His name is Kim Dotcom (legally). If you feel the need to put his surname it quotes, you should at least be able to get it right. It makes you look like an idiot when you both put his name in quotes, and don't give it correctly. When you are that ignorant of the names of the people involved, it only makes you look like the douche bag.
The cabin of the vehicle gets warm therefore the windows get warm. When you slow down or stop, the wind tunnel effect goes away and it accumulates.
So when you are moving, it unfreezes? How is that? When I'm moving, the air (well below freezing) is cooling the window faster than the heater can heat it. Only when stopped is the heater capable of melting anything.
Perhaps the problem is that people in New England see snow at temperatures above freezing. Something that was quite common when I lived in the lower 48. In Alaska, it gets cold enough, that you don't have the re-freeze problem unless you are talking about a flat driveway that's heated, which is rare, as they are quite popular with people with 20-degree drives, undrivable when icy, but flat drives don't need it.
And everyone is picking a different problem to indicate that I've never seen snow.
I don't turn on the heater when it's cold. It will melt or partially melt things, but it'll re-freeze if I drive fast, or turn off the car. It's better to let the windshield stay below freezing and no snow can stick.
Depends on the roof design. You can spend more in materials on a cold roof than hot. I guess that's why all the cheap bastards are complaining about ice dams now. It's not like it was unknown at the time. They just bought a crappy house.
It's a partial myth. The big lie in the myth is that English has one word for snow. I've seen more than that. Snow. Flurry. Blizzard. Slush. And others. It's just for triviality, someone pretended that all the words for snow in English didn't exist.
Ice dam is indicative of incompetent engineering. In cold climes, a "cold roof" is a better option. This consists of having the plywood base of the roof be under the studs, not above, and has almost no effect on the heat-trapping of the attic, but allows air to flow under the roof so that the roof is always ambient temperature. This eliminates the possibility of ice damning. For greater cost and complexity, there are the roof heaters for those who live in incompetently engineered homes.
Are you lying about some argument you lost with me a long time ago? I don't remember it, or you, so I have no idea what you are talking about, so I can only assume you are lying to try to get the last word a few years after the conversation ended. Are you one of the idiots that would come back to elementary the next day with a comeback for a comment nobody remembers from the day before? If you are that slow, it's better to just try to remain unnoticed, than to announce it. One would have thought that by age 12 you'd have figured that out, so you are what, 9?
Yes, it's so magical in AK that the Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow. How does something re-freeze at -40? It never un-freezes. Why does it freeze in traffic? Does your heater not work if you aren't moving? In Alaska, it's cold. You don't turn your heater on, or if you do, you turn it on your feet. So long as your windshield stays below freezing, no snow will ever accumulate on it.
Extra computing power was not available at the click of a button.
The fact that you had bad contracts doesn't make it impossible. You didn't even have to click a button. You submit a job, and you got the resources you needed, and were charged for them at the end of the month. Just like the cloud today.
Even if they had gotten the generators, you can't just rewire things on the spur of the moment like that, especially not when a significant section of the country has also been wiped out.
The last time I replaced the generator and UPS at the (not a real) datacenter I work at, there was about 10 seconds of downtime, and 4 hours of electrical work. Had we de-powered everything during the work, it'd have been done in under 30 minutes.
Yes, better to let the meltdown happen than take the time to wire it in the middle of a flood. But if you were right, why did they have generators on the way, stuck in traffic? The failure was they were to cheap (and afraid of people knowing how many screw ups they had to that point) to fly them on (well, under) helicopters.
Vents don't matter. If they had an underwater generator (they exist) and the fuel stored above ground, like on a small water-tower (or even on the roof of a building), then there's have been no meltdown. $10k and proper planning would have prevented the meltdown.
That's why people don't trust nuclear power. The jackasses building them would rather kill everyone with a meltdown than spend $10k to secure the backup from natural disasters considered "likely" for the area.
Since you bought up Fukushima, I've long wondered how a modern first world nation-state could not manage to get generators on-site before the batteries went flat. I've read that the utility tried but could not get them there in time due to traffic jam and destroyed infrastructure on the ground. Did nobody think of picking up the phone and calling someone at the military to dispatch some bloody helicopters? I can't fathom that you need so much power to run cooling pumps as to render the required generators too heavy to fly in.
I didn't want to say, because it sounds like the "depend on the US" cliche, but I could have driven to work, chained up a generator (not sure what they needed, but I had a 40kVA that I could have sent), and driven it to a C130 (nearby military base) and gotten it on the ground in Japan well under the 12 hours battery they had (presuming the US military would give civilian aid). Then arrange some helicopter transport to the site.
My understanding is that Tepco lied to everyone. They lied about it being under control, and whether it would be "saved" and what they needed and such. An international call for generators, and I'm sure there are hundreds (or thousands) that could have come from South Korea in time, even if they couldn't find a single one in Japan. And there would have been many options to getting it there. Tanks don't mind mud so much, and you can hook a civilian trailer to one. So tow the damn thing. On the road, where you can, on the shoulder where you can, over fields and through houses where you have to. It's a fucking nuclear meltdown.
But Tepco said "it's under control". "There was an incident, but it's currently contained". At least that's how I understand it from the information I saw released. Everyone with a "C" in their job title should be in jail, or working from the reactor floor.
Less than 100 miles from the US, it would be pretty cheap to lay fiber there. You'd pay more for the landing in Miami than the cost of the glass. And with all the fiber running around the Caribbean, I'd be surprised if there's none there. What does the US do for the Guantanamo base? I'd have guessed that there's something from FL to Puerto Rico that stops there, and it's be easy to sell to Cuba off it. MCI was the US government's official no-bid communications provider for many years, and they'd build fiber to weird places to make big money.
T3 wan connections for traffic and voice which I doubt exist in Cuba currently.
What, with their ties to Russia and blocks by the US, they use E3 instead?
Aren't they legal in Mexico? I know people who used to drive to Mexico to smuggle back Cuban cigars. Though they could be illegal there, and the friends thinking they were being tricky were being defrauded.
Yes, that was the problem with Fukushima. The design guaranteed a meltdown in the case of loss of power. If you lost mains power, and your generator didn't start, you have a 100% chance of a meltdown. The tsunami took out the mains and the generators. So a meltdown was guaranteed, because they didn't restore power. Nothing else matters from that point. If they had requested a generator and fuel from someone and gotten it in the 12 or so hours the batteries lasted, then we'd know for sure whether the loss of containment was guaranteed by a breach caused by the earthquake. But Japan never asked, so nobody even tried.
I'd assume that the plant in question is of a similar design.
What I'd do is that because a meltdown makes more than enough power for a secondary, smaller generator to make enough power to prevent a meltdown. Sort of an active-verson of a passively cooled reactor. But cost and liability are more important than safety.
I've seen snow-proof (and ice-proof) solar panels. A very small amount of heat will melt just the lowest layer, and the snow will (if unimpeded) slide off. Cleaning the panels off for a tiny fraction of the power they collect.
Flat roofs will collapse. They generally have walls around the edge, and will catch lots of snow. Almost all panels are elevated slightly, so they do a better job of letting the snow flow around them in a wind, especially when mounted on slanted roofs. Also, I haven't been following Boston weather, but there's a difference between a snow, followed by 60 mph winds, and snow *in* 60 mph winds.
If the wind is that high, the snow won't collect on the solar panels that easily. It drifts off of high places, like roofs, and collects at fences and other things that catch the air. The stated combination won't happen as needed for the AC horror scenario to happen.
Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics (On-demand self-service, Broad network access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service);
That exactly describes my contract with IBM in the '90s for Mainframe service, and the service I had on a Cray in college before that.
Rapid self provisioning seems to be a big part of "cloud computing" that makes it different from other older computing models.
The student Cray in college was "submit a job", back in the '80s. It was auto-provisioning, and quite instant. Sure, you might have to wait a few miliseconds processing time, if there was no queue. And, of course, unless you paid for premium access, you'd be at the back of the queue.
Or VMs in the '90s, or mainframes in the '90s. The mainframe access I had was like the Amazon one-click. It wasn't one-click, it was a fuckton of clicks, permissions, proprietary setup and account agreements, followed by a low-check instant-purchase zero-provisioning service. Anything you sent over the dedicated link to the mainframe was considered authorized. You'd then get service provisioned, executed, and billed automatically. It wasn't so much "auto provisioned" as "pre-provisioned", almost exactly like a spun-down VM waiting for an order to spin up one (or 10) copies.
On-demand scalable resources such as networks, servers and applications which are provided as a service, are accessible by the end user and can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal effort or service provider interaction.
That's almost exactly from my VM web-host from the '90s.
Again, anyone who says it's new is usually ignorant of the past, not defending the purity of a new and useful term.
That and "cloud" isn't always "cloud computing". Cloud storage, Cloud gaming, and thousands of other things use the cloud term. If they are contradictory, which definition of "cloud" wins?
Yes, everyone else is using it wrong, even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... among millions of others. You are The One True Holder of the definition of Cloud. Despite not being able to define cloud.
You are quite the troll. I thought you might actually have a legitimate complaint about the definition, but you can't define it. You just know it when you see it. I give up. You win. Elastic pay-per-use mainframe time isn't "cloud computing" but pay per use EC2 isn't. I was submitting jobs to mainframes electronically to be charged to my account as the resources were used 10+ years before Amazon was founded, let alone EC2. But that's not a cloud, because you say so.
Yes, you refuse to define it because you are a lying troll. If you had a point, you'd have made it. You can't define it in a way that doesn't include mainframe (except for your wrong ideas of how mainframes were/are used).
The cloud was used many times by different people for different things. After endless questions about the differences between the minicomputer and the mainframe always coming up when the machines were explicitly listed, those (and other) computers were regularly drawn with a cloud on diagrams I've seen 20+ years ago.
That you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Simply put, you can't define "cloud" in a manner that includes the vast majority of today's uses of that word, and doesn't include all the things you say it doesn't. Define cloud. Go on. Try. And I'll define Mainframe computing in a way that meets that definition, or give 10+ uses of "cloud" on Wikipedia that don't meet the definition. Cloud gaming (via video streaming) being the one that if your definition doesn't allow for, I won't bother to list any more. It's literal RDP in some cases, and you've explicitly said RDP isn't cloud.
Again, it's tired and exhausting because you are wrong and thus unable to prove anyone else wrong.
How about this. Define "cloud". I'll either give examples of the use of "cloud" that don't meet your definition (cloud gaming can't meet your definition, as I've seen some that literally use RDP, and you've explicitly said that's not cloud), or I'll re-state mainframe/Citrix in a manner that meets your definition.
Complaining that a definition is wrong because the connotations are undesired when the definition is 100% right is not valid.
Slashdot Mirror
His name is Kim Dotcom (legally). If you feel the need to put his surname it quotes, you should at least be able to get it right. It makes you look like an idiot when you both put his name in quotes, and don't give it correctly. When you are that ignorant of the names of the people involved, it only makes you look like the douche bag.
The cabin of the vehicle gets warm therefore the windows get warm. When you slow down or stop, the wind tunnel effect goes away and it accumulates.
So when you are moving, it unfreezes? How is that? When I'm moving, the air (well below freezing) is cooling the window faster than the heater can heat it. Only when stopped is the heater capable of melting anything.
Perhaps the problem is that people in New England see snow at temperatures above freezing. Something that was quite common when I lived in the lower 48. In Alaska, it gets cold enough, that you don't have the re-freeze problem unless you are talking about a flat driveway that's heated, which is rare, as they are quite popular with people with 20-degree drives, undrivable when icy, but flat drives don't need it.
And everyone is picking a different problem to indicate that I've never seen snow.
I don't turn on the heater when it's cold. It will melt or partially melt things, but it'll re-freeze if I drive fast, or turn off the car. It's better to let the windshield stay below freezing and no snow can stick.
Depends on the roof design. You can spend more in materials on a cold roof than hot. I guess that's why all the cheap bastards are complaining about ice dams now. It's not like it was unknown at the time. They just bought a crappy house.
It's a partial myth. The big lie in the myth is that English has one word for snow. I've seen more than that. Snow. Flurry. Blizzard. Slush. And others. It's just for triviality, someone pretended that all the words for snow in English didn't exist.
Ice dam is indicative of incompetent engineering. In cold climes, a "cold roof" is a better option. This consists of having the plywood base of the roof be under the studs, not above, and has almost no effect on the heat-trapping of the attic, but allows air to flow under the roof so that the roof is always ambient temperature. This eliminates the possibility of ice damning. For greater cost and complexity, there are the roof heaters for those who live in incompetently engineered homes.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
So you are saying that it was so windy that the wind turbines in the area were all shut down?
Are you lying about some argument you lost with me a long time ago? I don't remember it, or you, so I have no idea what you are talking about, so I can only assume you are lying to try to get the last word a few years after the conversation ended. Are you one of the idiots that would come back to elementary the next day with a comeback for a comment nobody remembers from the day before? If you are that slow, it's better to just try to remain unnoticed, than to announce it. One would have thought that by age 12 you'd have figured that out, so you are what, 9?
Yes, it's so magical in AK that the Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow. How does something re-freeze at -40? It never un-freezes. Why does it freeze in traffic? Does your heater not work if you aren't moving? In Alaska, it's cold. You don't turn your heater on, or if you do, you turn it on your feet. So long as your windshield stays below freezing, no snow will ever accumulate on it.
Have you ever seen snow?
Extra computing power was not available at the click of a button.
The fact that you had bad contracts doesn't make it impossible. You didn't even have to click a button. You submit a job, and you got the resources you needed, and were charged for them at the end of the month. Just like the cloud today.
Even if they had gotten the generators, you can't just rewire things on the spur of the moment like that, especially not when a significant section of the country has also been wiped out.
The last time I replaced the generator and UPS at the (not a real) datacenter I work at, there was about 10 seconds of downtime, and 4 hours of electrical work. Had we de-powered everything during the work, it'd have been done in under 30 minutes.
Yes, better to let the meltdown happen than take the time to wire it in the middle of a flood. But if you were right, why did they have generators on the way, stuck in traffic? The failure was they were to cheap (and afraid of people knowing how many screw ups they had to that point) to fly them on (well, under) helicopters.
Vents don't matter. If they had an underwater generator (they exist) and the fuel stored above ground, like on a small water-tower (or even on the roof of a building), then there's have been no meltdown. $10k and proper planning would have prevented the meltdown.
That's why people don't trust nuclear power. The jackasses building them would rather kill everyone with a meltdown than spend $10k to secure the backup from natural disasters considered "likely" for the area.
Since you bought up Fukushima, I've long wondered how a modern first world nation-state could not manage to get generators on-site before the batteries went flat. I've read that the utility tried but could not get them there in time due to traffic jam and destroyed infrastructure on the ground. Did nobody think of picking up the phone and calling someone at the military to dispatch some bloody helicopters? I can't fathom that you need so much power to run cooling pumps as to render the required generators too heavy to fly in.
I didn't want to say, because it sounds like the "depend on the US" cliche, but I could have driven to work, chained up a generator (not sure what they needed, but I had a 40kVA that I could have sent), and driven it to a C130 (nearby military base) and gotten it on the ground in Japan well under the 12 hours battery they had (presuming the US military would give civilian aid). Then arrange some helicopter transport to the site.
My understanding is that Tepco lied to everyone. They lied about it being under control, and whether it would be "saved" and what they needed and such. An international call for generators, and I'm sure there are hundreds (or thousands) that could have come from South Korea in time, even if they couldn't find a single one in Japan. And there would have been many options to getting it there. Tanks don't mind mud so much, and you can hook a civilian trailer to one. So tow the damn thing. On the road, where you can, on the shoulder where you can, over fields and through houses where you have to. It's a fucking nuclear meltdown.
But Tepco said "it's under control". "There was an incident, but it's currently contained". At least that's how I understand it from the information I saw released. Everyone with a "C" in their job title should be in jail, or working from the reactor floor.
The OP said "a very windy snowstorm " not a very windy day after lots of snow.
What do you think the AK in my name stands for?
Would you like to try another question?
T3 wan connections for traffic and voice which I doubt exist in Cuba currently.
What, with their ties to Russia and blocks by the US, they use E3 instead?
Aren't they legal in Mexico? I know people who used to drive to Mexico to smuggle back Cuban cigars. Though they could be illegal there, and the friends thinking they were being tricky were being defrauded.
Yes, that was the problem with Fukushima. The design guaranteed a meltdown in the case of loss of power. If you lost mains power, and your generator didn't start, you have a 100% chance of a meltdown. The tsunami took out the mains and the generators. So a meltdown was guaranteed, because they didn't restore power. Nothing else matters from that point. If they had requested a generator and fuel from someone and gotten it in the 12 or so hours the batteries lasted, then we'd know for sure whether the loss of containment was guaranteed by a breach caused by the earthquake. But Japan never asked, so nobody even tried.
I'd assume that the plant in question is of a similar design.
What I'd do is that because a meltdown makes more than enough power for a secondary, smaller generator to make enough power to prevent a meltdown. Sort of an active-verson of a passively cooled reactor. But cost and liability are more important than safety.
I've seen snow-proof (and ice-proof) solar panels. A very small amount of heat will melt just the lowest layer, and the snow will (if unimpeded) slide off. Cleaning the panels off for a tiny fraction of the power they collect.
Flat roofs will collapse. They generally have walls around the edge, and will catch lots of snow. Almost all panels are elevated slightly, so they do a better job of letting the snow flow around them in a wind, especially when mounted on slanted roofs. Also, I haven't been following Boston weather, but there's a difference between a snow, followed by 60 mph winds, and snow *in* 60 mph winds.
If the wind is that high, the snow won't collect on the solar panels that easily. It drifts off of high places, like roofs, and collects at fences and other things that catch the air. The stated combination won't happen as needed for the AC horror scenario to happen.
So the windy snowstorm will cause the windmills to fail? How is that?
Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics (On-demand self-service, Broad network access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service);
That exactly describes my contract with IBM in the '90s for Mainframe service, and the service I had on a Cray in college before that.
Rapid self provisioning seems to be a big part of "cloud computing" that makes it different from other older computing models.
The student Cray in college was "submit a job", back in the '80s. It was auto-provisioning, and quite instant. Sure, you might have to wait a few miliseconds processing time, if there was no queue. And, of course, unless you paid for premium access, you'd be at the back of the queue.
Or VMs in the '90s, or mainframes in the '90s. The mainframe access I had was like the Amazon one-click. It wasn't one-click, it was a fuckton of clicks, permissions, proprietary setup and account agreements, followed by a low-check instant-purchase zero-provisioning service. Anything you sent over the dedicated link to the mainframe was considered authorized. You'd then get service provisioned, executed, and billed automatically. It wasn't so much "auto provisioned" as "pre-provisioned", almost exactly like a spun-down VM waiting for an order to spin up one (or 10) copies.
On-demand scalable resources such as networks, servers and applications which are provided as a service, are accessible by the end user and can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal effort or service provider interaction.
That's almost exactly from my VM web-host from the '90s.
Again, anyone who says it's new is usually ignorant of the past, not defending the purity of a new and useful term.
That and "cloud" isn't always "cloud computing". Cloud storage, Cloud gaming, and thousands of other things use the cloud term. If they are contradictory, which definition of "cloud" wins?
Yes, everyone else is using it wrong, even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... among millions of others. You are The One True Holder of the definition of Cloud. Despite not being able to define cloud.
You are quite the troll. I thought you might actually have a legitimate complaint about the definition, but you can't define it. You just know it when you see it. I give up. You win. Elastic pay-per-use mainframe time isn't "cloud computing" but pay per use EC2 isn't. I was submitting jobs to mainframes electronically to be charged to my account as the resources were used 10+ years before Amazon was founded, let alone EC2. But that's not a cloud, because you say so.
Yes, you refuse to define it because you are a lying troll. If you had a point, you'd have made it. You can't define it in a way that doesn't include mainframe (except for your wrong ideas of how mainframes were/are used).
The cloud was used many times by different people for different things. After endless questions about the differences between the minicomputer and the mainframe always coming up when the machines were explicitly listed, those (and other) computers were regularly drawn with a cloud on diagrams I've seen 20+ years ago.
That you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Simply put, you can't define "cloud" in a manner that includes the vast majority of today's uses of that word, and doesn't include all the things you say it doesn't. Define cloud. Go on. Try. And I'll define Mainframe computing in a way that meets that definition, or give 10+ uses of "cloud" on Wikipedia that don't meet the definition. Cloud gaming (via video streaming) being the one that if your definition doesn't allow for, I won't bother to list any more. It's literal RDP in some cases, and you've explicitly said RDP isn't cloud.
Again, it's tired and exhausting because you are wrong and thus unable to prove anyone else wrong.
How about this. Define "cloud". I'll either give examples of the use of "cloud" that don't meet your definition (cloud gaming can't meet your definition, as I've seen some that literally use RDP, and you've explicitly said that's not cloud), or I'll re-state mainframe/Citrix in a manner that meets your definition.
Complaining that a definition is wrong because the connotations are undesired when the definition is 100% right is not valid.
I was thinking of having a 6 TB 3.5" drive strapped to each leg.