I have been testing jabber servers at work. So far OS X Server's Collaboration Services, A.K.A iChat Server is my favorite. I simply started up the machine, added it to our AD domain, and named and started the service. Users were immediately able to authenticate against the domain and chat. Macintosh users immediately had audio, and with a Firewire camera, H.264 video chat capability. I am waiting for a USB camera so I can try video on Windows. The app comes with the hardware, our cost figures to be about $4,000-$4500 with spare parts, a service contract and three years of OS maintenance (still waiting on a final discount offer). Really, the only downside for me is the heterogeneous hardware. If it grows into an enterprise wide solution, I'll need to work around the low end hardware (probably HA clustering), but for my current departmental build it really fits the bill as is.
I do have to remember to check that the audio is jingle compliant though.
The F-16 was the first front line military aircraft to be inherently unstable and unable to fly without its avionics. From the FAS web site:
NEGATIVE STABILITY. All previous aircraft designs had been aerodynamically stable. That is, the center of gravity was well in front of the center of lift and the center of pressure (drag).
To illustrate the difference between stable and unstable designs, take a shirt cardboard and, holding it by the leading edge, pull it rapidly through the air. It will stretch out behind your hand in a stable manner. This is a stable design Now take it by the trailing edge push forward from there. It will immediately flip up or down uncontrollably. That is an unstable design.
The downside of aerodynamic stability is that the aircraft is nose-heavy and always trying to nose down. The elevator must therefore push the tail down to level the airplane. But in addition to rotating the airplane from nose-down to level, the elevator is exerting negative lift; that is, it is pushing the airplane down. In order to counteract this negative lift, the wing needs to be made larger to create more positive lift. This increases both weight and drag, decreasing aircraft performance. In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified.
The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.
The F-16's most popular competitor which does not employ this design principle is the Mig-29. Despite its inherent stability, the Mig-29 is a remarkably agile aircraft, capable of outmaneuvering most conventional fighters, including the F-16, at low speed. Recent years have seen the advent of hyper-maneuverability features such as vectored thrust, which have pushed even large aircraft passed the limits of the Mig-29. But these features are expensive. The Mig-29 still represents a remarkable compromise between flat out performance, agility, cost, and strength. It also happens to be packaged with the most effective visual range gunsight/missile package on the market.
So you're claiming that the inspection crews being booted was a hoax? hahahaha!
It most certainly is an ex post facto hoax. Iraq never expelled UN inspectors. UNSCOM was expelled from Iraq in 1998, but it was Clinton who kicked them out, not Saddam. Iraq did temporarily expel American inspectors in 1997 after they learned that CIA infiltrators in UNSCOM had passed intelligence which the US used to facilitate a coup attempt. In response, UNSCOM chief Richard Butler withdrew all his teams to Kuwait. But the crisis was short lived and everyone was back to work in a week. Inspections limped along until December 1998, when Clinton decided his purposes were better served by bombing. The US then told UNSCOM they needed to evacuate for safety reasons and Director Richard Butler happily obliged. Go back and read the news reports of the day and you will see no mention of Saddam expelling non-American UNSCOM members. That factoid developed later. Several UNSCOM officials, including director Rolf Ekeus and David Kaye, have admitted that the US illegally used the inspection program for espionage.
"As time went on, some countries, especially the US, wanted to learn more about other parts of Iraq's capacity." The US even tried to find information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. [Rolf Ekeus, Director of UNSCOM 1991-1997, Financial Times, 7/29/03]
Specifically Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James E. Hansen's allegation that NASA's public affairs commisars upset with his stand on global warming have been denying journalists official access to him and censoring his lectures, papers and postings on the Goddard Web site. Other NASA employees have corroberated his story.
According to the Confederate Constitution and Articles of Secession it was about slavery. The word slavery and its derivatives appear eleven times in the Confederate Constitution, including gems like,
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Regarding states rights it says precisely what the US Constitution says,
The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof.
Then proceeds to prohibit them from levying duties, making war, grant letters of marque, maintaining troops or warships, entering into any treaties with foreign or domestic states and granting titles of nobility.
The Articles of Secession are even more frank. Mississippi's document opens,
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
Georgia's similarly starts,
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The southern states seceded over one issue, slavery. Whether or not Lincoln was a "radical" abolitionist is not relevant. Slavery was the issue. Nobody in the Confederate government gave a damn about any state's right other than the right to protect slavery. And much of Congress, the electorate, and Lincoln's cabinet (particularly Chase and Stanton) saw the war as a moral crusade against slavery. So did many Union generals, who began freeing slaves just five months after Fort Sumter. The Lincoln quote you mention was in response to Horace Greely's popular moral criticism of him for being too conservative on the slavery issue. Lincoln's courting of loyal and undecided slave interests led to a rift in his own party which threatened to unseat him in favor of another Republican candidate, John C. Freemont. In the face of this movement, the President folded, filled his cabinet with radical abolitionists, issued the Emancipation Proclamation and adopted the popular moral anti-slavery stance.
In the south the war was about slavery and slavery alone. In the north it was about slavery and preservation of the union. Lincoln felt the latter issue was more important but was overwhelmed by public and congressional opinion.
Specifically Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James E. Hansen's allegations of censorship by NASA's public affairs staff. According to him commisars upset with his stand on global warming have been denying journalists official access to him and censoring his lectures, papers and postings on the Goddard Web site.
Thanks. He does seem to get less credit than Mrs. Parker, although he was every bit as witty and perhaps a bit less brutal. Don't get me wrong, she was a genius.
To be fair, I have a medium term solution inthe pipe and there is budget for it. Rather than wait for the DR datacenter project to mature, we will pursue tape elimination and replicate the backup over the wire. Basically we are going to go with a content addressable disk backup target. Something like Data Domain. It still has no value from a DR perspective, but it eliminates the HIPAA exposure and restore latency. It alsogetsw us out of the tape management business (yay!). Basically we replace tape with CAS and replicate the CAS box to a second one in another site. The second site does not have to be a full data center, only meet minimal standards. That will get me by until the DR project comes to fruition. Right now we are reviewing possible target.
About thirteen terabytes. But the problem is not spooling up the tape. Remember, we are talking worst case scenario: total destruction of our data center. The problem is acquiring, building and integrating 200 servers plus storage, infrastructure, EDI etc. On the server side have three Windows admins and three unix/linux admins. We have two storage admins. They double as our backup admins, and one of them is also one of our three unix/linux admins.
Like I said, just getting the servers, network and SAN hardware would take weeks, even if we called in every marker.
I also work at a healthcare provider adn deal with this exposure every day. Normal backups provides us no disaster recovery value because our recover point objective is measured in minutes. Tape simply can't meet it. Likewise if we were to attempt to restore the entire operation from tape it would take months. Just acquiring hardware would take weeks. But our recovery time objective is forty-eight hours. Basically, if we go longer than that we are out of business. So long term, our DR strategy is based on storage and app level replication between data centers. But as it stands, we only have one site. Consequently we send our backups offsite, essentially as a placebo. But it gets better. We don't have the drive resources to duplicate tape, so we send the originals offsite. That means that if we need to do a restore we must wait an hour for someone to retrieve the tape and reinject it into our library.
Let's review here: we have a fake DR strategy which adds an hour to every file restore and exposes us to data theft. Sounds good huh? I have repeatedly told our brass it would be better to do nothing, but their position is "We don't want to tell the newspapers we had no DR strategy when the disaster strikes."
How do we remediate this? Well, we could encrypt the tape but that is a big pain in the ass and has its own disadvantages. Really, the answer is to get off our ass and build a DR data center so the potentially deadly placebo goes away.
Besides, wasn't Disney's America going to be in Virginia? I know your town didn't have all these things, but there are already a few big theme parks in and around VA and there are a ton of Civil War-related attractions without a corporate facade.
From my own experience, I live down the street from a small, well intentioned not-for-profit zoo. In past winters a local artist would decorate it for the kids by painting various characters on the walls. Two of these were a certain mouse with no shirt and an associated duck with no pants. Disney's armey of lawyers put a stop to this several years ago. Apparently they couldn't see their way clear to donating a gratis right to use license. Up the highway in Vermont I remember a dairy farmer with a cow whose markings closely resembled the silhouette of the aforementioned mouse. Disney did not sue the cow, but they did buy her off the poor rube for $10,000 (IIRC) then move her to Florida and display her. Fair enough; he's a moron. But they then issued a press release bragging about how little they had paid for her and how they were reaping millions in revenue by exhibiting her. This was many years ago, so my details may be suspect.
Most of all, of course, they gave us the Bono act.
No. Stuff brewed from malted grain is beer. Rice cannot be malted. In fact, it needs to be processed with a special fungus to be rendered fermentable. Laws of the land notwithstanding, sake is not beer or even close to it.
I was wondering if anyone would bring this up, because it is a valid point. But I don't agree that sake isn't even close to beer. It is a lot closer to beer than anything else. However, I concede it would have been more accurate if I had said sake was beer by law and more similar to beer than wine in method of production. But I would also contend that the use of rice-koji is analogous to malting (if quite a different process chemically) in that the purpose of both is to turn starch into fermentable sugar. I understand that malting does not involve an active additive, but it does involve an additive (water) and a catalyst (heat). Arguably not all that different.
In Japan sake is a generic term referring to all sorts of alcoholic beverages, including distilled ones. Only what the Japanese call nihonshu is called sake in the US. Some types of cheap nihonshu are extended by adding distilled pure grain alcohol. Also some fine brands add small amounts of distilled alcohol as an aromatic catylist. But fundamentally, the process which creates nihonshu, called sake in the US, is brewing.
According to the BATF you can define it this way and they do. Also the Sumerians made beer without hops and using yeast unheard of in modern European brews. Your position is extremely Eurocentric.
As for common sense, sake is made from rice, not barley, so on that score isn't typical of beer. Also, the kind of yeast used is different, and there are other differences in production methods that differentiate beer from sake. Beer is also flavored with hops, sake is not. Finally, beer is much lower in alcohol than sake, except for certain speciality beers such as barley wine..
You mean like Budweiser? Bud is made mostly with rice. Read the label. Most people consider it beer, if not good beer. Beer can be made with all sorts of yeast and in fact was made for thousands of years before cultured yeast existed. Before the 19th century (IIRC) beer production depended entirely on the local wild yeast in the air (as many Belgian beers still are and Pilsner Urquell was until recently). Nobody had any idea what kind of yeast they were using and it varied wildly by location. The alcohol level is essentially moot, since you yourself cite high alcohol beers.
Interesting sidenote: several years ago there was a rash of rye malt beers out of the west coast. According to Fritz Maytag this happened because industrial spies discovered he was buying rye in bulk. In reality, he was buying it for his secret Old Poterero rye whiskey project. They assumed he was making some kind of Anchor rye beer and wanted to beat him to the punch. Old Poterero is a damn fine rye, if a little hot. Like all Fritz Maytag products it is high in historicity.
Barley wine is a misnomer, or perhaps more accurately a euphemism. Just for fun I did google it and the very first link I found read,
"But make no mistake about it. Barley wine is an ale, a proud member of the beer family that is neither plain nor simple."
In other words, barley wine is beer, not wine.
I am quite familiar with barley wine. When I was in college I was the bouncer for the first bar in Massachusets to serve Old Foghorn. Also, my best friend used to be a professional brewer before he became a professional vintner (Celler Master).
For purposes of regulation the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) classes all brewed grain beverages as generically as beer, regardless of whether they can be labeled as beer in the various states. Most states (and maybe the BATF as well, I forget) have labeling regulations similar to what you describe. However, BATF does not distinguish between beer and malt liquor for it's basic regulations (i.e. production standards). Vodka is not beer because it is distilled, not brewed.
Interestingly, California classes sake as a wine, presumably for the reason you describe. However, Federal law trumps that via the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. At any rate, anyon in the booze business will tell you that a brewed grain beverage is not wine..
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, that is $1799. They also offer brand new 15" Powerbooks for $1499 and leftover 100Gig "17 Powerbooks for $1649.
Perhaps our intrepid robot pilot is that famous Ganymedean slime mold, Lord Running Clam. I believe he also has an advanced degree in Anthropology.
My vendor wants $1699 for the base MacBook Pro. Doesn't seem that expensive to me.
I have been testing jabber servers at work. So far OS X Server's Collaboration Services, A.K.A iChat Server is my favorite. I simply started up the machine, added it to our AD domain, and named and started the service. Users were immediately able to authenticate against the domain and chat. Macintosh users immediately had audio, and with a Firewire camera, H.264 video chat capability. I am waiting for a USB camera so I can try video on Windows. The app comes with the hardware, our cost figures to be about $4,000-$4500 with spare parts, a service contract and three years of OS maintenance (still waiting on a final discount offer). Really, the only downside for me is the heterogeneous hardware. If it grows into an enterprise wide solution, I'll need to work around the low end hardware (probably HA clustering), but for my current departmental build it really fits the bill as is.
I do have to remember to check that the audio is jingle compliant though.
Specifically Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James E. Hansen's allegation that NASA's public affairs commisars upset with his stand on global warming have been denying journalists official access to him and censoring his lectures, papers and postings on the Goddard Web site. Other NASA employees have corroberated his story.
Regarding states rights it says precisely what the US Constitution says,
Then proceeds to prohibit them from levying duties, making war, grant letters of marque, maintaining troops or warships, entering into any treaties with foreign or domestic states and granting titles of nobility.
The Articles of Secession are even more frank. Mississippi's document opens, Georgia's similarly starts,
The southern states seceded over one issue, slavery. Whether or not Lincoln was a "radical" abolitionist is not relevant. Slavery was the issue. Nobody in the Confederate government gave a damn about any state's right other than the right to protect slavery. And much of Congress, the electorate, and Lincoln's cabinet (particularly Chase and Stanton) saw the war as a moral crusade against slavery. So did many Union generals, who began freeing slaves just five months after Fort Sumter. The Lincoln quote you mention was in response to Horace Greely's popular moral criticism of him for being too conservative on the slavery issue. Lincoln's courting of loyal and undecided slave interests led to a rift in his own party which threatened to unseat him in favor of another Republican candidate, John C. Freemont. In the face of this movement, the President folded, filled his cabinet with radical abolitionists, issued the Emancipation Proclamation and adopted the popular moral anti-slavery stance.
In the south the war was about slavery and slavery alone. In the north it was about slavery and preservation of the union. Lincoln felt the latter issue was more important but was overwhelmed by public and congressional opinion.
Specifically Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James E. Hansen's allegations of censorship by NASA's public affairs staff. According to him commisars upset with his stand on global warming have been denying journalists official access to him and censoring his lectures, papers and postings on the Goddard Web site.
And that is 70 miles per gallon of fryolator grease, right?
Woops, wrong link. That was a giant slime mold. This is a giant cephalopod.
OK, so maybe the incident I am remembering was a squid. But a giant cephalopod is a giant cephalopod, right?
Thanks. He does seem to get less credit than Mrs. Parker, although he was every bit as witty and perhaps a bit less brutal. Don't get me wrong, she was a genius.
To be fair, I have a medium term solution inthe pipe and there is budget for it. Rather than wait for the DR datacenter project to mature, we will pursue tape elimination and replicate the backup over the wire. Basically we are going to go with a content addressable disk backup target. Something like Data Domain. It still has no value from a DR perspective, but it eliminates the HIPAA exposure and restore latency. It alsogetsw us out of the tape management business (yay!). Basically we replace tape with CAS and replicate the CAS box to a second one in another site. The second site does not have to be a full data center, only meet minimal standards. That will get me by until the DR project comes to fruition. Right now we are reviewing possible target.
About thirteen terabytes. But the problem is not spooling up the tape. Remember, we are talking worst case scenario: total destruction of our data center. The problem is acquiring, building and integrating 200 servers plus storage, infrastructure, EDI etc. On the server side have three Windows admins and three unix/linux admins. We have two storage admins. They double as our backup admins, and one of them is also one of our three unix/linux admins.
Like I said, just getting the servers, network and SAN hardware would take weeks, even if we called in every marker.
I also work at a healthcare provider adn deal with this exposure every day. Normal backups provides us no disaster recovery value because our recover point objective is measured in minutes. Tape simply can't meet it. Likewise if we were to attempt to restore the entire operation from tape it would take months. Just acquiring hardware would take weeks. But our recovery time objective is forty-eight hours. Basically, if we go longer than that we are out of business. So long term, our DR strategy is based on storage and app level replication between data centers. But as it stands, we only have one site. Consequently we send our backups offsite, essentially as a placebo. But it gets better. We don't have the drive resources to duplicate tape, so we send the originals offsite. That means that if we need to do a restore we must wait an hour for someone to retrieve the tape and reinject it into our library.
Let's review here: we have a fake DR strategy which adds an hour to every file restore and exposes us to data theft. Sounds good huh? I have repeatedly told our brass it would be better to do nothing, but their position is "We don't want to tell the newspapers we had no DR strategy when the disaster strikes."
How do we remediate this? Well, we could encrypt the tape but that is a big pain in the ass and has its own disadvantages. Really, the answer is to get off our ass and build a DR data center so the potentially deadly placebo goes away.
It's shrewd if you don't believe in opportunity cost.
From my own experience, I live down the street from a small, well intentioned not-for-profit zoo. In past winters a local artist would decorate it for the kids by painting various characters on the walls. Two of these were a certain mouse with no shirt and an associated duck with no pants. Disney's armey of lawyers put a stop to this several years ago. Apparently they couldn't see their way clear to donating a gratis right to use license. Up the highway in Vermont I remember a dairy farmer with a cow whose markings closely resembled the silhouette of the aforementioned mouse. Disney did not sue the cow, but they did buy her off the poor rube for $10,000 (IIRC) then move her to Florida and display her. Fair enough; he's a moron. But they then issued a press release bragging about how little they had paid for her and how they were reaping millions in revenue by exhibiting her. This was many years ago, so my details may be suspect.
Most of all, of course, they gave us the Bono act.
In Japan sake is a generic term referring to all sorts of alcoholic beverages, including distilled ones. Only what the Japanese call nihonshu is called sake in the US. Some types of cheap nihonshu are extended by adding distilled pure grain alcohol. Also some fine brands add small amounts of distilled alcohol as an aromatic catylist. But fundamentally, the process which creates nihonshu, called sake in the US, is brewing.
According to the BATF you can define it this way and they do. Also the Sumerians made beer without hops and using yeast unheard of in modern European brews. Your position is extremely Eurocentric.
Interesting sidenote: several years ago there was a rash of rye malt beers out of the west coast. According to Fritz Maytag this happened because industrial spies discovered he was buying rye in bulk. In reality, he was buying it for his secret Old Poterero rye whiskey project. They assumed he was making some kind of Anchor rye beer and wanted to beat him to the punch. Old Poterero is a damn fine rye, if a little hot. Like all Fritz Maytag products it is high in historicity.
Barley wine is a misnomer, or perhaps more accurately a euphemism. Just for fun I did google it and the very first link I found read,
"But make no mistake about it. Barley wine is an ale, a proud member of the beer family that is neither plain nor simple."
In other words, barley wine is beer, not wine.
I am quite familiar with barley wine. When I was in college I was the bouncer for the first bar in Massachusets to serve Old Foghorn. Also, my best friend used to be a professional brewer before he became a professional vintner (Celler Master).
The jusxtapostion of your position with the authorship of your sig is uniquely ironic. Bravo!
Then again, I suspect facetiousness, based on your previous posting record.
For purposes of regulation the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) classes all brewed grain beverages as generically as beer, regardless of whether they can be labeled as beer in the various states. Most states (and maybe the BATF as well, I forget) have labeling regulations similar to what you describe. However, BATF does not distinguish between beer and malt liquor for it's basic regulations (i.e. production standards). Vodka is not beer because it is distilled, not brewed.
Interestingly, California classes sake as a wine, presumably for the reason you describe. However, Federal law trumps that via the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. At any rate, anyon in the booze business will tell you that a brewed grain beverage is not wine..