Sunglasses have horizontal polarization. It's aimed at preserving the light reflected from horizontal surfaces, while filtering half of the light comming directly from the Sun.
That depends entirely on the specs of the machines you are aquiring from F5. For most of their offerings, it is worth more to buy a better switch and a server to run nginx. For most of their clients, that also applies.
But, yes, there are some really good appliances you can buy for reverse proxy/caching. You just probably don't need them.
Just notice that there is some value in forcing your hardware to fail in a time your downtime will be cheaper. Also, if you are smart, you'll induce redundant components to fail in different times, so downtime will cost just the maintaince price.
Of course, places tha fail to see that they are antecipating failures by doing maintence won't ever plan for that.
That logic applies to mechanical parts and electronic circuits that operate way above their current limit. It is not valid for electronic circuits operating with reasonable currents.
Try "If after a couple of years 10% has already failed, we still have a couple of years until the next 9% (10% of 90%) fail".
If you read the Unix Haters Handbook, you'll see that they notice that "Unix boots fast", a lot of times.
I wasn't using computers (even less "real" computers) by that time, so I don't know how reliable is their description. But they describe exactly that shift in mentality, and way before Windows time. Then free unixes came, and everything changed...
Nobody gets to decide what the minimum set of liberties needed for Democracy to work is. It simply is. You can put your head out of the sand, take a look around and try to discover what it is, or you can try to pretend it is an empty set, that's your decision, and won't change the fact that it isn't empty. By the way, why are you asking me who gets to decide?
Some places have a minimum protected set of liberties. Who decided what those are varies to place to place. Probably none of those places got exactly the right set, and it is arguable if it is worth protecting.
"What we really need are more psych and English majors who are great at writing proposals and applications for grants."
Don't you see any problem with that sentence? I mean... The goal of your workplace is to enrich the world by "writting proposals and applications for grants"?
c. IT people in general can't provide accurate forecasts for costs of any IT project. Non-IT people can't either, but they aren't normaly asked to forecast IT projects.
In fact, if your people can accurately evaluate the costs of an IT project after it is done, you are already ahead of most.
You know, I'm always curious when IT people tallks about their "audit requirements". Would you mind explaining a little bit about yours? I mean, how do you proceed to audit the software the users asks? What are you trying to find? Or better, what do you think you can find?
If there is a bug, well, that a problem for the user. If there is some kind of malware, except something as simply that an anti-virus could detect, do you really think you could detect? Do you think you can assure it won't corrupt the computer it is installed on before installing it? Or that you can discover that it will behave badly on the network before at least some 10 people have it installed?
And if you look for all that, do you have enough findings to justify all the people you are employing to do that?
Most of the time, IT isn't trying to protect their power. They just want users to stop trashing their systems. The users, by their side, just want to get their work done. And both will jump over whatever obstacles are needed to get to their goal. Management, by their side are trying to make IT not too expensive, and of course wants other people to do whatever they hired them to do.
There is enough tension here for creating conflicts even if everybody is perfectly competent and doing their best. And a company composed entirely of competent people is either very small or fictional.
As other people aready said, Democracy needs a minimum set of liberties to work properly. I just don't know if the liberty to remove those liberties should be granted. There are countries that have them, others that don't, and when a set of strong enough people decides they should go without Democracy, they get their wishes anyway, whatever the rules say. By the other way, that limitation could damage a country, but that is also hypotetical.
One thing is for sure. Once a country doesn't respect that minimum set of liberties, it stops being a Democracy, so the question has no meaning in that context.
Also, there are a couple of factors missing here. The royal familiy wouldn't be doing such kind of thing if they were really loved by the people, and there is nothing forcing anybody to travel to an undemocratic country.
What is the label for the person that points that the estimated values are actualy the same? None of your personas (and the article writter) understand what an error bar is?
Please, specify what kind of consuption you think we'll suffer when we can't supply it. Agregating all kinds of consuption into that abstract thing called "demand" is just hand waving (and wrong).
You mean, pointing that oil is finite? That's all you need to prove your argument is false. Of course, you can dismiss the knowledge that oil is finite for how long you want. It is just a theory after all.
Also, that isn't proof that peak oil is now. The way things are going, nobody will ever be able to prove "peak oil is now", whenever "now" is.
In fact, anything that I remember from the 90's put peak oil around now, and oil lasting until somewhen around 2050.
But let's not forget coal, all that fuel that isn't mature enough to be called coal (several names here), current vegetation, and all that methane traped deep in the ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
A few million dollars?! You must make that more realistic. Try a few hundred million dollars.
Abiotic or biological, oil is finite. Abiotic oil only changes the date of peak oil (by a long, long time), not the eventual outcome.
Anyway, it is not up for consideration, it was dismissed long ago. Abiotic oil is just present on political debates because politicians like to lie.
Sunglasses have horizontal polarization. It's aimed at preserving the light reflected from horizontal surfaces, while filtering half of the light comming directly from the Sun.
I'm holding to the long tradition of using '123456' for all users, on all systems.
That depends entirely on the specs of the machines you are aquiring from F5. For most of their offerings, it is worth more to buy a better switch and a server to run nginx. For most of their clients, that also applies.
But, yes, there are some really good appliances you can buy for reverse proxy/caching. You just probably don't need them.
In this case, the consequences were unintended.
That's maybe the only opportunity one have to see Alice afraid :)
Just notice that there is some value in forcing your hardware to fail in a time your downtime will be cheaper. Also, if you are smart, you'll induce redundant components to fail in different times, so downtime will cost just the maintaince price.
Of course, places tha fail to see that they are antecipating failures by doing maintence won't ever plan for that.
That logic applies to mechanical parts and electronic circuits that operate way above their current limit. It is not valid for electronic circuits operating with reasonable currents.
Try "If after a couple of years 10% has already failed, we still have a couple of years until the next 9% (10% of 90%) fail".
If you read the Unix Haters Handbook, you'll see that they notice that "Unix boots fast", a lot of times.
I wasn't using computers (even less "real" computers) by that time, so I don't know how reliable is their description. But they describe exactly that shift in mentality, and way before Windows time. Then free unixes came, and everything changed...
He still has the power to say one single phrase, and make all the people that passed that law look like stupid fools.
If he didn't support such a law, it wouldn't be there.
So, I guess free software has an automatic pass on that audit, right?
Nobody gets to decide what the minimum set of liberties needed for Democracy to work is. It simply is. You can put your head out of the sand, take a look around and try to discover what it is, or you can try to pretend it is an empty set, that's your decision, and won't change the fact that it isn't empty. By the way, why are you asking me who gets to decide?
Some places have a minimum protected set of liberties. Who decided what those are varies to place to place. Probably none of those places got exactly the right set, and it is arguable if it is worth protecting.
Don't you see any problem with that sentence? I mean... The goal of your workplace is to enrich the world by "writting proposals and applications for grants"?
c. IT people in general can't provide accurate forecasts for costs of any IT project. Non-IT people can't either, but they aren't normaly asked to forecast IT projects.
In fact, if your people can accurately evaluate the costs of an IT project after it is done, you are already ahead of most.
You know, I'm always curious when IT people tallks about their "audit requirements". Would you mind explaining a little bit about yours? I mean, how do you proceed to audit the software the users asks? What are you trying to find? Or better, what do you think you can find?
If there is a bug, well, that a problem for the user. If there is some kind of malware, except something as simply that an anti-virus could detect, do you really think you could detect? Do you think you can assure it won't corrupt the computer it is installed on before installing it? Or that you can discover that it will behave badly on the network before at least some 10 people have it installed?
And if you look for all that, do you have enough findings to justify all the people you are employing to do that?
Most of the time, IT isn't trying to protect their power. They just want users to stop trashing their systems. The users, by their side, just want to get their work done. And both will jump over whatever obstacles are needed to get to their goal. Management, by their side are trying to make IT not too expensive, and of course wants other people to do whatever they hired them to do.
There is enough tension here for creating conflicts even if everybody is perfectly competent and doing their best. And a company composed entirely of competent people is either very small or fictional.
As other people aready said, Democracy needs a minimum set of liberties to work properly. I just don't know if the liberty to remove those liberties should be granted. There are countries that have them, others that don't, and when a set of strong enough people decides they should go without Democracy, they get their wishes anyway, whatever the rules say. By the other way, that limitation could damage a country, but that is also hypotetical.
One thing is for sure. Once a country doesn't respect that minimum set of liberties, it stops being a Democracy, so the question has no meaning in that context.
Also, there are a couple of factors missing here. The royal familiy wouldn't be doing such kind of thing if they were really loved by the people, and there is nothing forcing anybody to travel to an undemocratic country.
Germany started to build them. Then they quitted. Some people talk about accidents, I know of no reliable source, and no deep information.
Or maybe the conspiracy theory people are right. Thorium is just too good, and would destroy the power industry.
Yeah, add the label.
And let us search with "label:terrorist", "label:piracy" and "label:porn".
What is the label for the person that points that the estimated values are actualy the same? None of your personas (and the article writter) understand what an error bar is?
Please, specify what kind of consuption you think we'll suffer when we can't supply it. Agregating all kinds of consuption into that abstract thing called "demand" is just hand waving (and wrong).
You mean, pointing that oil is finite? That's all you need to prove your argument is false. Of course, you can dismiss the knowledge that oil is finite for how long you want. It is just a theory after all.
Also, that isn't proof that peak oil is now. The way things are going, nobody will ever be able to prove "peak oil is now", whenever "now" is.
In fact, anything that I remember from the 90's put peak oil around now, and oil lasting until somewhen around 2050.
But let's not forget coal, all that fuel that isn't mature enough to be called coal (several names here), current vegetation, and all that methane traped deep in the ocean.
Both cited results are consistent. Let it to journalists to create news where nothing changed.