Bringing home the troops. The president is Commander in Chief. If he orders the military to come home, they come home.
Unless someone shoots him, then the vice-president takes over. This is damn serious.
There would be an awful lot of people in the CIA and the military who would not the sort of changes Ron Paul wants. They would be looking at a vast decrease in US defence spending and may well find themselves out of a job. The people who work on the front lines abroad in the CIA doing covert work do not have many transferable skills and may be very liable to trying to restore the status quo by any means necessary. These are people who have spent years specialising in destabilising foreign countries and getting people they don't like to disappear.
Come to think of it, there must be people in the CIA whose speciality is rigging elections (http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=441). If someone like Ron Paul actually looked like winning a presidential election they may be tempted to act before he was elected. He better be damn sure he practices what he preaches as they could easily find someone to pay to have his illegitimate offspring when he sleeps with her while drunk and this is just one way you could try and tarnish him prior to an election. I am sure there are people in the CIA who can think up loads better ones than me.
Another alternative would be to stage an attack like 9-11 and then try and pin the blame on muslim extremists or whoever. Then you can plant a few stories in the media about them training in some foreign land and you can be damn sure future elections would be much more friendly to the candidates with a more interventionist view point.
And then you have the minor problem of Israel. What does Ron Paul suggest doing about that as currently they rely very heavily on US help in order to exist. Would the Jewish lobby in the states sit around and watch the people of Israel be driven into the sea or nuked by Iran. The main reason the Israeli's have not openly attacked Iran in order to end their nuclear program is that they actually can't do it alone. They need US assistance in the form of your air power and specialist bunker busting munitions in order to stand half a chance of success.
The reality is that if Ron Paul was a serious candidate then their are an awful lot of different groups who would mobilise to try an scupper his campaign by any means necessary.
Given their last bunch of leaders... Obama, too polar, you either love him or hate him, sort of the Apple of the political world.
This does not surprise me too much. I am a resident of the UK but used to spend an awful lot of my time playing Americas Army (the PC Game) on US Servers and as part of a US clan. The people I generally knew were certainly not representative of most American's but they probably were representative of most Tea Party types (they were generally staunch republicans who still liked Bush at the end of his term)
I remember hearing an awful lot of discussions in the run up to Obama being elected and I noticed that many of them simply could not rationalise why they were so anti Obama, even from when Hillary was still in the running in the primaries. They were all saying things like "The only good thing about Obama winning (the primaries) is that he will never be elected president.".
The more I listened, the more I became convinced that a great deal of this feeling was actually racist tendencies that they simply were not allowed to openly express but still could not move away from. This is often referred to as subconscious racism and it is the most interesting kind as well suffer from it to a certain degree. The thing is though, that most of the people I knew then found it impossible to see beyond theirs but most americans obviously did see beyond it and ultimately elected him.
Politicians crawled out of the sewer? When did that happen?
When the UK stopped paying for the politicians second homes unless they actually lived in them? They stopped renting them out and moved out of the sewers then I think:)
Typical Marxist strategy is to have so many rules, regulations, by-laws and other bits of legislation that at any time someone is always breaking something. Then they can drag any opponent through the courts, give them a criminal record as well as confiscate their property.
Look up the lyrics to "The Ostrich" by Steppenwolf.
Not sure why this counts as Marxist, I am fairly sure Marx did not come up with this as a good way of running society.
It does sound very similar to the UK legal system though as we do have a series of law saying the many things we cannot do, but no bill of rights to say the things we can do.
By the same method I could patent an electric car that has a 500-mile plus range, top speed of over 90mph and a charge time of under an hour. When the hardware catches up (i.e. other people do the real work) I cash in as having invented it. God, what a stupid system. No wonder people want to be lawyers rather than actually invent something - the lawyers can claim to have "invented" it on paper and take the money and credit.
But then not all patents stick when they are challenged in court so filing a single patent on your "invention" does not guarantee any return. In order to be sure you actually shaft the real inventor of an electric car you will need to invest probably in the region of $100,000. This is quite a lot of cash to invest, and even then there is a small chance that some bastard will successfully lobby congress to overhaul the patent process and flush all your money down the drain:)
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,"
I don't feel better, nor do most other people in fact. It's part of the reason the airline industry's hurting. In the large, most people don't travel any more by air unless they have to because of this tripe.
That is a pretty stupid response to the slightly increased threat as air travel is still safer than driving the same distance.
Have her breasts seized? Sure, I can understand that; probably more than 3oz of liquid in those things. If she wants to get them through security, she needs to wrap them in plastic and write "Saline Solution" on them. See Bruce Schneier: The Things He Carried [schneier.com]
The link you posted has a very relevant and insightful paragraph where it details exactly what has made flying safer:
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
This is mostly spot on, but part of making people go through a heightened security screen is to remind them of the threat.
Here in the UK we had had terrorism since before I was born, we simply have less need be reminded. I expect most Israelis feel them same way since they have had a similar problem. We are used to looking out for people behaving suspiciously, we are used to keeping an eye out for unattended bags in airports or other places people congregate. There is a reason that most UK mainline train stations have no litter bins, we removed them all when the IRA decided to leave bombs in them in the 80's and 90's.
The IRA very rarely targeted air travel as they were less likely in mass killing of civilians in the later years and more interested in property damage but they still used explosives and people still died so we got used to having to keep an eye out. Now we have to keep an eye out in different places and for different things but we are still more used to being alert in the same way.
You guys in the US have never had to worry about domestic terrorism in the same way before so it is only natural you are still trying to figure out how to deal with it. It is very scary that one of your fellow citizens wants to turn on you but you have no idea exactly who. Many people though deal with this fear by blocking it out and not thinking about it, forcing people to jump through some hoops also forces them to think about it at times when it is very important.
Except that one of facebook's main usages is to reconnect or keep in touch with people you don't see everyday (old schoolmates, family from far away, etc...), using an alias keeps the people you'd like to find you from doing so.
Maybe you'd find them... but if both of you are using an alias, you'd never find each other.
Your right, but more and more people are now forced to not use their real name.
One example is that one of my friends is now a secondary school teacher, his students are forever looking for him on facebook but just seeing who he is connected to (people like me) could potentially scare one of his students parents. I know you could say that nobody should be able to gain access without his consent but he is worried that they could make up a name of someone he worked with previously or something and try and use this in order to get him to accept a friend request.
Yes, because there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world in all of history, and nobody ever increases society's wealth, correct?
Some people increase societies wealth but that does not come from buying and selling shares, it comes from people at the bottom actually making stuff. Of course some types of selling shares (like IPO's) does help the people at the bottom do this by facilitating investment.
The utterly parasitic stuff is crap like futures trading where you are effectively just gambling on whether a share will go up or down over a particular period. You basically agree to purchase or sell a quantity of shares at some specified point in the future at a particular price. This is rally nothing more than glorifies gambling but it is popular as it how you can make the most (or lose the most) money. In a recession short selling (betting a stock will go down) is often pretty easy to get right.
This also allows you to bet the stock will drop over a particular period then spend most of that time trying to spread bad rumours about the companies projected profits or how bad their business model is, if the rumours stick you can make a fortune even if they ultimately turn out to be false as your option date will have passed by the time the company announces its profits or quells the markets fears.
Going long is betting a stock will go up over a particular period and that is far less parasitic in my opinion, but I still see it as less constructive than actually buying the shares in a company outright and waiting for a dividend or just selling them when they have gone up in value.
This whole thread is already overrun with AC's, all posting bad stuff about google in sync and their are only 19 posts at present. Please do not respond to them, it is a waste of time and if they had any real interest in posting here they would set up an account and make constructive contributions.
Yes, you have to rectify AC before it powers a computer, but the rectification costs less than 1% of the energy
No, actually only commercial transformers that form part of our electricity grid are generally that efficient. Most PSU transformers in computers are generally about 70% - 80% efficient. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/strong-showing,987-38.html
So by moving to a single transformer that powered the entire datacenter rather than an average datacentre containing 1 or 2 transformers for each PC there is the potential to save a lot of energy. The fact that many servers have dual redundant PSU's in case one fails means there is ever more scope for improvement as a transformer costs energy to run even if nothing is drawing energy on the DC side.
By consolidating the transformers by building you make it more cost efficient to spend the extra money and use a transformer that gets closer to the efficiency you mention.
There are also serious distribution advantages in 3 phase electricity, but it is not used because of the extra complexity, despite being cheap.
Not sure about you guys in the US, but here in the UK we use 3 phase power, it is just that each home only connects to 2 of the phases. You can get a 3 phase supply to your premises though in certain circumstances .
An interesting side effect of this can be seen if you ever have a partial power cut. Often only one or two phases will fail so you end up seeing every third house that either has power or does not. This is because they try and structure it such that alternate houses connect to different phases in order to balance the load across them evenly.
DC distribution is expensive, and 1% gain is just not enough to pay for it. Once we have intelligent grids, the situation may be different, but for now there is just no business case.
Nobody is talking about DC distribution, just about moving to a each server within a datacentre being supplied in DC. The datacenter itself would still get an AC supply from the grid, they would just convert it to DC centrally.
BTW - Here in the UK we call the device that converts AC to DC a transformer:)
We need to find a way to reward the initial creation of an idea, not it's distribution
Your right, but there is slightly more since that reward has to come from somewhere.
We also need to find a way to share the rewarding for the initial creation of an idea amongst the people who find the idea useful fairly. Maybe not everyone should have to contribute something to the reward but someone has to, how do you choose who contributes and who does not?
Do you just allow people to contribute whatever they feel like? Surely that relies on everyone being honest wanting to give something back and unfortunately this is not currently the case in the world we live.
I have bought about 20 or 30 apps for android over the years as I hate losing some screen space to the adverts. I cannot think of a single one that did not use Google Wallet to process my payment.
I would love to know what percentage of android app developers use other methods to take payments, if it is less than about 5% than I am not in the least bit surprised about this.
I very strongly disagree. Good programming can't allow for lack of discipline. People who go for more "elaborate" languages, with loads of libraries available, should be forced to understand what goes on behind the scenes.
Maybe your right, but the real world simply is not like that.
You can't force people to work the way you want them too. There are plenty of people out there who produce satisfactory results for their employers day in, day out who do not care one little bit about what goes on behind the scenes. They might not be producing the best and neatest work they could do, but they probably do not care about that either. The code they write works though even though it might take slightly longer to make changes to it or it not be quite as efficient as it could be.
How do you force these people to fit in to your ethos, even though they do not see any issues with what they are producing already. The only person who sees and lack of efficiency or whatever is the person who has spent longer understanding the inner workings more thoroughly. You can tell them all you like but unless they trust you and value your opinion you are wasting your breath.
Don't think people with this mindset are too rare either. Developers like this are ten a penny, often because they are easier for managers to relate to than geeks who live the languages they code in.
Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.
There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.
For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.
I was going to post a long discussion about the bits of your post that are crap (like your understanding of the act you quoted) then decided not bother when I read the above paragraph. You sound like you are purely informed by reading the Daily Mail once you start going on about Mullah's and young girls in fictitious bullshit illegal marriages.
In the example you gave sharia law is utterly irrelevant, since the girl is under age she is not legally married therefore needs no divorce. And hubby better not think he is avoiding child abuse charges if he is in this country just because of their "marriage". It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.
How often do you need to drive from Dundee, Scotland to Poole, England?
You guys have a funny idea of us in the UK and an even funnier idea of public transport.
I have just finished work and have just travelled just short of 200 miles back home. I am now mildly pissed as I have been drinking the whole way in a first class carriage but have covered the distance in just over 2 hours. There is no way I could have driven london to manchester at 100+ mph the whole way and kept my licence if I did it as often as I do.
Invest in a decent transport system and you can actually travel further in less time than using a car. This journey did cost me a bit more than driving but shit it is worth it, especially as I can even work (or drink and post crap to slashot) on the train.
The rest of the world can go pound sand then, because the reason you have expensive fuel is your own fault.
Pounding Sand is a funny expression really, as most of the remaining oil is in a few very sandy countries. This is really the problem, we have spent the past 50 years using oil far more quickly than it forms underground so sooner or later it will either run out or we will have to use a shit load less.
Some predictions are that the oil will either run out or at the very least becomer very hard to extract due to depth over the next 50 to 100 years. This means you guys in the US do not have long to replan your cities or come up with a very good way of making energy. Currently we get lots of our energy out from under the ground (as oil, gas, coal, etc). When this happens we better have cracked nuclear fusion or we are going to use less energy per capita, whether we like it or not.
I studied physics for god knows how long so know you cannot make energy from nothing, but making it through fission or anything else will not even come close to satisfying our current demand if we all move to electric cars when the oil runs out. Likewise for anything else you try and run a car on, the current way only works because we can get the oil that has been forming for thousands of years that we could never get before. The only solution I can see to this is if we can start extracting hydrogen from the sun within the next 100 years.
Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process.
No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.
Any agreement between two parties in England or Wales is bound by the English law of contract. You can agree to anything you like but you cannot exempt you contract from English law. Likewise you can go to a sharia court for a divorce decision, but if one party decides they don't like the outcome they can go straight to the real court and see if they prefer that instead.
In most cases people respect Sharia Law simply because their religion is important to them. It is not in the least bit legally enforceable by the english courts. It might be that you went to a court after you got the sharia decision and it turned out that in this case as you had both agreed to be bound by the sharia decision it did apply, but that is only because our law of contract had allowed you to sign that right of legal redress away.
There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
Thankfully, unlike in politics(where we call them "culture" or "institutions" or "traditions") everybody in IT fucking hates legacy systems.
That is how you can tell a good IT person from a great IT person. The one who is truly brilliant will sit down and learn his way around everything, he might hate it but he will learn every last wire or line of code before making any improvements of his own.
The ones who come straight in and want to change how everything works from day one before they fully understand how it all interrelates are going to screw something up sooner or later.
Build an internal Wiki. You won't be free from questions since you can 't cover everything in a one day training session. I'd make that two half days with a month or so in between.
To be honest, you should have done this 5 years ago. Everything should be documented at the time you build it, so if you leave / die someone can pick up supporting what you put in place. I know many people might come back saying this is a waste of time, but it is the only way to be sure that everything that needs to be gets documented. Trying to figure out what bits of the last 5 years need documenting now is a nightmare and you are guaranteed to miss stuff. Doing 5 years of systadmin stuff with no documentation of how it all fits together is like doing 5 years of coding with no comments or supporting program design work.
This advice might be too late to help the original poster, but hopefully someone else out there will see the benefit of this.
People don't freak out about arbitration, they freak out about the sharia. You know because they stone people and hate women and stuff and think it's ok because the sharia demands it.
If two muslims get some sort of sharia judgement in the UK that involves stoning someone to death, they are most likely both going to prison for a very long time unless they dispose of the corpse nice and quietly and nobody else finds out.
As a brit I have no problems with a couple of Muslims settling their differences outside court by whatever means the like. Just don't expect me to be bound by that shit for a second.
Slashdot Mirror
Bringing home the troops. The president is Commander in Chief. If he orders the military to come home, they come home.
Unless someone shoots him, then the vice-president takes over. This is damn serious.
There would be an awful lot of people in the CIA and the military who would not the sort of changes Ron Paul wants. They would be looking at a vast decrease in US defence spending and may well find themselves out of a job. The people who work on the front lines abroad in the CIA doing covert work do not have many transferable skills and may be very liable to trying to restore the status quo by any means necessary. These are people who have spent years specialising in destabilising foreign countries and getting people they don't like to disappear.
Come to think of it, there must be people in the CIA whose speciality is rigging elections (http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=441). If someone like Ron Paul actually looked like winning a presidential election they may be tempted to act before he was elected. He better be damn sure he practices what he preaches as they could easily find someone to pay to have his illegitimate offspring when he sleeps with her while drunk and this is just one way you could try and tarnish him prior to an election. I am sure there are people in the CIA who can think up loads better ones than me.
Another alternative would be to stage an attack like 9-11 and then try and pin the blame on muslim extremists or whoever. Then you can plant a few stories in the media about them training in some foreign land and you can be damn sure future elections would be much more friendly to the candidates with a more interventionist view point.
And then you have the minor problem of Israel. What does Ron Paul suggest doing about that as currently they rely very heavily on US help in order to exist. Would the Jewish lobby in the states sit around and watch the people of Israel be driven into the sea or nuked by Iran. The main reason the Israeli's have not openly attacked Iran in order to end their nuclear program is that they actually can't do it alone. They need US assistance in the form of your air power and specialist bunker busting munitions in order to stand half a chance of success.
The reality is that if Ron Paul was a serious candidate then their are an awful lot of different groups who would mobilise to try an scupper his campaign by any means necessary.
Given their last bunch of leaders... Obama, too polar, you either love him or hate him, sort of the Apple of the political world.
This does not surprise me too much. I am a resident of the UK but used to spend an awful lot of my time playing Americas Army (the PC Game) on US Servers and as part of a US clan. The people I generally knew were certainly not representative of most American's but they probably were representative of most Tea Party types (they were generally staunch republicans who still liked Bush at the end of his term)
I remember hearing an awful lot of discussions in the run up to Obama being elected and I noticed that many of them simply could not rationalise why they were so anti Obama, even from when Hillary was still in the running in the primaries. They were all saying things like "The only good thing about Obama winning (the primaries) is that he will never be elected president.".
The more I listened, the more I became convinced that a great deal of this feeling was actually racist tendencies that they simply were not allowed to openly express but still could not move away from. This is often referred to as subconscious racism and it is the most interesting kind as well suffer from it to a certain degree. The thing is though, that most of the people I knew then found it impossible to see beyond theirs but most americans obviously did see beyond it and ultimately elected him.
For money? Are you going to go back to a GOLD standard? Where will you get all the gold?
Gold Standard? Not a single country in the world uses that any more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
Politicians crawled out of the sewer? When did that happen?
When the UK stopped paying for the politicians second homes unless they actually lived in them? They stopped renting them out and moved out of the sewers then I think :)
Typical Marxist strategy is to have so many rules, regulations, by-laws and other bits of legislation that at any time someone is always breaking something. Then they can drag any opponent through the courts, give them a criminal record as well as confiscate their property.
Look up the lyrics to "The Ostrich" by Steppenwolf.
Not sure why this counts as Marxist, I am fairly sure Marx did not come up with this as a good way of running society.
It does sound very similar to the UK legal system though as we do have a series of law saying the many things we cannot do, but no bill of rights to say the things we can do.
By the same method I could patent an electric car that has a 500-mile plus range, top speed of over 90mph and a charge time of under an hour. When the hardware catches up (i.e. other people do the real work) I cash in as having invented it. God, what a stupid system. No wonder people want to be lawyers rather than actually invent something - the lawyers can claim to have "invented" it on paper and take the money and credit.
You could do that yes, but it would cost you a fair amount of money. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070313050823AAND484
But then not all patents stick when they are challenged in court so filing a single patent on your "invention" does not guarantee any return. In order to be sure you actually shaft the real inventor of an electric car you will need to invest probably in the region of $100,000. This is quite a lot of cash to invest, and even then there is a small chance that some bastard will successfully lobby congress to overhaul the patent process and flush all your money down the drain :)
I don't feel better, nor do most other people in fact. It's part of the reason the airline industry's hurting. In the large, most people don't travel any more by air unless they have to because of this tripe.
That is a pretty stupid response to the slightly increased threat as air travel is still safer than driving the same distance.
Have her breasts seized? Sure, I can understand that; probably more than 3oz of liquid in those things. If she wants to get them through security, she needs to wrap them in plastic and write "Saline Solution" on them. See Bruce Schneier: The Things He Carried [schneier.com]
The link you posted has a very relevant and insightful paragraph where it details exactly what has made flying safer:
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
This is mostly spot on, but part of making people go through a heightened security screen is to remind them of the threat.
Here in the UK we had had terrorism since before I was born, we simply have less need be reminded. I expect most Israelis feel them same way since they have had a similar problem. We are used to looking out for people behaving suspiciously, we are used to keeping an eye out for unattended bags in airports or other places people congregate. There is a reason that most UK mainline train stations have no litter bins, we removed them all when the IRA decided to leave bombs in them in the 80's and 90's.
The IRA very rarely targeted air travel as they were less likely in mass killing of civilians in the later years and more interested in property damage but they still used explosives and people still died so we got used to having to keep an eye out. Now we have to keep an eye out in different places and for different things but we are still more used to being alert in the same way.
You guys in the US have never had to worry about domestic terrorism in the same way before so it is only natural you are still trying to figure out how to deal with it. It is very scary that one of your fellow citizens wants to turn on you but you have no idea exactly who. Many people though deal with this fear by blocking it out and not thinking about it, forcing people to jump through some hoops also forces them to think about it at times when it is very important.
Except that one of facebook's main usages is to reconnect or keep in touch with people you don't see everyday (old schoolmates, family from far away, etc...), using an alias keeps the people you'd like to find you from doing so.
Maybe you'd find them... but if both of you are using an alias, you'd never find each other.
Your right, but more and more people are now forced to not use their real name.
One example is that one of my friends is now a secondary school teacher, his students are forever looking for him on facebook but just seeing who he is connected to (people like me) could potentially scare one of his students parents. I know you could say that nobody should be able to gain access without his consent but he is worried that they could make up a name of someone he worked with previously or something and try and use this in order to get him to accept a friend request.
Yes, because there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world in all of history, and nobody ever increases society's wealth, correct?
Some people increase societies wealth but that does not come from buying and selling shares, it comes from people at the bottom actually making stuff. Of course some types of selling shares (like IPO's) does help the people at the bottom do this by facilitating investment.
The utterly parasitic stuff is crap like futures trading where you are effectively just gambling on whether a share will go up or down over a particular period. You basically agree to purchase or sell a quantity of shares at some specified point in the future at a particular price. This is rally nothing more than glorifies gambling but it is popular as it how you can make the most (or lose the most) money. In a recession short selling (betting a stock will go down) is often pretty easy to get right.
This also allows you to bet the stock will drop over a particular period then spend most of that time trying to spread bad rumours about the companies projected profits or how bad their business model is, if the rumours stick you can make a fortune even if they ultimately turn out to be false as your option date will have passed by the time the company announces its profits or quells the markets fears.
Going long is betting a stock will go up over a particular period and that is far less parasitic in my opinion, but I still see it as less constructive than actually buying the shares in a company outright and waiting for a dividend or just selling them when they have gone up in value.
[citation needed]
This whole thread is already overrun with AC's, all posting bad stuff about google in sync and their are only 19 posts at present. Please do not respond to them, it is a waste of time and if they had any real interest in posting here they would set up an account and make constructive contributions.
Yes, you have to rectify AC before it powers a computer, but the rectification costs less than 1% of the energy
No, actually only commercial transformers that form part of our electricity grid are generally that efficient. Most PSU transformers in computers are generally about 70% - 80% efficient. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/strong-showing,987-38.html
So by moving to a single transformer that powered the entire datacenter rather than an average datacentre containing 1 or 2 transformers for each PC there is the potential to save a lot of energy. The fact that many servers have dual redundant PSU's in case one fails means there is ever more scope for improvement as a transformer costs energy to run even if nothing is drawing energy on the DC side.
By consolidating the transformers by building you make it more cost efficient to spend the extra money and use a transformer that gets closer to the efficiency you mention.
There are also serious distribution advantages in 3 phase electricity, but it is not used because of the extra complexity, despite being cheap.
Not sure about you guys in the US, but here in the UK we use 3 phase power, it is just that each home only connects to 2 of the phases. You can get a 3 phase supply to your premises though in certain circumstances .
http://www.ukslc.org/articles/power/3_phase_power_explanation_200706152153.html
An interesting side effect of this can be seen if you ever have a partial power cut. Often only one or two phases will fail so you end up seeing every third house that either has power or does not. This is because they try and structure it such that alternate houses connect to different phases in order to balance the load across them evenly.
DC distribution is expensive, and 1% gain is just not enough to pay for it. Once we have intelligent grids, the situation may be different, but for now there is just no business case.
Nobody is talking about DC distribution, just about moving to a each server within a datacentre being supplied in DC. The datacenter itself would still get an AC supply from the grid, they would just convert it to DC centrally.
BTW - Here in the UK we call the device that converts AC to DC a transformer :)
We need to find a way to reward the initial creation of an idea, not it's distribution
Your right, but there is slightly more since that reward has to come from somewhere.
We also need to find a way to share the rewarding for the initial creation of an idea amongst the people who find the idea useful fairly. Maybe not everyone should have to contribute something to the reward but someone has to, how do you choose who contributes and who does not?
Do you just allow people to contribute whatever they feel like? Surely that relies on everyone being honest wanting to give something back and unfortunately this is not currently the case in the world we live.
Apps you are paying money for have ads? huh.
Nope, I hate ads so I buy more apps than most people I know.
I have bought about 20 or 30 apps for android over the years as I hate losing some screen space to the adverts. I cannot think of a single one that did not use Google Wallet to process my payment.
I would love to know what percentage of android app developers use other methods to take payments, if it is less than about 5% than I am not in the least bit surprised about this.
I very strongly disagree. Good programming can't allow for lack of discipline. People who go for more "elaborate" languages, with loads of libraries available, should be forced to understand what goes on behind the scenes.
Maybe your right, but the real world simply is not like that.
You can't force people to work the way you want them too. There are plenty of people out there who produce satisfactory results for their employers day in, day out who do not care one little bit about what goes on behind the scenes. They might not be producing the best and neatest work they could do, but they probably do not care about that either. The code they write works though even though it might take slightly longer to make changes to it or it not be quite as efficient as it could be.
How do you force these people to fit in to your ethos, even though they do not see any issues with what they are producing already. The only person who sees and lack of efficiency or whatever is the person who has spent longer understanding the inner workings more thoroughly. You can tell them all you like but unless they trust you and value your opinion you are wasting your breath.
Don't think people with this mindset are too rare either. Developers like this are ten a penny, often because they are easier for managers to relate to than geeks who live the languages they code in.
Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.
There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.
For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.
I was going to post a long discussion about the bits of your post that are crap (like your understanding of the act you quoted) then decided not bother when I read the above paragraph. You sound like you are purely informed by reading the Daily Mail once you start going on about Mullah's and young girls in fictitious bullshit illegal marriages.
In the example you gave sharia law is utterly irrelevant, since the girl is under age she is not legally married therefore needs no divorce. And hubby better not think he is avoiding child abuse charges if he is in this country just because of their "marriage". It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.
How often do you need to drive from Dundee, Scotland to Poole, England?
You guys have a funny idea of us in the UK and an even funnier idea of public transport.
I have just finished work and have just travelled just short of 200 miles back home. I am now mildly pissed as I have been drinking the whole way in a first class carriage but have covered the distance in just over 2 hours. There is no way I could have driven london to manchester at 100+ mph the whole way and kept my licence if I did it as often as I do.
Invest in a decent transport system and you can actually travel further in less time than using a car. This journey did cost me a bit more than driving but shit it is worth it, especially as I can even work (or drink and post crap to slashot) on the train.
The rest of the world can go pound sand then, because the reason you have expensive fuel is your own fault.
Pounding Sand is a funny expression really, as most of the remaining oil is in a few very sandy countries. This is really the problem, we have spent the past 50 years using oil far more quickly than it forms underground so sooner or later it will either run out or we will have to use a shit load less.
Some predictions are that the oil will either run out or at the very least becomer very hard to extract due to depth over the next 50 to 100 years. This means you guys in the US do not have long to replan your cities or come up with a very good way of making energy. Currently we get lots of our energy out from under the ground (as oil, gas, coal, etc). When this happens we better have cracked nuclear fusion or we are going to use less energy per capita, whether we like it or not.
I studied physics for god knows how long so know you cannot make energy from nothing, but making it through fission or anything else will not even come close to satisfying our current demand if we all move to electric cars when the oil runs out. Likewise for anything else you try and run a car on, the current way only works because we can get the oil that has been forming for thousands of years that we could never get before. The only solution I can see to this is if we can start extracting hydrogen from the sun within the next 100 years.
Huh? Every time we invade Iraq, gas prices go way up.
Technically you have only actually invaded Iraq once, the first time it was just a war :)
Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process.
No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.
Any agreement between two parties in England or Wales is bound by the English law of contract. You can agree to anything you like but you cannot exempt you contract from English law. Likewise you can go to a sharia court for a divorce decision, but if one party decides they don't like the outcome they can go straight to the real court and see if they prefer that instead.
In most cases people respect Sharia Law simply because their religion is important to them. It is not in the least bit legally enforceable by the english courts. It might be that you went to a court after you got the sharia decision and it turned out that in this case as you had both agreed to be bound by the sharia decision it did apply, but that is only because our law of contract had allowed you to sign that right of legal redress away.
There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.
Thankfully, unlike in politics(where we call them "culture" or "institutions" or "traditions") everybody in IT fucking hates legacy systems.
That is how you can tell a good IT person from a great IT person. The one who is truly brilliant will sit down and learn his way around everything, he might hate it but he will learn every last wire or line of code before making any improvements of his own.
The ones who come straight in and want to change how everything works from day one before they fully understand how it all interrelates are going to screw something up sooner or later.
Build an internal Wiki. You won't be free from questions since you can 't cover everything in a one day training session. I'd make that two half days with a month or so in between.
To be honest, you should have done this 5 years ago. Everything should be documented at the time you build it, so if you leave / die someone can pick up supporting what you put in place. I know many people might come back saying this is a waste of time, but it is the only way to be sure that everything that needs to be gets documented. Trying to figure out what bits of the last 5 years need documenting now is a nightmare and you are guaranteed to miss stuff. Doing 5 years of systadmin stuff with no documentation of how it all fits together is like doing 5 years of coding with no comments or supporting program design work.
This advice might be too late to help the original poster, but hopefully someone else out there will see the benefit of this.
People don't freak out about arbitration, they freak out about the sharia. You know because they stone people and hate women and stuff and think it's ok because the sharia demands it.
If two muslims get some sort of sharia judgement in the UK that involves stoning someone to death, they are most likely both going to prison for a very long time unless they dispose of the corpse nice and quietly and nobody else finds out.
As a brit I have no problems with a couple of Muslims settling their differences outside court by whatever means the like. Just don't expect me to be bound by that shit for a second.
And, miraculously, I've never run over a child, Oompa Loompa, penguin, or anything else for that mattter.
I guess you weren't trying hard enough then. Getting an Oompa Loompa should be easy to as the orange hair protrudes just above the hood.