AWACS, if you mean the Huricanne Hunters, first off those guys fly very sturdy C-130's that are given extensive inspections before they enter. And they know the risks of their jobs, they know that they might die.
But normal military and civilian aircraft avoid thunderstorms when they can, the down drafts and up drafts of those storms can be more than even a fighter jet can handle.
It remains to be seen how well this craft will do in a storm, but I highly doubt that NASA would risk it, because the wing flex in normal flight, is pretty high.
The only real problem that I see with this is the fact that it's maximum altitude is 100,000 (subtract 10% to get the real world numbers), and the operational altitude would be 50,000 to 70,000 feet.
The problem is that many thunderstorms can easily reach 60,000 ft, and this craft doesn't look like it would do too well in a storm.
I recommend using using DHCP, even if you only have 30 computers that need a manual configure that's 90 less idiots that you have to deal with.
To configure people manually save the first 100 ips (let's say you are using 192.168.x.x) save 192.168.2.1-100) for manual configuring. And only print IP cards for these IPs.
Save the 192.168.1.x range for network equipment that a require IPs, and servers.
Power is a big deal most conference rooms don't have enough plus or they are found along the walls.
If you have any tourneys with prizes with them, you should have all the tools to scan for cheats, and someone that knows the game on staff (that is not playing in the tourney itself).
Being able to scan for cheats and prove that the person was cheating or not, can do alot to prevent bad feelings among the teams and ageist the tourney organizer, which is you.
Also liability forms, and one that says that you must allow you computer to be scanned for cheats, can save you save you from some legal heat.
Watching TechTV (or reading for that matter) is painful enough. Now if they replace the entire staff with hot blondes... oh wait no, that wouldn't help either.
It's really not that hard, even using consumer stuff, it's even easier if you already have a wired network.
How to set up a wireless network for complete idiots:
1. Buy a Linksys Wireless Router.
2. Place Wireless router in the center of the house.
3. In any dead sports wireup additional access points.
4. Install Linksys WiFi cards on your computers.
No configuration necessary beyond the install of the cards. Now this is incredibly insecure, but it is WiFi for idiots.
Personally I can't evaluate ROI, it's not my job. But Linux and Windows isn't like comparing a hammer to a screw driver. They are one in the same. Multiple server platforms are hell to administrate. Frankly any company worth it's beans only goes with one server platform.
Going FreeBSD for the web box, Oracle and Linux for the application server, and Windows for the file servers, just isn't piratical. When you choose a system unless there is very unusual circumstances you only go with one platform.
Which that the particular platform must do it all. Personally I am a little partial to Windows Servers, they have made huge leaps and bounds. Domains makes administration a breeze, DFS is great for large companies managing websites (even if you are not using the Sharepoint extensions), and frankly it will always be easier to train the help desk people to do basic user administration on Windows any day of the week.
To me that would be like comparing a cordless drill versus a cordless screwdriver.
Though there seems to be a lot of people here that would like to see it.
Hmm if anyone has access to Microsoft Partner Source they have pretty good presentation on ROI of a Windows Server vs Linux. Basically it said that with just a web server Linux has the better ROI, but when it came to an applications server Windows not only has better ROI, but a more complete applications suite, many available as both 1st and 3rd developers.
Personally I would believe that they are thinking about it, as with most companies you have to consider all the options. A lot of small business get lured in with the fact that Linux is free, but they don't think it though and realize that particularly for the end users Windows in the best thing for them.
Yes I know some of you hate the evil empire, but the fact remains that no software package is so well supported by consultants, is known by all server administrators, and is easy to use for your end-users and operators.
Has anyone attempted to have a local user work a Unix server that disconnected from the network. Most frustrating thing I have ever done. While with Windows 2000, it's a familiar interface for them much easier for you to walk people though.
Now yes Unix is more reliable on average, and more secure, but that has to do with settings and access rights. Too many people try to do too much on their Windows servers because it's so easy. I know at a company where I came into to consult for, they owner did all his work, on the file server (obviously I suggested that wasn't best use of the server resources).
Slashdot Mirror
AWACS, if you mean the Huricanne Hunters, first off those guys fly very sturdy C-130's that are given extensive inspections before they enter. And they know the risks of their jobs, they know that they might die.
But normal military and civilian aircraft avoid thunderstorms when they can, the down drafts and up drafts of those storms can be more than even a fighter jet can handle.
It remains to be seen how well this craft will do in a storm, but I highly doubt that NASA would risk it, because the wing flex in normal flight, is pretty high.
The only real problem that I see with this is the fact that it's maximum altitude is 100,000 (subtract 10% to get the real world numbers), and the operational altitude would be 50,000 to 70,000 feet.
The problem is that many thunderstorms can easily reach 60,000 ft, and this craft doesn't look like it would do too well in a storm.
You can barely get us pilots away from our beloved 100LL, it's going to be a while before I can see anyone going for an electric airplace.
Don't give them any ideas.
*Goes to double check my security on my WiFi networks*
Aha! Noone will get though my Cisco flaming wall of poop!
I recommend using using DHCP, even if you only have 30 computers that need a manual configure that's 90 less idiots that you have to deal with.
To configure people manually save the first 100 ips (let's say you are using 192.168.x.x) save 192.168.2.1-100) for manual configuring. And only print IP cards for these IPs.
Save the 192.168.1.x range for network equipment that a require IPs, and servers.
Power is a big deal most conference rooms don't have enough plus or they are found along the walls.
If you have any tourneys with prizes with them, you should have all the tools to scan for cheats, and someone that knows the game on staff (that is not playing in the tourney itself).
Being able to scan for cheats and prove that the person was cheating or not, can do alot to prevent bad feelings among the teams and ageist the tourney organizer, which is you.
Also liability forms, and one that says that you must allow you computer to be scanned for cheats, can save you save you from some legal heat.
Watching TechTV (or reading for that matter) is painful enough. Now if they replace the entire staff with hot blondes... oh wait no, that wouldn't help either.
Compact flash cards are pretty durable, I wouldn't be worrying about the G Forces.
Still there is a questions of how well it will operate in the cold at 55,000 ft.
It's really not that hard, even using consumer stuff, it's even easier if you already have a wired network. How to set up a wireless network for complete idiots: 1. Buy a Linksys Wireless Router. 2. Place Wireless router in the center of the house. 3. In any dead sports wireup additional access points. 4. Install Linksys WiFi cards on your computers. No configuration necessary beyond the install of the cards. Now this is incredibly insecure, but it is WiFi for idiots.
Personally I can't evaluate ROI, it's not my job. But Linux and Windows isn't like comparing a hammer to a screw driver. They are one in the same. Multiple server platforms are hell to administrate. Frankly any company worth it's beans only goes with one server platform.
Going FreeBSD for the web box, Oracle and Linux for the application server, and Windows for the file servers, just isn't piratical. When you choose a system unless there is very unusual circumstances you only go with one platform.
Which that the particular platform must do it all. Personally I am a little partial to Windows Servers, they have made huge leaps and bounds. Domains makes administration a breeze, DFS is great for large companies managing websites (even if you are not using the Sharepoint extensions), and frankly it will always be easier to train the help desk people to do basic user administration on Windows any day of the week.
To me that would be like comparing a cordless drill versus a cordless screwdriver.
Though there seems to be a lot of people here that would like to see it. Hmm if anyone has access to Microsoft Partner Source they have pretty good presentation on ROI of a Windows Server vs Linux. Basically it said that with just a web server Linux has the better ROI, but when it came to an applications server Windows not only has better ROI, but a more complete applications suite, many available as both 1st and 3rd developers.
Personally I would believe that they are thinking about it, as with most companies you have to consider all the options. A lot of small business get lured in with the fact that Linux is free, but they don't think it though and realize that particularly for the end users Windows in the best thing for them. Yes I know some of you hate the evil empire, but the fact remains that no software package is so well supported by consultants, is known by all server administrators, and is easy to use for your end-users and operators. Has anyone attempted to have a local user work a Unix server that disconnected from the network. Most frustrating thing I have ever done. While with Windows 2000, it's a familiar interface for them much easier for you to walk people though. Now yes Unix is more reliable on average, and more secure, but that has to do with settings and access rights. Too many people try to do too much on their Windows servers because it's so easy. I know at a company where I came into to consult for, they owner did all his work, on the file server (obviously I suggested that wasn't best use of the server resources).