The actual trick for this specific problem is actually even simpler: Have everyone sign up to dropbox (or GoogleDrive or whatever) and eliminite the need for the lazy "give file to anyone who knows the URL"-"Security". That's what logins are for.
While I'm all for net neutrality, but what was the difference between what happend here and a plain old multihoming deal? All big sites have their systems connected to more than one carriers. And they usually pay for that connection like we do for our internet connection. And now Netflix is connected to one more carrier.
A less abstract discussion about interacting with random stuff found on the street is currently held as "Car-To-X" communication. And that has an actual use.
This seems to be nothing more than a peering agreement between Netflix Network and Verizon Network. And as usual, if the flow of data is not roughly symmetric, money is flowing the opposite way.
Although I think that if one of the networks isn't a transport network but a content providers own network, the usual term is "multihoming"
In general, people in the "civilized" countries eat far too much, period. While it's nice to blame food consistency for it, it's just lack of movement and overavailability of food that's totally suitable for explaining the balance between effort and intake
I'm sure that the point of this study isn't that simple. (If I could be bothered to read it, that is) Your point would be pretty obvious for a conclusion, it's probably the starting point that led to that study. Like: WHY are people in "civilized" countries overeating? And why is this happening even more with processed foods? Then that study finds with which bio-chemical stuff the food industry manages to trick our body to accept junk food as "valueable"
But if a game tries to tell a story, it better makes sense. No need to make perfect sense, I'm willing to throw in a good measure of suspension of disbelief.
works for orange juice as you can create concentrate by REMOVING water. Does NOT work for alcohol as you have to ADD a substance (=weight) to create powder. And alcohol does NOT contain water that can be removed to further concentrate pure alcohol.
Hint: There is no weight difference between 1kg liquid alcohol and 1kg powdered alcohol.
Overall, it might work for pre-mixed, freeze dried drinks that have a fair share of water and rest of the chemical compounds involved are solids solved in that water (like vodka-orange) but any weight reduction here would come from the water involved. But it even wouldn't work if you tried to move on to whisky-cola, as the aromatic components in the whisky are mostly fluids, too. If you remove them, you remove the taste. And you can't replace them by adding water.
So the only advantage of powdered alcohol would be to prevent the orange juice powder in the drink-mix to turn into some sludge. But you will pay for that with additional weight from the substance needed to trap the (liquid) alcohol.
Basically, this is a novelty item and won't be any more than that, except some extreme cases where "dryness" matters more than weight.
An EMPTY bottle would take up uneccsessary room. I don't know the specifics of the powdered alcohol, but my guess would be that it takes up MORE volume than liquid alcohol.
Imagine the volume you need in your shopping bag to carry home 1 kg of sugar. you need roughly 300ml of water to put that into solution. So at least for sugar, you're decreasing the volume by storing it as a solution. (but of course increasing the weight by 300g) I'm pretty sure that that's the case too for alcohol, espescially if you have to ADD something to get the dry form.
And there is no need to store it in rigid container, like bottles. I'm sure you have seen those foldable water canisters before or a foil pack of Capri-Sun. (they now even come with screw caps.) And they can withstand forces, that would cause powder containers to break or deform and crack, too.
So my guess still would be that, compared to powder the points for packing go to liquid alcohol. (I'm ready to review this if someone has numbers for volume/gravity/weight of that powder) but for packing AND usability, both would loose to plain old Sterno.
That's true if that "powder" was made in some process (usually freeze-drying) that removes water and thus decreasing the weight of whatever you're powderizing. When powderizing is done by adding substances, that's just more dead weight you have to carry.
The only other point I could imagine would be easier handling, but liquid alcohol can be used as-is and does not require additional ingredient (water) and additional time to become useable. Depending on the grain size of the powder, a gale of wind at the wrong moment may send your whole fuel reserve airborne. And even if a bottle leaks in your backpack, alcohol would evaporate without any sticky residue from the sugar-coating.
If you carry 1 litre of denaturated ethanol (methylized) your fuel package contains 100% burnable fuel. I doubt you can squeeze more than 100% alcohol in a powder.
In the US, "rubbing alcohol" usually refers to isopropyl alcohol, not ethanol, and it's medical-use purity. And you can absorb alcohol through your skin, so you wouldn't want toxic impurities in it.
So shouldn't I rather be worried if I can absorb those toxic impurities through my skin instead of absorbing the alcohol part?
we,, I guess that went well where a clean well was available...
So that paper is most likely right, but probably doesn't rule out that there were areas where beer was safer than water, it has been cooked at least once.
If that was about reducing weight, they could start with selling higher concentrated spirits that need to be watered down to drinking strength. You'd have to add water to the powdered stuff, too...
Not untrue, but in your counterexample you've compared the workload (and review quality) that can be handled by 2 people (D and O) with a single person (D&O).
A review from another D&O could be required as easily for production code as an O's review for D's code.
If you're trying to replace a D and an O with a single D&O, you're doing something wrong anyway.
But on the other hand, in your model performance and stability are solely part of O's business. But D has to be aware of those issues if you want him to code with them in mind. and they WILL be on the mind of a D&O
DevOps is all about creating dangerous conflicts of interrest.
No.
And I'd even go so far to say that we need MORE conflicts of interests.
A software company is full of conflicts if interrests. You have the sharholders who want money, sales who care about release dates, customers who request a feature, devs who know that that feature will have unpleaseant side-effects that the same users would not accept and so on.
"Resolve" those "conflicts" by completly seperating them into different roles, and you have a company where departments will fight each other to the bone and management will be busy with conflict resolution instead of actual work.
You need to have people inbetween those branches who know how to make them work together.
Germany here, but PAYE applies here too. It's similar for capital gains: The bank automatically sends your estimated taxes to the tax office. At the end of the year, you get a report. Exactly as you PAYE report, it contains a transaction ID which can be used to refer to those advance payments when you want or have to actually file your taxes. (If you can expect a refund, you may file one, if you have other income besides the advanced-taxed income, you have to)
Which is exactly the point the article makes. That we're bad at predecting technology, because we tend to think along the lines of an evolution of existing technologies. But can't imagine even small but substantial new technologies. (in my example obviously the servo engine that could be used to control mechanical devices directly without a robot.)
Another case of "almost right" is from the same Asimov book (I didn't read more than that plus the short stories) is an exact description of a GPS device used for navigation. While the actual use was a spot on hit, the user interface was as far off as possible: No one could imagine LED/LED displays, so the device was a rod that heated the handle when you pointed it in the right direction.
Do you know that feeling when you're watching old speculative fiction pieces and suddenly realize that despite all that future tech, in a given moment, they's give their right arm for a simple Nokia cellphone?:-)
I also laughed when Asimov described spaceship controls as so complex, that only a robot with a positronic brain could handle them. Yep. a "computer" using levers and pulleys to steer a starship.:-)
I'm from Germany too, so I know the Autobahn quite well, too, but have hardly ever seen lighting there. (Except NRW) but that may vary.
And you wish it were 3 seconds.... at 150kph you're going at 41m/s. That's 120m in 3 seconds. Headlights go 50-60m up to 100m on the right side if - IF - you have assymetric headlights.
...but the "Autobahn" in Germany never had any kind of electrical lighting (besides retroreflecting paint for the road markings) and even at night large parts of it are considered save enough to not have speed limits - even at night!
Actually, that doesn't happen as often as one might think and when it does, it goes against the police. One of the purposes of dash cams is to provide evidence that the officer did not beat the guy up.
Unless you claim that story happend more than 40 years ago, I'd call BS.
Animals in the kitchen would be a reason to close a restaurant over here, too. even a flowerpot with fresh basil next to the stove might be a point in an audit. (soil contamination)
And I don't think food standards are higher in the US. What they may be seen as a possible higher hygienic standard only lead to more than questionable chemicals allowed in US food. Or use of irradiation.
The most absurd difference IMHO can be found here: http://io9.com/americans-why-d... Two completly valid ways to reduce salmonella infections from raw eggs, but completly diametral and uncompatible. (tldr: US eggs need to be kept in the fridge as washing of the "natural" salmonellas also removes the protection from further salmonella infection)
Slashdot Mirror
The actual trick for this specific problem is actually even simpler: Have everyone sign up to dropbox (or GoogleDrive or whatever) and eliminite the need for the lazy "give file to anyone who knows the URL"-"Security". That's what logins are for.
While I'm all for net neutrality, but what was the difference between what happend here and a plain old multihoming deal? All big sites have their systems connected to more than one carriers. And they usually pay for that connection like we do for our internet connection. And now Netflix is connected to one more carrier.
A less abstract discussion about interacting with random stuff found on the street is currently held as "Car-To-X" communication. And that has an actual use.
This seems to be nothing more than a peering agreement between Netflix Network and Verizon Network. And as usual, if the flow of data is not roughly symmetric, money is flowing the opposite way.
Although I think that if one of the networks isn't a transport network but a content providers own network, the usual term is "multihoming"
In general, people in the "civilized" countries eat far too much, period. While it's nice to blame food consistency for it, it's just lack of movement and overavailability of food that's totally suitable for explaining the balance between effort and intake
I'm sure that the point of this study isn't that simple. (If I could be bothered to read it, that is) Your point would be pretty obvious for a conclusion, it's probably the starting point that led to that study. Like: WHY are people in "civilized" countries overeating? And why is this happening even more with processed foods? Then that study finds with which bio-chemical stuff the food industry manages to trick our body to accept junk food as "valueable"
They don't have to. Exhibit A: PacMan
But if a game tries to tell a story, it better makes sense. No need to make perfect sense, I'm willing to throw in a good measure of suspension of disbelief.
works for orange juice as you can create concentrate by REMOVING water. Does NOT work for alcohol as you have to ADD a substance (=weight) to create powder. And alcohol does NOT contain water that can be removed to further concentrate pure alcohol.
Hint: There is no weight difference between 1kg liquid alcohol and 1kg powdered alcohol.
Overall, it might work for pre-mixed, freeze dried drinks that have a fair share of water and rest of the chemical compounds involved are solids solved in that water (like vodka-orange) but any weight reduction here would come from the water involved. But it even wouldn't work if you tried to move on to whisky-cola, as the aromatic components in the whisky are mostly fluids, too. If you remove them, you remove the taste. And you can't replace them by adding water.
So the only advantage of powdered alcohol would be to prevent the orange juice powder in the drink-mix to turn into some sludge. But you will pay for that with additional weight from the substance needed to trap the (liquid) alcohol.
Basically, this is a novelty item and won't be any more than that, except some extreme cases where "dryness" matters more than weight.
Always remember: Alcohol is not a solution!
An EMPTY bottle would take up uneccsessary room. I don't know the specifics of the powdered alcohol, but my guess would be that it takes up MORE volume than liquid alcohol.
Imagine the volume you need in your shopping bag to carry home 1 kg of sugar. you need roughly 300ml of water to put that into solution. So at least for sugar, you're decreasing the volume by storing it as a solution. (but of course increasing the weight by 300g) I'm pretty sure that that's the case too for alcohol, espescially if you have to ADD something to get the dry form.
And there is no need to store it in rigid container, like bottles. I'm sure you have seen those foldable water canisters before or a foil pack of Capri-Sun. (they now even come with screw caps.) And they can withstand forces, that would cause powder containers to break or deform and crack, too.
So my guess still would be that, compared to powder the points for packing go to liquid alcohol. (I'm ready to review this if someone has numbers for volume/gravity/weight of that powder) but for packing AND usability, both would loose to plain old Sterno.
Why would that be?
That's true if that "powder" was made in some process (usually freeze-drying) that removes water and thus decreasing the weight of whatever you're powderizing. When powderizing is done by adding substances, that's just more dead weight you have to carry.
The only other point I could imagine would be easier handling, but liquid alcohol can be used as-is and does not require additional ingredient (water) and additional time to become useable. Depending on the grain size of the powder, a gale of wind at the wrong moment may send your whole fuel reserve airborne. And even if a bottle leaks in your backpack, alcohol would evaporate without any sticky residue from the sugar-coating.
Hmmm... let's do some quick math....
If you carry 1 litre of denaturated ethanol (methylized) your fuel package contains 100% burnable fuel. I doubt you can squeeze more than 100% alcohol in a powder.
In the US, "rubbing alcohol" usually refers to isopropyl alcohol, not ethanol, and it's medical-use purity. And you can absorb alcohol through your skin, so you wouldn't want toxic impurities in it.
So shouldn't I rather be worried if I can absorb those toxic impurities through my skin instead of absorbing the alcohol part?
we,, I guess that went well where a clean well was available...
So that paper is most likely right, but probably doesn't rule out that there were areas where beer was safer than water, it has been cooked at least once.
If that was about reducing weight, they could start with selling higher concentrated spirits that need to be watered down to drinking strength. You'd have to add water to the powdered stuff, too...
yes.. how absurd.
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Not untrue, but in your counterexample you've compared the workload (and review quality) that can be handled by 2 people (D and O) with a single person (D&O).
A review from another D&O could be required as easily for production code as an O's review for D's code.
If you're trying to replace a D and an O with a single D&O, you're doing something wrong anyway.
But on the other hand, in your model performance and stability are solely part of O's business. But D has to be aware of those issues if you want him to code with them in mind. and they WILL be on the mind of a D&O
DevOps is all about creating dangerous conflicts of interrest.
No.
And I'd even go so far to say that we need MORE conflicts of interests.
A software company is full of conflicts if interrests. You have the sharholders who want money, sales who care about release dates, customers who request a feature, devs who know that that feature will have unpleaseant side-effects that the same users would not accept and so on.
"Resolve" those "conflicts" by completly seperating them into different roles, and you have a company where departments will fight each other to the bone and management will be busy with conflict resolution instead of actual work.
You need to have people inbetween those branches who know how to make them work together.
Germany here, but PAYE applies here too. It's similar for capital gains: The bank automatically sends your estimated taxes to the tax office. At the end of the year, you get a report. Exactly as you PAYE report, it contains a transaction ID which can be used to refer to those advance payments when you want or have to actually file your taxes. (If you can expect a refund, you may file one, if you have other income besides the advanced-taxed income, you have to)
Grudgingly. I guess that's international.
Which is exactly the point the article makes. That we're bad at predecting technology, because we tend to think along the lines of an evolution of existing technologies. But can't imagine even small but substantial new technologies. (in my example obviously the servo engine that could be used to control mechanical devices directly without a robot.)
Another case of "almost right" is from the same Asimov book (I didn't read more than that plus the short stories) is an exact description of a GPS device used for navigation. While the actual use was a spot on hit, the user interface was as far off as possible: No one could imagine LED/LED displays, so the device was a rod that heated the handle when you pointed it in the right direction.
Do you know that feeling when you're watching old speculative fiction pieces and suddenly realize that despite all that future tech, in a given moment, they's give their right arm for a simple Nokia cellphone? :-)
I also laughed when Asimov described spaceship controls as so complex, that only a robot with a positronic brain could handle them. Yep. a "computer" using levers and pulleys to steer a starship. :-)
I'm from Germany too, so I know the Autobahn quite well, too, but have hardly ever seen lighting there. (Except NRW) but that may vary.
And you wish it were 3 seconds.... at 150kph you're going at 41m/s. That's 120m in 3 seconds. Headlights go 50-60m up to 100m on the right side if - IF - you have assymetric headlights.
http://www.rechtslexikon.net/d...
...but the "Autobahn" in Germany never had any kind of electrical lighting (besides retroreflecting paint for the road markings) and even at night large parts of it are considered save enough to not have speed limits - even at night!
Actually, that doesn't happen as often as one might think and when it does, it goes against the police. One of the purposes of dash cams is to provide evidence that the officer did not beat the guy up.
Except in L.A.?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Espescially with eywear-mounted cameras available as low as $40!
Unless you claim that story happend more than 40 years ago, I'd call BS.
Animals in the kitchen would be a reason to close a restaurant over here, too. even a flowerpot with fresh basil next to the stove might be a point in an audit. (soil contamination)
And I don't think food standards are higher in the US. What they may be seen as a possible higher hygienic standard only lead to more than questionable chemicals allowed in US food. Or use of irradiation.
The most absurd difference IMHO can be found here: http://io9.com/americans-why-d... Two completly valid ways to reduce salmonella infections from raw eggs, but completly diametral and uncompatible. (tldr: US eggs need to be kept in the fridge as washing of the "natural" salmonellas also removes the protection from further salmonella infection)