if you host it yourself.
But then you're in control, instead of having to rely on some amorphous, anonymous monster that only allows communication via automated email.
If you only have a single site, then you are still at the mercy of things like a cooling systems or power failure. If you have multiple sites, then to have full redundancy of operation, you need sufficient resources at each site to take up the entire slack from a single site, and sufficient network resources to ensure consistency of databases. This is all possible, but it takes sufficient effort and planning. This can get complex if your business is also expanding rapidly, as the time taken to obtain extra resources in your own data centres can be considerable. You could go for third-party data centres, but that loses you some control, and is still not trivial to spin up quickly - i.e. you are still talking weeks to procure, sign a contract, move in, commission, and test new resources.
The irony is that straw bale houses are very strong. If be tempted if I could get the land, the finance, was better at DIY, and was a bit fitter so I didn't break myself.
But the thought of cramping my current lifestyle for something that may happen well after I"m dead, doesn't really motivate me, you know?
This is one of the issues in terms of getting people to take action. I don't have a lavish lifestyle, but I could do more, but I'm lazy. There is a philosophical issue: do the unborn generations to come have any rights? Even if you contend they do not, some may be harmed sooner: can they sue?
The long and short of it seems to be that the validity of Zwally depends on how accurate compaction profiles used, and the correction of instrument biases are. There may be concerns that the sensitivity to one or more may be sufficiently high to be unsure of the analysis - i.e. large errors.
You are correct, that is what it says. What it says in detail is a bit more nuanced - it agrees with most studies, that most areas of Antarctica have been losing ice mass (continental ice - sea ice extents are not covered here) but that those areas assumed by other studies as well to have been gaining ice, have been gaining more than assumed. But if this is the case it is Good News (tm). However, one study does not a summer make, but corroboration that this is the case would be nice (but only if that is what the evidence supports). If Antartica really is gaining ice, that's great, especially given it means that other sources of sea level rise must be quite significant and taking the edge off is helpful.
Zwally said: Lead Author Jay Zwally: "I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This," But "It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming."
The study is at odds with dozens of others. Since the original report was from 2015, hopefully there has been more analysis of the paper, and the original and more data by now, so we might be able to confirm the trend, or new analyses might have confirmed previous research. This link might be interestin: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
A study doesn't mean much. 5 studies mean more. 10, more still. People who don't grasp even the basics of the scientific method shouldn't waste their time challenging what they don't understand. The results of a single study can be an aberration.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Who, as it is in demand worldwide, makes the BBC, and effectively the UK tax payer, a profit. So defending it is defending that revenue stream. However, I am not sure a 53 second clip makes much odds to that revenue stream.
Ideally you would, but an opportunity for faster growth may present itself, and the options might be to not take it, and risk losing market share and later vanishing. But the other danger is botching expansion and collapsing.
True. Most of the time you want to keep customer expectations up and avoid a slow down, though.
Indeed, the median of those working full time would be much more useful a figure.
Exceptions are potentially loopholes, so you have to be careful what the exceptions are.
Unless a task can be broken down into trivial chunks, adding people doesn't always work. But to some extent that is a function of the design of the task, allocation of work, and organisation of teams. It can be effective to add people if those preceeding things are true, or can be made true.
If millions of dollars are on the line, you should be running your own systems. Seriously. I'm not an IT expert, data infrastructure guy or anything. I'm just a dumb nerd, and I know that. Never trust your data to a third party when millions are at stake -- let alone critical infrastructure reliability.
A better option, if you have a rapidly expanding business, might be to look at either signing assurances on the behaviour of your host (only works if you are a big enough player), or look at multiple clouds. The latter is complex in terms of ensuring deployment across multiple clouds, interoperability, and database consistency, and failover and ramp up of resources in a new location that allows you to run without interruption. In reality, you are going to have some temporary reduction in service as you ramp up on one of the alternative providers. You need to have good monitoring.
As if servers doing down can't happen if you host it yourself.
But then you're in control, instead of having to rely on some amorphous, anonymous monster that only allows communication via automated email.
If you only have a single site, then you are still at the mercy of things like a cooling systems or power failure. If you have multiple sites, then to have full redundancy of operation, you need sufficient resources at each site to take up the entire slack from a single site, and sufficient network resources to ensure consistency of databases. This is all possible, but it takes sufficient effort and planning. This can get complex if your business is also expanding rapidly, as the time taken to obtain extra resources in your own data centres can be considerable. You could go for third-party data centres, but that loses you some control, and is still not trivial to spin up quickly - i.e. you are still talking weeks to procure, sign a contract, move in, commission, and test new resources.
I have several books, including out-of-print ones on it. It wasn't capable of transatlantic range.
I don't recall the B-36, Tu-55, B-52, Me 264, etc. being made of wood
The other issue was it was a Trabant
The irony is that straw bale houses are very strong. If be tempted if I could get the land, the finance, was better at DIY, and was a bit fitter so I didn't break myself.
But the thought of cramping my current lifestyle for something that may happen well after I"m dead, doesn't really motivate me, you know?
This is one of the issues in terms of getting people to take action. I don't have a lavish lifestyle, but I could do more, but I'm lazy. There is a philosophical issue: do the unborn generations to come have any rights? Even if you contend they do not, some may be harmed sooner: can they sue?
If you consider normal as "the way it had mostly been" then normal does not include multicellular life, let alone humans.
I'd suggest you read something about semiconductors
Terrible chocolate, though.
That would turn physics upside down!
Yet... :)
The long and short of it seems to be that the validity of Zwally depends on how accurate compaction profiles used, and the correction of instrument biases are. There may be concerns that the sensitivity to one or more may be sufficiently high to be unsure of the analysis - i.e. large errors.
You are correct, that is what it says. What it says in detail is a bit more nuanced - it agrees with most studies, that most areas of Antarctica have been losing ice mass (continental ice - sea ice extents are not covered here) but that those areas assumed by other studies as well to have been gaining ice, have been gaining more than assumed. But if this is the case it is Good News (tm). However, one study does not a summer make, but corroboration that this is the case would be nice (but only if that is what the evidence supports). If Antartica really is gaining ice, that's great, especially given it means that other sources of sea level rise must be quite significant and taking the edge off is helpful.
Zwally said: Lead Author Jay Zwally: "I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This," But "It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming."
The study is at odds with dozens of others. Since the original report was from 2015, hopefully there has been more analysis of the paper, and the original and more data by now, so we might be able to confirm the trend, or new analyses might have confirmed previous research. This link might be interestin: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
A study doesn't mean much. 5 studies mean more. 10, more still. People who don't grasp even the basics of the scientific method shouldn't waste their time challenging what they don't understand. The results of a single study can be an aberration.
Which study is the outlier here?
NASA or Nature. It's not very likely that they are at odds, but the exact meaning matters.
I suspect you have misinterpreted the information from NASA. Can you post what you think NASA has said so we can interpret it correctly for you?
You can do even better by actively going out and killing them.
Killing my loins? Or are you getting confused with lions?
50 +- 50 means, on average 50. That's not useless.