You are correct. So is the left wing astroturfing.
As AC pointed out earlier in the thread, the number is irrelevant, the effect should be the focus. The desire to frame the argument to a simple number rather than the obvious implicit meaning of "number of EO's that matter to me" is a absolute tip off that a left wing shill is operating the keyboard.
Sadly, the tug of war between the two parties is facilitated by this idiocy, rather than moving on to wondering how we get this two-winged-one-asshole shitbird off our backs.
A reasonable but somewhat specious argument. People in the socialized medical countries die from lack of treatment all the time. So, the question is really, who decides? At this point I have no hope that the politics in this country can be redeemed.
I am also skeptical that a country with the level of variance in culture and needs can be served well by the same federal system.
I wouldn't touch Fortinet with someone else's ten foot pole. I was just pondering their suckritude a fortnite ago when I found that WatchGuard is still a brand.
Some things just should not be.
[In case someone wonders, no I do not consider Barracuda a security company. They are an airport and AM radio media marketing firm that subconsciously programs you to want cocaine in your coffee, or Monster energy drinks... whichever is closer]
The citizens of the US had no true advocate in this fight. It's difficult to say that we do today.
I'm not totally anarcho-capitalist, but I do think heading that direction in this argument is probably closer to the solution. Some of the practical examples that guide me that direction are student loans and education costs, govt encouraged home loans and home price inflation, and the evolution of the current health care market.
Counter examples, or examples of businesses that we should look at Surgery Centers of Oklahoma, and a lot of the urgent care centers or small doctor offices that are starting to move toward cash payments and not accepting insurance.
Market forces by starving out the insurance companies using a taxpayer backed bucket of money?
Nope.
They will look at the future of competition in the space and decide to either sell services to the government (look at Booz Allen, Delloitte) or go up market and sell insurance for exceptional services. It will not lower the insurance costs. The only way to do that is for some company to demonstrate that profit is possible while providing the same service at lower price. This threatens their revenue stream while demonstrating that it is possible for them to attain that same result. A government backed agency does nothing of the sort.
I couldn't keep my doctor, my health care costs doubled for less care...
I came from a gold plated open affordable plan to some crazy ass horseshit with a minimum 5K deductible for twice the price.
Anecdotes are not data.
There have been many studies on the matter, and the data points the fact that health care costs are rising at a rate that does not seem to be slowing. So, buckle up buttercup.
Examples are readily available by simply googling "Have health care costs risen or fallen under ACA?". I will leave one example here:
In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost a total of $12,680, with employees footing $3,354 of the bill, according to Kaiser data. By 2016, the cost of the average employer family plan was up to $18,142 for the year, with workers picking up $5,277 of the tab.
The ostensible reason for adopting ACA was to insure more people. As I remember it the following provisions were included:
1. No consideration for pre-existing conditions. I don't understand how anyone with any idea about economics and govt distributed healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) thought this would decrease or stabilize the cost of healthcare.
2. The government plans will increase to better approach the private plans so that there will be less disparity in the quality of care. Again, pretty much a double incentive to decrease the care provided to private customers (the bar was reset to the Medicaid level of care) but a necessary increase in availability to slightly conceal the actual effect. (Care mediation)
3. Coverage will not be dependent on citizenship or legal immigration status. Again... Talking about loading the boat with negative financial burdens and claiming that there would be no price pressure.
There have long been arguments on Slashdot that other countries have universal healthcare and are supporting it. However, most of those examples have not had the sustained level of low skill immigration that the US has enjoyed over the last 40 years. Those that are catching up are starting to have to re-evaluate and/or change the messaging on their healthcare plans (Sweden, Germany, and UK NHS in particular). In the US, the people in favor of universal care should really stop arguing about money. If they believe that it is a right, then they should be speaking about the other rights that they choose to abrogate in favor of that right and establishing the moral imperative for doing so. Anything else is a distraction.
The truth of the matter is simply economic. If we want to provide universal anything as a social benefit, then we have to limit the growth of the low skill population. Otherwise the number of net recipients vs net contributors increases, at the same time that our aging population is stepping out of the workforce (Hello Boomers!) and we continue the death spiral of comparative quality of life in the US. [For those that argue that immigration into the US indicates that the US is still "Awesome!" should probably consider adding "Compared to what?" to their analysis. The proposition should also consider analyzing the quality of the immigrant over time. This might show that the skill level of the average immigrant is falling while quantity remains steady or increases. This could indicate that the quality of life disparity between nations is narrowing.]
The US is a third world country with the idea that it is still a first world nation. What we are now going through is a soft revolution where the mobile have-nots are appropriating the property of the landed gentry clinging to the cobwebs of past generations. The new robber barons are stroking our egos, while promoting the ingress of even more cheap labor.
TP said Macchiato, not 'Caramel Macchiato'. A macchiato, or espresso macchiato for clarity is usually two shots of espresso with a dollop of milk foam. That's it. No sugar, very little milk if done properly.
I personally recommend asking for the ristretto shots if you want to give it a try, it skips most of the bitter that often causes people to reach for the sugar.
The entire premise of freedom is that you must be "free" to exercise your rights. You are free to kneel during the anthem, and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so. However, if the employer has to look at cutting budget due to a downturn in viewership, and the action has a direct correlation with said downturn, then performers have just denied themselves a job. Interestingly, refer to Dolly Parton's opinion on this matter. She's friends with Lily Tomlin and other hard core libs but she doesn't express her opinions in a venue where it will affect her work. Smart.
However, due to the stupidity of equating words and opinions with violence we now can legitimately express concern regarding people expressing their opinion and having violent jackasses show up at their door or their place of work. Representative governments only work when civility is applied from both sides. Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold. In that climate, the eventual result is mob mentality, then violence (St Louis), then more restrictive reactionary government. Laws like this are the ropes of the Lilliputians attempting to tie Gulliver down, but, in this case, Gulliver will not negotiate.
This law in particular is taking rights away from people passively and setting us down the road toward places like the UK, where you can now be jailed for viewing "subversive" material. Is that really where we want to be? Some of us, those that cannot think that they will ever be on the receiving end will answer yes. Personally, I use this as an empathy test. If a person cannot imagine being oppressed in the future, then their current outrage is simply an expression of desire to belong or have power, rather than an interest in building a society in which no one need fear the government.
Just because jackbooted thugs wandering the streets are enforcing the desires of a totalitarian government rather than people dressed in fatigues does not make the government less oppressive. To avoid Godwin's law, I will instead invoke early Soviet Bolshevism or populist violence associated with Cromwell. Notice in both instances the violence of the people led to more power and oppression by the government.
Crappy examples. Both of your examples have very restrictive immigration policies and in Japan the middle class doesn't feel the same sort of economic pressure from low wage immigrants, nor is it likely to in the near term.
Russia is just now growing a middle class, their society hasn't adjusted to the bevy of choices that have been opened up to them economically, so they are focused on climbing the greasy pole of capitalism as it is the new marker of status in a culture where the powerful had nearly limitless power.
I don't know that you're right, but I do know that your examples are specious. Similar to how Scandinavian countries were held up as bastions of civil society based on their low crime rates and socialist politics without accounting for the fact that their society was highly homogeneous and had very restrictive immigration. Now that that those things have changed over the last 10 yrs, the examples have changed.
I would say that Canada is a better example, up to recently their immigration policy was more restrictive that the US, and they had the additional benefit of geographic isolation (or at least buffering.)
However, I think that the whole population argument is an argument driven by people who don't understand slavery and those that actually WANT wage slaves. If we slow the immigration rate and retard population growth then prices for goods and services will rise. This will foster investment in automation and efficiency, which in turn will drive productivity (per capita) up. It's the shortest road to a world where we can actually provide for everyone and their basic needs.
If the simulation is successful and sufficiently advanced, then we would all actually be AI simulacra of what the AI dev team thought the human experience was like. [Why do so many things taste like chicken?]
Perhaps we are special purpose AI entities that were created to run test scenarios that justify the pre-emptive judgement to extinguish the pestilence that was humanity. We are the test runs that show just how bad it could have gotten had they not saved the planet from us.
Given a sufficiently advanced environment, we wouldn't be to discern otherwise. Perhaps the supercomputing power that is required and was discovered by the 'real' humans required a very specific mass to a sub atomic particle. In our recreation, we can get very close but will lack the precision to be able to detect our cage, or at least construct an AI that could build a method for detecting the cage.
Not really. Biology can be subverted by sociological cues. The question is, and I have no idea of the answer, is the difference still statistically significant? Also, each culture is likely to have it's own preferences for careers for their children. For instance, if in China, as in Russia, the only careers seen as significant in any meaningful way are doctors and engineers, then families that do not have male children and are looking secure their future would apply great pressure to women to do that career which best serves the family.
The better study and something more easily controlled for would be a wealthy country with a very supportive social system and high status mobility. It seems that the Scandinavian countries would be a good place to look.
Not arguing, but pointing out that your choice of cultural sample may have been suboptimal.
According the several studies, one of which is linked below the cost is not a factor, as the long term care for people who are healthy is, in fact, greater than those who engage in risky activity. It makes sense, possibly, in that they accrete so many health problems that their health becomes brittle and they fail sooner. Over time you will likely encounter similar health problems; cancer is nearly inevitable, as is heart disease, and arterial sclerosis. The question is how long can you suffer small problems? You second or third knee and hip replacements would not take place with the smoker as they have already become permanently immobile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02... Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Because this is a union of states, not a union of people. It's the United STATES of America, not the Democratic Mob of America.
This allows people to have a different local government than the rest of the nation, but still cooperate on the major issues that were decided to best be pushed up to the Federal government.
It allows for an ecosystem of ideas and economies to exist and work along with each other. Technically, the popular vote applying to the federal election is not covered under federal statute at all. Arkansas could decide that the electoral votes will go to the party that wins a coin flip, if that's what the people of Arkansas voted for in their State law.
You usually also have the local government or Fed pay the fees to repair the place. If you control the labor costs and keep good books, you can easily profit from having a Section 8 contract.
However, if the government removes the property from Section 8 coverage due to changes in the neighborhood, or budget 'restructuring' you can be left holding a bag of poo. In which case, you should have those profits piled up to assuage the wounds you might take on the sale of the property.
That's the real challenge in building a new development for a Section 8 or similarly subsidized housing, the development itself is likely to be partially covered by the government, but there is an gap that is supposed to be filled by collecting rents on the property or selling the property to a management company. In either case your long term wager is based on the stability of the local and federal bureacrats.
However, that is not the only means to curing it. It can be solely salt cured and hung to dry. That's how I prefer my bacon. (I lie, I also heavily pepper it.)
From what I understand, the smoke ring created when smoking a meat creates some level of nitrites/nitrates in the meat, but rather than being through the meat, it is just near the surface which implies fewer nitrates/nitrites. In either case, if I want to add a smoky flavor to the bacon, then I will lightly smoke it (smoke it at a very low temp for approx 4hrs) before I salt and hang it.
In the end, I end up with something much less salty than the store bought stuff. It leaves a less lingering taste in the mouth, and for some reason doesn't make me feel nearly as thirsty.
All of that work can be done in a small apartment with a patio. If you're good at bartering, it can definitely help your neighborhood relationships as well.
Even so, in every bit of coaching that I have ever seen, there is a requirement of: request, rebuff, request again, escalate, unless the references are "to the reasonable person" offensive in the extreme.
That also seems to follow the legal doctrine on the matter. An advance is considered normal and human (if stupid, from a manager), the repeated advance in the face of clear rejection causes the condition to rise to harassment. This goes for passive things like, a mudflap girl coffee mug, inappropriate humor, etc.
I agree that the victim should escalate early and often for their own protection and documentation, but the HR person (if they were being honest) did the right thing. If we went around firing everyone for the first inappropriate thing they ever did the manpower churn itself would be a viable alternative power source.
I'm not a lawyer, advisor, or necessarily reasonable. I'm just old enough to see this go around multiple times, sometimes having negotiated successful resolutions... sometime having quit MY JOB because of the treatment of peer and the company's response.
Other folks here have provided insight and commentary that you likely have no clue as to what you are talking about, but who doesn't love a dogpile?
I have implemented MANY very large Splunk and ELK implementations. ELK will almost always ask for MORE hardware to get search performance. I agree that ELK scales out more quickly, but far less efficiently than Splunk does. If your sole criteria is search speed and you have unlimited hardware capacity then ELK is the way to go.
However, doing calculations on the logs, presenting the logs, transforming the data (geo IP lookups, changing the message so that it reads more easily), and doing multivariable comparison for either human or automated response is vastly superior in Splunk. In both the functions and toolkits available and the ability to front load a lot of your search work so that your performance is outstanding.
Cost wise... it's usually a wash. I have customers that have looked at the cost of installing and maintaining an ELK stack and replacing the lost features and ran away quickly. This is for >500GB/day infrastructures with a dedicated dev team of >3 people.
If your Splunk implementation is sucking wind that badly, then it is likely that whoever is paying for your implementation has expressed goals that are counter to your goals and thus you are ill served. If you are the payer, then you have done poorly at describing your desired outcome and approx 50% of the result is your fault.
Continuing on... You mention Flume and Solr. Solr, if you buy the production implementation (last time I looked) doesn't have a good flow control and message verification platform and is thus dependent on the messaging bus within Flume or the implementation of an outside message bus (Kafka, Redis). This results in another set of configurations to maintain, and a good place for logs to be lost in the ether. Flume itself is awesome, although the parsing recipes could use some work. If I were looking outside of Logstash/Beats (which is advisable as Logstash seems to still have some memory management issues) I would favor Fluent as the ingest process is less of a pain in the neck.
However, I've only done hundreds of implementations of log management infrastructures using logstash, ElasticSearch, Kibana, flume, kafka, redis, fluent, syslog-ng, and/or Splunk... so there are likely some options I haven't mentioned.
I've upgraded a metric shit ton of ASA's (~1500) from pre-8.3 to post 8.3 way back in the day, and I am fairly certain that only two failed to correctly migrate their NATs.
4.) Dinosaurs may have evolved into sentient bipeds had they not been taken out. Had sentience begun where the dinosaurs left off rather than being rebooted into mammalian evolution we might have gotten to self-induced nuclear destruction or grey goo meltdown earlier.
In Vegas (been there 3 times since the Uber ban lifted) the Uber fare was half of the taxi fare.
I could not take Uber to the airport as they were still restricted as of Sept 24th from going to the airport. (Some will still go there, but will remove their decal before doing so.)
However, from the Embassy Suites on Swenson to Mandalay Bay, MGM, Paris, and Cosmo... the fare was almost exactly half of the taxi fare.
Palo Alto's themselves are not that complex. The interface is an interesting attempt at being usable, and it's getting better. What I thought was interesting about the PA node was how many connections to Apache products it has. That makes me think that people are not happy with using Panorama to view/manage the logs and run reports against the logs.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. So is the left wing astroturfing.
As AC pointed out earlier in the thread, the number is irrelevant, the effect should be the focus. The desire to frame the argument to a simple number rather than the obvious implicit meaning of "number of EO's that matter to me" is a absolute tip off that a left wing shill is operating the keyboard.
Sadly, the tug of war between the two parties is facilitated by this idiocy, rather than moving on to wondering how we get this two-winged-one-asshole shitbird off our backs.
Wrong... Wrong.
Chicago is the 6th highest in PER CAPITA gun crime.
A reasonable but somewhat specious argument. People in the socialized medical countries die from lack of treatment all the time. So, the question is really, who decides? At this point I have no hope that the politics in this country can be redeemed.
I am also skeptical that a country with the level of variance in culture and needs can be served well by the same federal system.
Vote Balkanization!
Nope. Palo Alto however...
I wouldn't touch Fortinet with someone else's ten foot pole. I was just pondering their suckritude a fortnite ago when I found that WatchGuard is still a brand.
Some things just should not be.
[In case someone wonders, no I do not consider Barracuda a security company. They are an airport and AM radio media marketing firm that subconsciously programs you to want cocaine in your coffee, or Monster energy drinks... whichever is closer]
Totally agreed.
The citizens of the US had no true advocate in this fight. It's difficult to say that we do today.
I'm not totally anarcho-capitalist, but I do think heading that direction in this argument is probably closer to the solution. Some of the practical examples that guide me that direction are student loans and education costs, govt encouraged home loans and home price inflation, and the evolution of the current health care market.
Counter examples, or examples of businesses that we should look at Surgery Centers of Oklahoma, and a lot of the urgent care centers or small doctor offices that are starting to move toward cash payments and not accepting insurance.
Market forces by starving out the insurance companies using a taxpayer backed bucket of money?
Nope.
They will look at the future of competition in the space and decide to either sell services to the government (look at Booz Allen, Delloitte) or go up market and sell insurance for exceptional services. It will not lower the insurance costs. The only way to do that is for some company to demonstrate that profit is possible while providing the same service at lower price. This threatens their revenue stream while demonstrating that it is possible for them to attain that same result. A government backed agency does nothing of the sort.
I couldn't keep my doctor, my health care costs doubled for less care...
I came from a gold plated open affordable plan to some crazy ass horseshit with a minimum 5K deductible for twice the price.
Anecdotes are not data.
There have been many studies on the matter, and the data points the fact that health care costs are rising at a rate that does not seem to be slowing. So, buckle up buttercup.
Examples are readily available by simply googling "Have health care costs risen or fallen under ACA?". I will leave one example here:
In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost a total of $12,680, with employees footing $3,354 of the bill, according to Kaiser data. By 2016, the cost of the average employer family plan was up to $18,142 for the year, with workers picking up $5,277 of the tab.
The ostensible reason for adopting ACA was to insure more people. As I remember it the following provisions were included:
1. No consideration for pre-existing conditions. I don't understand how anyone with any idea about economics and govt distributed healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) thought this would decrease or stabilize the cost of healthcare.
2. The government plans will increase to better approach the private plans so that there will be less disparity in the quality of care. Again, pretty much a double incentive to decrease the care provided to private customers (the bar was reset to the Medicaid level of care) but a necessary increase in availability to slightly conceal the actual effect. (Care mediation)
3. Coverage will not be dependent on citizenship or legal immigration status. Again... Talking about loading the boat with negative financial burdens and claiming that there would be no price pressure.
There have long been arguments on Slashdot that other countries have universal healthcare and are supporting it. However, most of those examples have not had the sustained level of low skill immigration that the US has enjoyed over the last 40 years. Those that are catching up are starting to have to re-evaluate and/or change the messaging on their healthcare plans (Sweden, Germany, and UK NHS in particular). In the US, the people in favor of universal care should really stop arguing about money. If they believe that it is a right, then they should be speaking about the other rights that they choose to abrogate in favor of that right and establishing the moral imperative for doing so. Anything else is a distraction.
The truth of the matter is simply economic. If we want to provide universal anything as a social benefit, then we have to limit the growth of the low skill population. Otherwise the number of net recipients vs net contributors increases, at the same time that our aging population is stepping out of the workforce (Hello Boomers!) and we continue the death spiral of comparative quality of life in the US. [For those that argue that immigration into the US indicates that the US is still "Awesome!" should probably consider adding "Compared to what?" to their analysis. The proposition should also consider analyzing the quality of the immigrant over time. This might show that the skill level of the average immigrant is falling while quantity remains steady or increases. This could indicate that the quality of life disparity between nations is narrowing.]
The US is a third world country with the idea that it is still a first world nation. What we are now going through is a soft revolution where the mobile have-nots are appropriating the property of the landed gentry clinging to the cobwebs of past generations. The new robber barons are stroking our egos, while promoting the ingress of even more cheap labor.
TP said Macchiato, not 'Caramel Macchiato'. A macchiato, or espresso macchiato for clarity is usually two shots of espresso with a dollop of milk foam. That's it. No sugar, very little milk if done properly.
I personally recommend asking for the ristretto shots if you want to give it a try, it skips most of the bitter that often causes people to reach for the sugar.
The entire premise of freedom is that you must be "free" to exercise your rights. You are free to kneel during the anthem, and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so. However, if the employer has to look at cutting budget due to a downturn in viewership, and the action has a direct correlation with said downturn, then performers have just denied themselves a job. Interestingly, refer to Dolly Parton's opinion on this matter. She's friends with Lily Tomlin and other hard core libs but she doesn't express her opinions in a venue where it will affect her work. Smart.
However, due to the stupidity of equating words and opinions with violence we now can legitimately express concern regarding people expressing their opinion and having violent jackasses show up at their door or their place of work. Representative governments only work when civility is applied from both sides. Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold. In that climate, the eventual result is mob mentality, then violence (St Louis), then more restrictive reactionary government. Laws like this are the ropes of the Lilliputians attempting to tie Gulliver down, but, in this case, Gulliver will not negotiate.
This law in particular is taking rights away from people passively and setting us down the road toward places like the UK, where you can now be jailed for viewing "subversive" material. Is that really where we want to be? Some of us, those that cannot think that they will ever be on the receiving end will answer yes. Personally, I use this as an empathy test. If a person cannot imagine being oppressed in the future, then their current outrage is simply an expression of desire to belong or have power, rather than an interest in building a society in which no one need fear the government.
Just because jackbooted thugs wandering the streets are enforcing the desires of a totalitarian government rather than people dressed in fatigues does not make the government less oppressive. To avoid Godwin's law, I will instead invoke early Soviet Bolshevism or populist violence associated with Cromwell. Notice in both instances the violence of the people led to more power and oppression by the government.
I use SpliderOak One. I'm a big fan. It is coin operated, but it works and has saved me a lot of pain and frustration.
Crappy examples. Both of your examples have very restrictive immigration policies and in Japan the middle class doesn't feel the same sort of economic pressure from low wage immigrants, nor is it likely to in the near term.
Russia is just now growing a middle class, their society hasn't adjusted to the bevy of choices that have been opened up to them economically, so they are focused on climbing the greasy pole of capitalism as it is the new marker of status in a culture where the powerful had nearly limitless power.
I don't know that you're right, but I do know that your examples are specious. Similar to how Scandinavian countries were held up as bastions of civil society based on their low crime rates and socialist politics without accounting for the fact that their society was highly homogeneous and had very restrictive immigration. Now that that those things have changed over the last 10 yrs, the examples have changed.
I would say that Canada is a better example, up to recently their immigration policy was more restrictive that the US, and they had the additional benefit of geographic isolation (or at least buffering.)
However, I think that the whole population argument is an argument driven by people who don't understand slavery and those that actually WANT wage slaves. If we slow the immigration rate and retard population growth then prices for goods and services will rise. This will foster investment in automation and efficiency, which in turn will drive productivity (per capita) up. It's the shortest road to a world where we can actually provide for everyone and their basic needs.
If the simulation is successful and sufficiently advanced, then we would all actually be AI simulacra of what the AI dev team thought the human experience was like. [Why do so many things taste like chicken?]
Perhaps we are special purpose AI entities that were created to run test scenarios that justify the pre-emptive judgement to extinguish the pestilence that was humanity. We are the test runs that show just how bad it could have gotten had they not saved the planet from us.
Given a sufficiently advanced environment, we wouldn't be to discern otherwise. Perhaps the supercomputing power that is required and was discovered by the 'real' humans required a very specific mass to a sub atomic particle. In our recreation, we can get very close but will lack the precision to be able to detect our cage, or at least construct an AI that could build a method for detecting the cage.
Not really. Biology can be subverted by sociological cues. The question is, and I have no idea of the answer, is the difference still statistically significant? Also, each culture is likely to have it's own preferences for careers for their children. For instance, if in China, as in Russia, the only careers seen as significant in any meaningful way are doctors and engineers, then families that do not have male children and are looking secure their future would apply great pressure to women to do that career which best serves the family.
The better study and something more easily controlled for would be a wealthy country with a very supportive social system and high status mobility. It seems that the Scandinavian countries would be a good place to look.
Not arguing, but pointing out that your choice of cultural sample may have been suboptimal.
Or not.
According the several studies, one of which is linked below the cost is not a factor, as the long term care for people who are healthy is, in fact, greater than those who engage in risky activity. It makes sense, possibly, in that they accrete so many health problems that their health becomes brittle and they fail sooner. Over time you will likely encounter similar health problems; cancer is nearly inevitable, as is heart disease, and arterial sclerosis. The question is how long can you suffer small problems? You second or third knee and hip replacements would not take place with the smoker as they have already become permanently immobile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...
Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Because this is a union of states, not a union of people. It's the United STATES of America, not the Democratic Mob of America.
This allows people to have a different local government than the rest of the nation, but still cooperate on the major issues that were decided to best be pushed up to the Federal government.
It allows for an ecosystem of ideas and economies to exist and work along with each other. Technically, the popular vote applying to the federal election is not covered under federal statute at all. Arkansas could decide that the electoral votes will go to the party that wins a coin flip, if that's what the people of Arkansas voted for in their State law.
You usually also have the local government or Fed pay the fees to repair the place. If you control the labor costs and keep good books, you can easily profit from having a Section 8 contract.
However, if the government removes the property from Section 8 coverage due to changes in the neighborhood, or budget 'restructuring' you can be left holding a bag of poo. In which case, you should have those profits piled up to assuage the wounds you might take on the sale of the property.
That's the real challenge in building a new development for a Section 8 or similarly subsidized housing, the development itself is likely to be partially covered by the government, but there is an gap that is supposed to be filled by collecting rents on the property or selling the property to a management company. In either case your long term wager is based on the stability of the local and federal bureacrats.
However, that is not the only means to curing it. It can be solely salt cured and hung to dry. That's how I prefer my bacon. (I lie, I also heavily pepper it.)
From what I understand, the smoke ring created when smoking a meat creates some level of nitrites/nitrates in the meat, but rather than being through the meat, it is just near the surface which implies fewer nitrates/nitrites. In either case, if I want to add a smoky flavor to the bacon, then I will lightly smoke it (smoke it at a very low temp for approx 4hrs) before I salt and hang it.
In the end, I end up with something much less salty than the store bought stuff. It leaves a less lingering taste in the mouth, and for some reason doesn't make me feel nearly as thirsty.
All of that work can be done in a small apartment with a patio. If you're good at bartering, it can definitely help your neighborhood relationships as well.
Even so, in every bit of coaching that I have ever seen, there is a requirement of: request, rebuff, request again, escalate, unless the references are "to the reasonable person" offensive in the extreme.
That also seems to follow the legal doctrine on the matter. An advance is considered normal and human (if stupid, from a manager), the repeated advance in the face of clear rejection causes the condition to rise to harassment. This goes for passive things like, a mudflap girl coffee mug, inappropriate humor, etc.
I agree that the victim should escalate early and often for their own protection and documentation, but the HR person (if they were being honest) did the right thing. If we went around firing everyone for the first inappropriate thing they ever did the manpower churn itself would be a viable alternative power source.
I'm not a lawyer, advisor, or necessarily reasonable. I'm just old enough to see this go around multiple times, sometimes having negotiated successful resolutions... sometime having quit MY JOB because of the treatment of peer and the company's response.
The same way it does for military organizations. By using their own satellites, and encryption between networks (ie, when changing units).
It's a special purpose network that is not connected to the non-classified network (air-gap).
Other folks here have provided insight and commentary that you likely have no clue as to what you are talking about, but who doesn't love a dogpile?
I have implemented MANY very large Splunk and ELK implementations. ELK will almost always ask for MORE hardware to get search performance. I agree that ELK scales out more quickly, but far less efficiently than Splunk does. If your sole criteria is search speed and you have unlimited hardware capacity then ELK is the way to go.
However, doing calculations on the logs, presenting the logs, transforming the data (geo IP lookups, changing the message so that it reads more easily), and doing multivariable comparison for either human or automated response is vastly superior in Splunk. In both the functions and toolkits available and the ability to front load a lot of your search work so that your performance is outstanding.
Cost wise... it's usually a wash. I have customers that have looked at the cost of installing and maintaining an ELK stack and replacing the lost features and ran away quickly. This is for >500GB/day infrastructures with a dedicated dev team of >3 people.
If your Splunk implementation is sucking wind that badly, then it is likely that whoever is paying for your implementation has expressed goals that are counter to your goals and thus you are ill served. If you are the payer, then you have done poorly at describing your desired outcome and approx 50% of the result is your fault.
Continuing on... You mention Flume and Solr. Solr, if you buy the production implementation (last time I looked) doesn't have a good flow control and message verification platform and is thus dependent on the messaging bus within Flume or the implementation of an outside message bus (Kafka, Redis). This results in another set of configurations to maintain, and a good place for logs to be lost in the ether. Flume itself is awesome, although the parsing recipes could use some work. If I were looking outside of Logstash/Beats (which is advisable as Logstash seems to still have some memory management issues) I would favor Fluent as the ingest process is less of a pain in the neck.
However, I've only done hundreds of implementations of log management infrastructures using logstash, ElasticSearch, Kibana, flume, kafka, redis, fluent, syslog-ng, and/or Splunk... so there are likely some options I haven't mentioned.
Huh?
I've upgraded a metric shit ton of ASA's (~1500) from pre-8.3 to post 8.3 way back in the day, and I am fairly certain that only two failed to correctly migrate their NATs.
4.) Dinosaurs may have evolved into sentient bipeds had they not been taken out. Had sentience begun where the dinosaurs left off rather than being rebooted into mammalian evolution we might have gotten to self-induced nuclear destruction or grey goo meltdown earlier.
In Vegas (been there 3 times since the Uber ban lifted) the Uber fare was half of the taxi fare.
I could not take Uber to the airport as they were still restricted as of Sept 24th from going to the airport. (Some will still go there, but will remove their decal before doing so.)
However, from the Embassy Suites on Swenson to Mandalay Bay, MGM, Paris, and Cosmo... the fare was almost exactly half of the taxi fare.
90F at 7am? Happens a lot in Tulsa, OK. We may not have the 6" of snow, but we do have fun things like -2200F windchill for several weeks in winter.
Palo Alto's themselves are not that complex. The interface is an interesting attempt at being usable, and it's getting better. What I thought was interesting about the PA node was how many connections to Apache products it has. That makes me think that people are not happy with using Panorama to view/manage the logs and run reports against the logs.
I can sympathize.