What's wrong with N+1 redundancy? While I agree it requires an attentive response from Facilities to replace the failed unit quickly, my experience with facilities departments is that, if there is greater redundancy, they tend to rely on it to stretch out response and replacement intervals.
For instance, we stated having failures of refrigeration units in a new facility I helped build. Everything was going fine, until we stated getting calls regarding multiple equipment failures and risk to the product inside the unit? We were perplexed - we had built in multiple levels of 100% redundancy (double sized, 2 refrigeration systems per unit, and twice as many units as required for the plant capacity). It turns out that various components had been failing for weeks, but the Facilities department was ignoring them because the backup systems had taken over immediately and there was no imminent risk. It was when the backup systems started failing that we got the frantic calls. There was a systemic problem with the fan motors (didn't use low temperature grease), which the manufacturer fixed promptly, but now the replacements were on an emergency basis instead of planned. When asked why they didn't report the initial failures, the maintenance staff just said "we always run on backups until we can get around to it - what's the use of redundancy if you can't utilize it?"
If it was, and the developers are misreading it, have your purchasing department and/or counsel disabuse them of that notion immediately and forcefully.
If it was, and they are reading it correctly, have your purchasing department and/or counsel taken outside and spanked hard.
If it was not addressed, have said purchasing department and/or consel taken outside and shot immediately, and then hire competent counsel to get you out of the mess.
I always wanted to use a pickup truck to bring my rig to a LAN party.
(Actually, that's all bullshit. Don't play games, never been to a LAN party, don't know where to find one. But that's never stopped posting here before.)
Bush may be stupid, and his idea may not be working, but do you really expect me to take you more seriously than him? Someone who won't offer any alternative ideas and won't even sign their name? If your solution is just to give the teachers and administrations more money and they'll somehow fix the problem, at least have the balls to sign your name.
"Our school system needs reform, and I don't mean the "No Child Gets Ahead" act."
Got any suggestions? Because I've heard dick-all from the folks whining about the NCLB, but nothing about what to take it's place, besides "More Money! Gimme!"
Feds: "If you want it, here's a shitload of extra money, and we'll give it to you up front, but withing a few years you need to meet standards. You get to set the standards; we're just asking that you test to measure how well you're doing."
Local Schools: "Yay! More Money! Gimme!"
[2 years pass]
Feds: "So about these standardized test reports..."
Local Schools: "You were serious about that? Waaaaahhhh, Not Fair!"
[phone call to NEA union rep to call local Congresscritter]
There will be a clamor to drop standards based testing because it is "bad for education" instead of summarily firing the administrators and teachers involved.
I believe that both styles are appropriate, depending on the context.
In a newsgroup or forum context, top quoting is more appropriate, as one is posting a reply for all to see, and the "conversation" shouldn't turn into a long, tit-for-tat dialog. In this case, the convention of quoting "Joe123 said:" first, and then *replying* is appropriate. Trimming is important here out of respect for the other readers.
In one-on-one email exchanges, the opposite is true. One doesn't need to review the whole conversation, but only the last reply. Bottom quoting fits in with this - put the most relevant info latest, but keep the rest of the stuff for a conversation record. Trimming is only important to get rid of the fluff put on by overly long sigs and advertisements, but otherwise, keeping the text of the conversation in one place is better than having to find the particular email where a certain portion of the conversation took place.
It's kind of like paper files. On my first project, the PM insisted that, when adding a document to a file, it go to the BACK of the file. Her reasoning was that, when reconstructing an issue, she could pull out the file and "read it like a book". The other method is to place the latest info in the front of the file folder, under the general theory that the latest info is the most relevant to a given situation. One can debate the merits of both, but her project was the ONLY situation I've ever been in that filed "in the back", which should be indicative of the relative polularity of the methods.
"The sort of thing the copyright laws were supposed to prevent."
Huh? Considering that basic copyright law was written before recorded music even existed, I doubt that the fair use rights for an iPod were considered.
"The EU should just tell MS how much they can charge and get on with it".
But they won't. By it's very nature, a bureaucracy tends to NOT make "final" decisions - they would then find themselves unemployed.
Tha EU's response will be "It is not our place to dictate commercial terms in licensing fees. Our role is to judge whether those terms are fair AFTER the fact". This way, the bureaucrats in charge are ensured of continued employment for a few month waiting for MS to erspond, then another few "evaluating", and then probably another finding that the MS terms are unfair. Latehr, rinse repeat.
I say from my experience with US regulatory agencies, but I can't imagine their counterparts in the EU are any better.
I concur; I was a loyal HP user from when I bought a 720C and used it 'till the ribbon cable frayed. SOB was built like a tank and cartriges were easy to refill. I watched as the printers got less durable (anyone remember Apollo?), and they changed cartriges to be un-refillable. And said "Fuck that"
I bought a Canon on the sole basis that they still let me refill my own ink tanks without forcing me to bypass chips (Epson) or reset cartridge counters (HP). And guess what? It's a dandy little unit.
I will grant that, by itself, paper money is worth its weight in paper pulp. So let's do a thought experiment, and switch to a backing. Let's pick gold for the sake of historical continuity.
So now I can trade in my $1 bill for a certain weight of gold. Now, let me ask "what is that gold worth?" "One Dollar", you respond. Bzzzzt - thanks for playing. The worth of that weight of gold cannot be valued in terms of the paper currency it backs.
So let's try to value it in other terms. One could say that it is worth about 1/3 gallon of regular gasoline. But is it really? Can I replace regular gasoline with gold? Can I burn it in my car engine, or huff it to make me high? Obviously not. It's the same case with other products, until you get to personal ornamentation (oooh, shiney), backing for archival CD's, or electrical contacts. Gold's "worth", in industrial terms, is very limited. So, if we use gold as a "backing" for paper money, its value is just as symbolic - it is a token by which we quantize another object's value.
I may not disagree with you that US monetary policy is flawed, but the flaw certainly isn't in it's lack of "backing". ALL money, whether fiat or backed, is purely symbolic.
"Actually, the bigger problem is that so many govt agencies approved of this thing, apparently, without it going through any type of remotely rigorous testing and verification. As much as our US govt agencies get ripped for doing stupid stuff, it's clear that they don't have the market cornered on such activity."
Obviously you haven't secured your tinfoil hat enough - the stick is OBVIOUSLY a US conspracy to spy on its allies. Th company is a CIA front, and as we speak files are being shredded and chips being smuggled out in rare tulip bulbs...
"Giving away coupons doesn't equate to distribution but to promotion. Giving away coupons makes Microsoft a distributor of GPL2 software as much as giving away free BigMac coupons makes a radio station a BigMac distributor. That's promotion, not distribution."
Well, IANALBIMO. The radio station in your example may not be "distributing" BigMacs, but id does tie them up in the legal liability chain to some extent. If someone gets poisoned by the BigMac they bought with the radio station coupon, that station will be included in the lawsuit/insurance settlement sure as day. That is, unless McD's signs a "hold harmless" agreement/waiver of subrogation.
Point is, if you get involved with someone else's product, you also get involved with the legal aspects of that product. So in that sense, the Microsoft/Novell agreement is similar to your example - just not in the way you suppose.
I think that Verizon is going to become a lot more interested in negociating with Vonage after this ruling. Why? Because if Vonage goes bankrupt, Verizon is likely to get squat in bankruptcy court. They don't have a lot of physical assets. They have a customer base - a loyal one. How many Vonage customers, having already switched from an RBOC, are going to switch BACK voluntarily?
Verizon viewed this as a way to get a piece of a growing market without having to invest anything. tey were going to use the patent to force Vonage to charge a "Verizon Tax" on their customers, which would make the service less attractive to users and maybe send somefolks back to the RBOC's - not to mention the fat licensing fees. But the judge may have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
First, what part of the GP post mentioned anything about "US... enforce our laws on other countries." Why did you bring US law into it?
As for "it's not our place to say whether they are right or wrong", are you joking? A sizeable portion of posts on Slashdot are folks from other countries explaining why the US is doing something wrong. And EVERYTHING the US is doing is wrong - all the laws, all the politicians, and all the electorate. It's called freedom of speech - ever heard of it?
So if it is improper for a private citizen to call anotehr nation or culture's practices "wrong" or "bad", then why is everyone nattering on about China's human rights abuses? Or female circumcision? Or trafficing in humans? I mean, after all, there is a cultural history to be considered here, so we should all just shut up and mind our own business. Unless the criticism is of the US - then it's required.
Every day I walk by HR on my way to my cube and every other desk has 2 monitors. I imagine that they would boost productivity immensely - if I ever saw anyone actually doing any work.
Anchors? Maybe. Concrete? Doubt it. My experience with building owners (I'm a construction contractor) is that they REALLY don't understand their buildings. At all. And that includes the physical security.
That being said, I think the weight is a sufficient barrier. You hit the mark on teh forklift, and as for a rollback, they generally can't handle a lot more weight than an empty container. Next step up is something much larger that what could be considered "inconspicuous"
For breaking in the trailer, tehy can be secured pretty well. A coworker has 3 40' containers staged in west Virginia for a building project (or Armageddon). When he buys them, he gets 2 different extra security mechanisms - a lock box with a "hockey puck" lock and another device that clamp the doors. Then he adds 2 more locks on the regular closure mechanism. Overkill? Maybe, but one day he showed up on site to find that someone had gotten through al the locks but the clamp with a sledgehammer, and that was pretty beat up when they finally gave up. He's a realist, though - he knows anyone with a gas powered chop saw can just cut through the side. Of course, he has a plan for that, too.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with N+1 redundancy? While I agree it requires an attentive response from Facilities to replace the failed unit quickly, my experience with facilities departments is that, if there is greater redundancy, they tend to rely on it to stretch out response and replacement intervals.
For instance, we stated having failures of refrigeration units in a new facility I helped build. Everything was going fine, until we stated getting calls regarding multiple equipment failures and risk to the product inside the unit? We were perplexed - we had built in multiple levels of 100% redundancy (double sized, 2 refrigeration systems per unit, and twice as many units as required for the plant capacity). It turns out that various components had been failing for weeks, but the Facilities department was ignoring them because the backup systems had taken over immediately and there was no imminent risk. It was when the backup systems started failing that we got the frantic calls. There was a systemic problem with the fan motors (didn't use low temperature grease), which the manufacturer fixed promptly, but now the replacements were on an emergency basis instead of planned. When asked why they didn't report the initial failures, the maintenance staff just said "we always run on backups until we can get around to it - what's the use of redundancy if you can't utilize it?"
Like Ron White said, you can't fix stupid.
"Correlation does not necessarily equate to causality"
Repeat 100x.
Apply to all the other dumbass pop-sci suburban "crises". Cell phones cause brain cancer. MMR vaccine and autism. Etc.
"Djiboutian Franc"
Are they issued under the authority of Sheik Yerboutie?
If it was, and the developers are misreading it, have your purchasing department and/or counsel disabuse them of that notion immediately and forcefully.
If it was, and they are reading it correctly, have your purchasing department and/or counsel taken outside and spanked hard.
If it was not addressed, have said purchasing department and/or consel taken outside and shot immediately, and then hire competent counsel to get you out of the mess.
I always wanted to use a pickup truck to bring my rig to a LAN party.
(Actually, that's all bullshit. Don't play games, never been to a LAN party, don't know where to find one. But that's never stopped posting here before.)
And I repeat: Come up with a better idea.
Bush may be stupid, and his idea may not be working, but do you really expect me to take you more seriously than him? Someone who won't offer any alternative ideas and won't even sign their name? If your solution is just to give the teachers and administrations more money and they'll somehow fix the problem, at least have the balls to sign your name.
"Our school system needs reform, and I don't mean the "No Child Gets Ahead" act."
Got any suggestions? Because I've heard dick-all from the folks whining about the NCLB, but nothing about what to take it's place, besides "More Money! Gimme!"
Feds: "If you want it, here's a shitload of extra money, and we'll give it to you up front, but withing a few years you need to meet standards. You get to set the standards; we're just asking that you test to measure how well you're doing."
Local Schools: "Yay! More Money! Gimme!"
[2 years pass]
Feds: "So about these standardized test reports..."
Local Schools: "You were serious about that? Waaaaahhhh, Not Fair!"
[phone call to NEA union rep to call local Congresscritter]
There will be a clamor to drop standards based testing because it is "bad for education" instead of summarily firing the administrators and teachers involved.
I believe that both styles are appropriate, depending on the context.
In a newsgroup or forum context, top quoting is more appropriate, as one is posting a reply for all to see, and the "conversation" shouldn't turn into a long, tit-for-tat dialog. In this case, the convention of quoting "Joe123 said:" first, and then *replying* is appropriate. Trimming is important here out of respect for the other readers.
In one-on-one email exchanges, the opposite is true. One doesn't need to review the whole conversation, but only the last reply. Bottom quoting fits in with this - put the most relevant info latest, but keep the rest of the stuff for a conversation record. Trimming is only important to get rid of the fluff put on by overly long sigs and advertisements, but otherwise, keeping the text of the conversation in one place is better than having to find the particular email where a certain portion of the conversation took place.
It's kind of like paper files. On my first project, the PM insisted that, when adding a document to a file, it go to the BACK of the file. Her reasoning was that, when reconstructing an issue, she could pull out the file and "read it like a book". The other method is to place the latest info in the front of the file folder, under the general theory that the latest info is the most relevant to a given situation. One can debate the merits of both, but her project was the ONLY situation I've ever been in that filed "in the back", which should be indicative of the relative polularity of the methods.
"The sort of thing the copyright laws were supposed to prevent."
Huh? Considering that basic copyright law was written before recorded music even existed, I doubt that the fair use rights for an iPod were considered.
"Lying Bitches"
"The EU should just tell MS how much they can charge and get on with it".
But they won't. By it's very nature, a bureaucracy tends to NOT make "final" decisions - they would then find themselves unemployed.
Tha EU's response will be "It is not our place to dictate commercial terms in licensing fees. Our role is to judge whether those terms are fair AFTER the fact". This way, the bureaucrats in charge are ensured of continued employment for a few month waiting for MS to erspond, then another few "evaluating", and then probably another finding that the MS terms are unfair. Latehr, rinse repeat.
I say from my experience with US regulatory agencies, but I can't imagine their counterparts in the EU are any better.
I concur; I was a loyal HP user from when I bought a 720C and used it 'till the ribbon cable frayed. SOB was built like a tank and cartriges were easy to refill. I watched as the printers got less durable (anyone remember Apollo?), and they changed cartriges to be un-refillable. And said "Fuck that"
I bought a Canon on the sole basis that they still let me refill my own ink tanks without forcing me to bypass chips (Epson) or reset cartridge counters (HP). And guess what? It's a dandy little unit.
Fucking Republicans, wiping their ass with the Constitution and trampling all over our rights. If only the shheple in this country would understa...
ringring.....ringring....
"Hello?"
(Charlie Brown adult voice)
"Spitzer's a what?"
(more insistent Charlie Brown adult voice)
"Okay, if you say so"
Click.
Where was I...Oh, yes. As I was saying, great idea! The tragedy in Blacksburg only further demonstrates why we need to take such action...
Ah, yes - the Fiat Currency conspiracy theory.
I will grant that, by itself, paper money is worth its weight in paper pulp. So let's do a thought experiment, and switch to a backing. Let's pick gold for the sake of historical continuity.
So now I can trade in my $1 bill for a certain weight of gold. Now, let me ask "what is that gold worth?" "One Dollar", you respond. Bzzzzt - thanks for playing. The worth of that weight of gold cannot be valued in terms of the paper currency it backs.
So let's try to value it in other terms. One could say that it is worth about 1/3 gallon of regular gasoline. But is it really? Can I replace regular gasoline with gold? Can I burn it in my car engine, or huff it to make me high? Obviously not. It's the same case with other products, until you get to personal ornamentation (oooh, shiney), backing for archival CD's, or electrical contacts. Gold's "worth", in industrial terms, is very limited. So, if we use gold as a "backing" for paper money, its value is just as symbolic - it is a token by which we quantize another object's value.
I may not disagree with you that US monetary policy is flawed, but the flaw certainly isn't in it's lack of "backing". ALL money, whether fiat or backed, is purely symbolic.
do monkeys taste like men?
Gay zoophiles, please chime in.
"Actually, the bigger problem is that so many govt agencies approved of this thing, apparently, without it going through any type of remotely rigorous testing and verification. As much as our US govt agencies get ripped for doing stupid stuff, it's clear that they don't have the market cornered on such activity."
Obviously you haven't secured your tinfoil hat enough - the stick is OBVIOUSLY a US conspracy to spy on its allies. Th company is a CIA front, and as we speak files are being shredded and chips being smuggled out in rare tulip bulbs...
"Yeah, but most owners of laptops are worth nothing without their daily dose of Espresso ;-)"
No problem - with a little pre planning, you store the energy generated from jacking (or jilling) off the night before.
"Giving away coupons doesn't equate to distribution but to promotion. Giving away coupons makes Microsoft a distributor of GPL2 software as much as giving away free BigMac coupons makes a radio station a BigMac distributor. That's promotion, not distribution."
Well, IANALBIMO. The radio station in your example may not be "distributing" BigMacs, but id does tie them up in the legal liability chain to some extent. If someone gets poisoned by the BigMac they bought with the radio station coupon, that station will be included in the lawsuit/insurance settlement sure as day. That is, unless McD's signs a "hold harmless" agreement/waiver of subrogation.
Point is, if you get involved with someone else's product, you also get involved with the legal aspects of that product. So in that sense, the Microsoft/Novell agreement is similar to your example - just not in the way you suppose.
I think that Verizon is going to become a lot more interested in negociating with Vonage after this ruling. Why? Because if Vonage goes bankrupt, Verizon is likely to get squat in bankruptcy court. They don't have a lot of physical assets. They have a customer base - a loyal one. How many Vonage customers, having already switched from an RBOC, are going to switch BACK voluntarily?
Verizon viewed this as a way to get a piece of a growing market without having to invest anything. tey were going to use the patent to force Vonage to charge a "Verizon Tax" on their customers, which would make the service less attractive to users and maybe send somefolks back to the RBOC's - not to mention the fat licensing fees. But the judge may have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
First, what part of the GP post mentioned anything about "US ... enforce our laws on other countries." Why did you bring US law into it?
As for "it's not our place to say whether they are right or wrong", are you joking? A sizeable portion of posts on Slashdot are folks from other countries explaining why the US is doing something wrong. And EVERYTHING the US is doing is wrong - all the laws, all the politicians, and all the electorate. It's called freedom of speech - ever heard of it?
So if it is improper for a private citizen to call anotehr nation or culture's practices "wrong" or "bad", then why is everyone nattering on about China's human rights abuses? Or female circumcision? Or trafficing in humans? I mean, after all, there is a cultural history to be considered here, so we should all just shut up and mind our own business. Unless the criticism is of the US - then it's required.
Every day I walk by HR on my way to my cube and every other desk has 2 monitors. I imagine that they would boost productivity immensely - if I ever saw anyone actually doing any work.
Anchors? Maybe. Concrete? Doubt it. My experience with building owners (I'm a construction contractor) is that they REALLY don't understand their buildings. At all. And that includes the physical security.
That being said, I think the weight is a sufficient barrier. You hit the mark on teh forklift, and as for a rollback, they generally can't handle a lot more weight than an empty container. Next step up is something much larger that what could be considered "inconspicuous"
For breaking in the trailer, tehy can be secured pretty well. A coworker has 3 40' containers staged in west Virginia for a building project (or Armageddon). When he buys them, he gets 2 different extra security mechanisms - a lock box with a "hockey puck" lock and another device that clamp the doors. Then he adds 2 more locks on the regular closure mechanism. Overkill? Maybe, but one day he showed up on site to find that someone had gotten through al the locks but the clamp with a sledgehammer, and that was pretty beat up when they finally gave up. He's a realist, though - he knows anyone with a gas powered chop saw can just cut through the side. Of course, he has a plan for that, too.
I'd be more afraid that he'd kill her, rape her, and THEN take her home - he seems like an excitable boy.
IBM 700c: way too low. Laptops are a gigantic market (far more significant than mp3 players) and this one set the standard.
Also, where's the Model M?