The idiots are the ones who actually believe that the drought is the root cause of our water shortage. It isn't. It just made the real problem harder to ignore.
That's a very good point - droughts are going to happen and have to be planned for instead of the idiotic short-term views of many in politics. Many of the people that work for them are not stuck in the short term. For instance, Californian firefighters have been organised to the point where some of the equipment and some staff spend the off season in Australia - thus sharing costs and resulting in staff with twice the experience, including experience of how to deal with fires in truly severe droughts which I'm sure is pretty handy right now. Hopefully there are others looking offshore to see how other places have dealt with more severe droughts. While population is definitely an issue the amount of water consumed per person is still at an astonishingly high level.
but at the same time, stop looking for more and more aggressive ways to conserve water.
They have barely started in comparison to other places that are drought prone. There is a lot that can be done with "grey" industrial water.
Top Gear is entertainment and should never be used as a source - for instance their segment about having to push a Tesla was a fabrication to add drama. What you wrote could be true, but given the source it's stopped clock co-incidence if it is.
Not that I disagree, exactly, but can you give some reasons why?
Faster on old hardware while still giving you firefox, thunderbird etc. If you have enough drives to feed ZFS a mirror or two, a lot faster. That's really the reason, a lot less is going on so it is quicker. If you have a lot of fast cores and enough memory then the speed increase is not going to be noticed - apart from disk access, so the advantage is less clear since the applications are often going to be the same anyway (athough sometimes linux is noticably slower due to distro defaults that you can change there as well).
Another reason, which will not appeal to all but is a benefit to some, is that you can use the ports collection and compile your applications to match your hardware. This can be a big deal since binaries are built typically for the lowest common denominator and your CPU is likely to have a lot of instructions to speed things up that the AMD hammer didn't have a decade plus ago. Gentoo linux also does that but the ports collection is a lot easier to use. It consumes a bit more time than the binary upgrade methods on FreeBSD and linux but makes a noticable difference with both recent 64 bit and late model 32 bit systems. You can also turn on or off building various parts of applications via a simple menu before compiling. Thus netbooks with little memory and not a lot of speed, with a 32 bit CPU, become usable platforms for current window managers, current firefox, chrome, thunderbird etc. Even libreoffice can work on slow machines so long as you don't try to put a lot of images in documents or have massive spreadsheets.
it would be considerably more effort, and more meetings, and more annoyed engineers explaining limited amounts of shit to me mostly so I can pick who should be making what decisions.
Then there are others who do not know they should be listening to annoyed engineers - like the seagull CEO I had for a couple of years who later went on to black out the city of Auckland for two weeks. I'm sure they had very fine Quality Assurance Systems in place during that long blackout since that is all he knew as he flew from job to job shitting on things.
I simply believe knowing what you don't know is far more important to the decision-making process
That is my major point - a total newbie is not aware of the extent of their own ignorance and they do not know who to ask for help. I gave an example of one who did not consider that work has to stop in the immediate area of radiography - that's how disconnected from reality a total newbie is until they get at least a minor handle on whatever it is their area of responsibility is.
You can't just put anybody into a management job and assume that they will not fuck up, you've got to give them a grounding in whatever it is they are supposed to run. Sometimes it can be as little as "trust the foreman" since so many people want to impress others by stupidly avoiding asking questions and trying to pretend they know what they are doing when they do not.
Sculley did not know enough to keep her damn mouth shut
Sculley is the man who took over from Steve Jobs as should be very obvious from what I've written.
With all that supposed experience in so many fields you still push the myth of a manager being able to go in blind and manage anything? When did you go in blind? I doesn't appear that you were stupid enough to do so in any of the things you listed - so why push the stupid myth?
If your first question isn't "how much time this will take," but rather, "What time limits will I impose upon this," you belong in a place where you can't do any damage with your stupidity.
But the newbie does not even know who to ask or asks the wrong questions - as in my NDT example above where he did impose a time limit that was not possible with the resources at hand. I forgot to add that he delayed the construction of a blast furnace which made the client very unhappy to have the construction schedule blow out.
Big news - learned from mistakes! I for one am very happy that the Win8 Metro shit is dead and buried, as well as the other things that we were told more than ten years ago "are already in Longhorn", but now are real instead of hype trying to one-up Apple.
Since you got hung up on the analogy how about this:
Someone put in charge of programmers has to at least have some idea that MS Word is not written in a day. They need to have at least heard of debugging, testing, compilers etc and have an idea about the concept of programming even if it's just moving a turtle about in LOGO. They don't have to know about every Java class used in the project or even about Java itself, but do need to know that they can't assume instant results or works of impossible magic from their staff. Without something in the field you get very stupid decisions made based on very stupid assumptions, and you don't know enough to listen to the people that are warning you of how stupid the choices are.
The current fantasy of a magic managerial class is stupid and worse than medieval - it's fantasy feudal.
My knight analogy above was to point out that in feudal times they were not as stupid as the current copy of the behaviour, but it appears that I just distracted you instead of the point being conveyed.
The very purpose of management is to recognize your needs
Yes. So what is the use of a manager that can not even begin to do so and does not yet know what questions to ask to find out?
Your examples are two people who did have enough understanding to be able to communicate with their experts so do not support your very silly suggestion of not having to know anything about the field you are managing. Such a myth is nothing but a stupid excuse for why the wrong person is appointed to a job.
The value of my technical knowledge in strategic decision making is limited. It's not unimportant; it's just not possible to leverage it in its own right. I always have to approach new problems--or the same problems after any sufficient change in landscape--from a direction of naivete, calling on everyone else around me to provide their take on the matter.
Thus you have enough of the understanding of the field you are working in to know your limits and to get advice from people that you know are effective instead of at random - but the clueless newbie doesn't know enough to be able to do that are they? Managing a soda company is not the same as managing a computer company - thus Jobs versus Sculley. Sculley did not know enough to be able to seek out good advice, and the choice that got Jobs fired and Sculley originally disagreed with (the Apple Macintosh) was the only thing that kept Apple alive over those years.
You really are reaching hard to totally miss the point are you not? Is this some sort of game I don't know the rules to instead of an attempt at reasoned discussion?
To pre-empt the likely mistake suggested by your comment a couple of steps above - a manager with nothing in a field needs more than skilled advisors that can tell them not to do something stupid, they need a superior that can order them to not do something stupid and not be ignored.
After all, they don't know if the advice they are getting can be ignored or not do they?
If you have clueless managers all the way up they have no way of knowing if there are skilled people at the bottom anyway.
An MBA factory will sell a different view. A CEO looking for a sinecure for his nephew will sell a different view. Meanwhile back in reality managers who know nothing about what they are managing obviously are going to make newbie mistakes and often mistake the motives of those who inform them that they are making newbie mistakes. Being born to nobility was not enough to be a knight - they had to spend a bit of time as a squire to get some idea of what to order others to do.
Considering how much coal and uranium there is, let alone wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal etc, such a thing is so far off as to be ignorable for a few generations.
Are you sure you are able to harvest that sources without oil available?
Considering that large draglines run on electricity, what do you think? Considering electric coal trains, what do you think? It would not have taken much to think at least about that much before posting would it?
UFS on or other filesystem that does what you want on top of ZFS then since ZFS alone doesn't do the job.
Maybe the ZFS bit is encrypted but the raw device will decrypt for you.
With respect, why would you rely on filesystem level encryption instead of file level encryption for this in the first place? Should anybody with access to the file system be allowed to see the file contents? Should anybody with access to the backups of the file system be allowed to see the file contents? It's not just the inability to remove the blocks that's going wrong with an encrypted file system unless you have total trust of anyone that can get to it and anything that was ever on it. I'm not sure it's the right tool at all for your suggested use, block erasure afterwards or not.
Summary: if a manager doesn't have any domain knowlege at all of the thing that they are managing only luck or interference from above in the tree is going to prevent truly spectacular fuckups before they get enough of a handle on the situation to see the massive fuckups before they happen. Is that obvious enough? It was a polite refutation, with obvious example, of the utterly stupid myth you are spreading of "they don't need to know anything".
The real question is: will fusion achieve real energy production before our civilization collapse because of power source exhaustionN
Considering how much coal and uranium there is, let alone wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal etc, such a thing is so far off as to be ignorable for a few generations. Handy to use liquid fuel is a different story which a lack of makes transport more expensive, but there's a lot of other energy production.
There is also no way to wipe sensitive data from ZFS file systems
While that does suck it's pretty obvious that if it's an occasional thing you can snapshot after deletion, send the snapshot elsewhere and destroy the original. Some people's definition of "security" is very different to others. Intentionally losing data with no possible way to get it back may be high on the list for some but it's completely off the radar to others. The 1970 one is amusing, but setting back a few years in general in Solaris is also a bit of a hassle when the thing isn't sure what to do with filesystem dates a long way in the future so hangs on boot. A guy at my workplace trying to run stuff with a software licence that expired around 2000 got stuck with that one - naughty.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to be a lot from the spreadsheet so I wonder how it gets in. What ingredient has all that cadmium?
Since most of it is on a virtual machine abstracted from the hardware I'd say just as long as for other models.
That's a very good point - droughts are going to happen and have to be planned for instead of the idiotic short-term views of many in politics. Many of the people that work for them are not stuck in the short term. For instance, Californian firefighters have been organised to the point where some of the equipment and some staff spend the off season in Australia - thus sharing costs and resulting in staff with twice the experience, including experience of how to deal with fires in truly severe droughts which I'm sure is pretty handy right now. Hopefully there are others looking offshore to see how other places have dealt with more severe droughts.
While population is definitely an issue the amount of water consumed per person is still at an astonishingly high level.
They have barely started in comparison to other places that are drought prone. There is a lot that can be done with "grey" industrial water.
Do I need to supply two or three items of "dramatic licence" per episode to make my point or are you just pretending to be stupid for laughs?
Top Gear is entertainment and should never be used as a source - for instance their segment about having to push a Tesla was a fabrication to add drama.
What you wrote could be true, but given the source it's stopped clock co-incidence if it is.
If it doesn't rain in a place in the UK for a week it's just about time to declare a drought. The cyclists will be used to it.
Faster on old hardware while still giving you firefox, thunderbird etc.
If you have enough drives to feed ZFS a mirror or two, a lot faster.
That's really the reason, a lot less is going on so it is quicker. If you have a lot of fast cores and enough memory then the speed increase is not going to be noticed - apart from disk access, so the advantage is less clear since the applications are often going to be the same anyway (athough sometimes linux is noticably slower due to distro defaults that you can change there as well).
Another reason, which will not appeal to all but is a benefit to some, is that you can use the ports collection and compile your applications to match your hardware. This can be a big deal since binaries are built typically for the lowest common denominator and your CPU is likely to have a lot of instructions to speed things up that the AMD hammer didn't have a decade plus ago. Gentoo linux also does that but the ports collection is a lot easier to use. It consumes a bit more time than the binary upgrade methods on FreeBSD and linux but makes a noticable difference with both recent 64 bit and late model 32 bit systems. You can also turn on or off building various parts of applications via a simple menu before compiling. Thus netbooks with little memory and not a lot of speed, with a 32 bit CPU, become usable platforms for current window managers, current firefox, chrome, thunderbird etc. Even libreoffice can work on slow machines so long as you don't try to put a lot of images in documents or have massive spreadsheets.
Then there are others who do not know they should be listening to annoyed engineers - like the seagull CEO I had for a couple of years who later went on to black out the city of Auckland for two weeks. I'm sure they had very fine Quality Assurance Systems in place during that long blackout since that is all he knew as he flew from job to job shitting on things.
That is my major point - a total newbie is not aware of the extent of their own ignorance and they do not know who to ask for help. I gave an example of one who did not consider that work has to stop in the immediate area of radiography - that's how disconnected from reality a total newbie is until they get at least a minor handle on whatever it is their area of responsibility is.
You can't just put anybody into a management job and assume that they will not fuck up, you've got to give them a grounding in whatever it is they are supposed to run. Sometimes it can be as little as "trust the foreman" since so many people want to impress others by stupidly avoiding asking questions and trying to pretend they know what they are doing when they do not.
Sculley is the man who took over from Steve Jobs as should be very obvious from what I've written.
With all that supposed experience in so many fields you still push the myth of a manager being able to go in blind and manage anything? When did you go in blind? I doesn't appear that you were stupid enough to do so in any of the things you listed - so why push the stupid myth?
But the newbie does not even know who to ask or asks the wrong questions - as in my NDT example above where he did impose a time limit that was not possible with the resources at hand.
I forgot to add that he delayed the construction of a blast furnace which made the client very unhappy to have the construction schedule blow out.
Big news - learned from mistakes!
I for one am very happy that the Win8 Metro shit is dead and buried, as well as the other things that we were told more than ten years ago "are already in Longhorn", but now are real instead of hype trying to one-up Apple.
Since you got hung up on the analogy how about this:
Someone put in charge of programmers has to at least have some idea that MS Word is not written in a day. They need to have at least heard of debugging, testing, compilers etc and have an idea about the concept of programming even if it's just moving a turtle about in LOGO. They don't have to know about every Java class used in the project or even about Java itself, but do need to know that they can't assume instant results or works of impossible magic from their staff.
Without something in the field you get very stupid decisions made based on very stupid assumptions, and you don't know enough to listen to the people that are warning you of how stupid the choices are.
The current fantasy of a magic managerial class is stupid and worse than medieval - it's fantasy feudal.
My knight analogy above was to point out that in feudal times they were not as stupid as the current copy of the behaviour, but it appears that I just distracted you instead of the point being conveyed.
Yes.
So what is the use of a manager that can not even begin to do so and does not yet know what questions to ask to find out?
Your examples are two people who did have enough understanding to be able to communicate with their experts so do not support your very silly suggestion of not having to know anything about the field you are managing. Such a myth is nothing but a stupid excuse for why the wrong person is appointed to a job.
Thus you have enough of the understanding of the field you are working in to know your limits and to get advice from people that you know are effective instead of at random - but the clueless newbie doesn't know enough to be able to do that are they? Managing a soda company is not the same as managing a computer company - thus Jobs versus Sculley. Sculley did not know enough to be able to seek out good advice, and the choice that got Jobs fired and Sculley originally disagreed with (the Apple Macintosh) was the only thing that kept Apple alive over those years.
You really are reaching hard to totally miss the point are you not? Is this some sort of game I don't know the rules to instead of an attempt at reasoned discussion?
To pre-empt the likely mistake suggested by your comment a couple of steps above - a manager with nothing in a field needs more than skilled advisors that can tell them not to do something stupid, they need a superior that can order them to not do something stupid and not be ignored.
After all, they don't know if the advice they are getting can be ignored or not do they?
If you have clueless managers all the way up they have no way of knowing if there are skilled people at the bottom anyway.
An MBA factory will sell a different view. A CEO looking for a sinecure for his nephew will sell a different view. Meanwhile back in reality managers who know nothing about what they are managing obviously are going to make newbie mistakes and often mistake the motives of those who inform them that they are making newbie mistakes.
Being born to nobility was not enough to be a knight - they had to spend a bit of time as a squire to get some idea of what to order others to do.
Considering how much coal and uranium there is, let alone wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal etc, such a thing is so far off as to be ignorable for a few generations.
Are you sure you are able to harvest that sources without oil available?
Considering that large draglines run on electricity, what do you think? Considering electric coal trains, what do you think? It would not have taken much to think at least about that much before posting would it?
With respect, why would you rely on filesystem level encryption instead of file level encryption for this in the first place? Should anybody with access to the file system be allowed to see the file contents? Should anybody with access to the backups of the file system be allowed to see the file contents?
It's not just the inability to remove the blocks that's going wrong with an encrypted file system unless you have total trust of anyone that can get to it and anything that was ever on it. I'm not sure it's the right tool at all for your suggested use, block erasure afterwards or not.
Thanks - so she's technically a professional engineer if she's also had the required amount of relevant experience.
Summary: if a manager doesn't have any domain knowlege at all of the thing that they are managing only luck or interference from above in the tree is going to prevent truly spectacular fuckups before they get enough of a handle on the situation to see the massive fuckups before they happen.
Is that obvious enough?
It was a polite refutation, with obvious example, of the utterly stupid myth you are spreading of "they don't need to know anything".
The real question is: will fusion achieve real energy production before our civilization collapse because of power source exhaustionN
Considering how much coal and uranium there is, let alone wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal etc, such a thing is so far off as to be ignorable for a few generations. Handy to use liquid fuel is a different story which a lack of makes transport more expensive, but there's a lot of other energy production.
Since they typically go on about the 1950s experiment and know nothing about what India is doing with it today, probably never.
While that does suck it's pretty obvious that if it's an occasional thing you can snapshot after deletion, send the snapshot elsewhere and destroy the original.
Some people's definition of "security" is very different to others. Intentionally losing data with no possible way to get it back may be high on the list for some but it's completely off the radar to others.
The 1970 one is amusing, but setting back a few years in general in Solaris is also a bit of a hassle when the thing isn't sure what to do with filesystem dates a long way in the future so hangs on boot. A guy at my workplace trying to run stuff with a software licence that expired around 2000 got stuck with that one - naughty.
It's a real country you know and not a mythical place where a few restrictions got blown up into a massive fiction for NRA nuts to scream about.
Is that what Americans call a "Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering" or is it a cut down version taking a year or more less to complete?