Why use backup tapes? Just use 3x redundancy and have files that are semi-stable replicate off the network.
Who are you paying for the off-site storage, and how much does it cost? Tapes are cheap, and faster. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Buick full of backups tapes.
Also, the "off-site" storage often forgets the first rule of "backup solutions". I put that in quotes because there is no such thing. Nobody wants a backup solution. Everyone wants a restore solution. You want the simplest restore solution possible. With the world of tapes, you can configure a bootable CD with a tape, and the CD restores the first server image on the tape to the drive it's in. For roughly the time it takes for delivery, to read the tape, plus two reboots, you can have your primary back up and running. And that's if all the on-site is 100% lost.
And for me, I've found the value in backup tapes being that you have hundreds of tapes/copies. With good management, when someone comes in and says "4 months ago, an employee accidentally deleted a Very Important File that we now need to close the books." You do a few minutes of research, restore that one and only one file onto a USB drive, and run it over to the guy asking. With "redundancy" you have a working copy of today's files, but no ability to recover previous states. That's bad.
And because the worker's phones are more powerful than their computers, often with better resolution on a 5" than their 19" computer monitor, the workers consider themselves IT experts, and we are back to decentralized IT, and that doesn't work well.
So, there's no such thing as a property investor? Property is all scarcity. Property goes up in value always (over a long enough measure). Because land is fixed, and people are increasing.
So someone who buys an iPod expecting it to appreciate is a speculator, but somone who buys it because they think it's undervalued is an investor. They both hope to buy low and sell high, but their motives define them.
If you compress it as much as you are advocating, you'd lose some detail that may be useful in fighting crime. Storage is cheap, and CSI-level "enhance" doesn't exist. Capture the higher quality. It's a better choice for that use.
Most redundancy in IT is done in a way with a more complex single point of failure. No redundancy is more reliable (but less resilient) than the massive over-redundancy we see in IT.
Extended desktop to the second monitor. Anything "full screen" shows on the monitor of the window when full screen, unless special tools have been installed to make it a single tiled view (used only for gaming, that I've seen).
Is your complaint about productivity? In which case, I'd say that multi-monitor was solved 10+ years ago. Or is it gaming? In which case the "fix" is per game, not per system.
You are in need of medical help. Please see a psychiatrist. Your recollection doesn't match reality. I can read reality. I used your definitions. And still you disagreed. I provided a "fix" that didn't address the problem, and asked if that fixed the problem. Rather than discussing the definition of "solve" in that context, you asserted that it was unrelated enough for you to ignore without answering. Though I think you really mean that "I know I'm a lying little shit, and I can't think of a way to answer that which is consistent with my previous lies."
You were the one trolling here. Asserting that a "business problem" isn't a problem and refusing to answer a single direct question designed to clarify the definitions.
The car analogy you know what the problem is.
Then the car is running rough, and you replace the engine. The car no longer runs rough. You don't know why it did. Why should you care when it runs fine now?
Reboot the engine to fix a problem inside the engine.
You've re-defined "problem" to "technical problem" When you change the words and definitions of the words you use, just to prove yourself right, it just proves you wrong (and that you know it). The "business problem" is email doesn't work. The "business solution" is to reboot the router. The "mystery" solved is why the email didn't work. There was something wrong with the router. Problem solved. Mystery solved. That "business problems" don't exist in your world is just proof nobody should listen to you.
You are deliberately trying to be obtuse. I read your response as "I don't believe the CEO not being able to send an email is a problem." But that you think that comes off as naive and job-ending, so you dance like a faerie around the bush, rather than saying what you mean. In Real Life, your boss (or boss's boss) having a problem *is* a problem, even if the best solution to that problem won't reveal the mystery.
I also note you didn't respond to the car analogy. You don't need to solve the mystery of the bad piston rings to solve the issue of the car not running. Makes me think that you know you are wrong, but that you have argued so long you refuse to admit it (to yourself or me doesn't matter).
Then FedEx should be in jail. But any job application you send back with "illegal question" as the answer will likely not result in you landing the job. So what would you have a job applicant do?
That and I've never seen that in the list of things you aren't allowed to ask.
Yeah, Network Essentials. The later MCSE dropped that test, and required a CCNA, but that later changed as well. Most server admins need to know "255.255.255.0" and nothing more.
I find it hilarious that you thought it the hardest. I found it the easiest, and ended up moving to networks after I was done working as an MCSE for a couple years. Server admin is not nearly as interesting ans networks, especially when you work on networks with tens or hundreds of thousands of people on them. I can build Linux, and throw on any of a number of DNS servers. But it's cheaper and easier to just buy an appliance. Let someone else optimize the hardware/software. It's worth the (small) cost for that, rather than having to build and maintain servers all the time.
The link (definition of rule of law) is about how the law is applied, not how it's made. The government doesn't have to follow its own rules. If the government is broken so badly that the judicial appointees are selected based on political affiliation, not general competency, there are bigger issues than whether the rules were bent making new laws.
You can't have the layers of protection designed the three branches, if all three branches answer to a single political master, rather than independent, and competitive, and answering to the people.
Torture was invented (for the Inquisition) for one reason and one reason only. Eliciting a confession. It didn't matter whether it was true or valid. The point was to force a confession. Same as plea bargains today. Torture is never a valid interrogation technique. But if you want someone to sign their name to a piece of paper, regardless of whether it's true, then it always works (always meaning you can sign their name for them, and the dead prisoner can't object).
I was writing letters and such before this came out. I "knew" before this release, and acted that way. There's nothing in here that would change anything I've done. They wouldn't act before, why would they now?
Or are you just insulting the "I told you so" people because you didn't believe, and feel guilt for supporting a bad government in contradiction of the truth?
The total death count was about the same as a day's worth of traffic deaths in the US. Given that is defined by a non-event, as it happens daily, with the knowledge and acceptance of everyone, I'm still not clear why a death-count appeal would make it into an actual event.
Also, you can't know how many subsequent attacks have been stopped: several, such as the shoe bomber, might have worked,
The shoe bomber was stopped by non-government actors. The government in no way reduced the chances of the shoe bomber succeeding (if we are thinking of the same shoe bomber incident). The government is making it worse, not better.
After the invasions of Iraq, the count came back that the US has killed more "terorists" than existed in the world prior to the invasion, and there are more now than when the invasion began. Simple math and logic indicates that the US created more terrorists than all other sources combined.
The Plutocrats are held to the same law as everyone else. It's just that the law is written with exceptions in mind. The law is applied evenly by the law, but not by the people executing it. The police in the US claim this is rule of law. So where's the problem? Are you telling me that police "discretion" can't co-exist with the rule of law?
The CEO complains that he can't send an email. You immediately reboot the router and the problem clears. I would say that the reboot solved the problem of not sending emails. And my use fits the definition you gave.
If you have a problem with your car. Your rings in your 1967 Shelby Cobra GT 350 are shot. While you are looking for parts, you find a crate-motor for a GT500. It's a "simple" upgrade with a new engine that's better than the previous one. So you perform an engine swap, without fixing the old one.
Did you "solve" your problem of "bad rings" in the old engine? Your rings aren't bad anymore. But the rings in the engine that was bad are still bad.
It's quite confusing that you are going to such extraordinary lengths to avoid clarifying your position with accurate terminology which would match the definition of a word.
You are asserting I'm using a word wrong, when I don't believe I am. You are the one going to great lengths to maintain that solving a problem without finding the root cause isn't "solve", despite your definition clearly allowing for my use. "find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery)." Rebooting the router "finds an answer to" the problem of the CEO not being able to send emails, "effectively dealing with the problem."
Yet, you keep asserting that your definition is wrong, whenever I use it to explain my use of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use backup tapes? Just use 3x redundancy and have files that are semi-stable replicate off the network.
Who are you paying for the off-site storage, and how much does it cost? Tapes are cheap, and faster. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Buick full of backups tapes.
Also, the "off-site" storage often forgets the first rule of "backup solutions". I put that in quotes because there is no such thing. Nobody wants a backup solution. Everyone wants a restore solution. You want the simplest restore solution possible. With the world of tapes, you can configure a bootable CD with a tape, and the CD restores the first server image on the tape to the drive it's in. For roughly the time it takes for delivery, to read the tape, plus two reboots, you can have your primary back up and running. And that's if all the on-site is 100% lost.
And for me, I've found the value in backup tapes being that you have hundreds of tapes/copies. With good management, when someone comes in and says "4 months ago, an employee accidentally deleted a Very Important File that we now need to close the books." You do a few minutes of research, restore that one and only one file onto a USB drive, and run it over to the guy asking. With "redundancy" you have a working copy of today's files, but no ability to recover previous states. That's bad.
And because the worker's phones are more powerful than their computers, often with better resolution on a 5" than their 19" computer monitor, the workers consider themselves IT experts, and we are back to decentralized IT, and that doesn't work well.
So, there's no such thing as a property investor? Property is all scarcity. Property goes up in value always (over a long enough measure). Because land is fixed, and people are increasing.
So someone who buys an iPod expecting it to appreciate is a speculator, but somone who buys it because they think it's undervalued is an investor. They both hope to buy low and sell high, but their motives define them.
If you compress it as much as you are advocating, you'd lose some detail that may be useful in fighting crime. Storage is cheap, and CSI-level "enhance" doesn't exist. Capture the higher quality. It's a better choice for that use.
Most redundancy in IT is done in a way with a more complex single point of failure. No redundancy is more reliable (but less resilient) than the massive over-redundancy we see in IT.
So you don't like multi-monitor in general, so there exists no solution you'd be happy with? What did SGI do that you found acceptable?
And you can request a jury trial (but you'll always lose).
Extended desktop to the second monitor. Anything "full screen" shows on the monitor of the window when full screen, unless special tools have been installed to make it a single tiled view (used only for gaming, that I've seen).
Is your complaint about productivity? In which case, I'd say that multi-monitor was solved 10+ years ago. Or is it gaming? In which case the "fix" is per game, not per system.
Yeah, and PNG for GIF.
You were the one trolling here. Asserting that a "business problem" isn't a problem and refusing to answer a single direct question designed to clarify the definitions.
The car analogy you know what the problem is.
Then the car is running rough, and you replace the engine. The car no longer runs rough. You don't know why it did. Why should you care when it runs fine now?
No, 600 is too small. When you erase those in DC, those holding similarly named jobs elswhere will quickly be appointed to fill those positions.
Reboot the engine to fix a problem inside the engine.
You've re-defined "problem" to "technical problem" When you change the words and definitions of the words you use, just to prove yourself right, it just proves you wrong (and that you know it). The "business problem" is email doesn't work. The "business solution" is to reboot the router. The "mystery" solved is why the email didn't work. There was something wrong with the router. Problem solved. Mystery solved. That "business problems" don't exist in your world is just proof nobody should listen to you.
You are deliberately trying to be obtuse. I read your response as "I don't believe the CEO not being able to send an email is a problem." But that you think that comes off as naive and job-ending, so you dance like a faerie around the bush, rather than saying what you mean. In Real Life, your boss (or boss's boss) having a problem *is* a problem, even if the best solution to that problem won't reveal the mystery.
I also note you didn't respond to the car analogy. You don't need to solve the mystery of the bad piston rings to solve the issue of the car not running. Makes me think that you know you are wrong, but that you have argued so long you refuse to admit it (to yourself or me doesn't matter).
Then FedEx should be in jail. But any job application you send back with "illegal question" as the answer will likely not result in you landing the job. So what would you have a job applicant do?
That and I've never seen that in the list of things you aren't allowed to ask.
Fraud shouldn't be punished, that's the Loonitarian Ideal.
Why sue? For $80 she could buy a Surfboard 6141 at Best Buy,
Yes, nobody should ever exercise their rights because it's easier to let the corporations take them than to take a stand and protect them.
Yeah, Network Essentials. The later MCSE dropped that test, and required a CCNA, but that later changed as well. Most server admins need to know "255.255.255.0" and nothing more.
I find it hilarious that you thought it the hardest. I found it the easiest, and ended up moving to networks after I was done working as an MCSE for a couple years. Server admin is not nearly as interesting ans networks, especially when you work on networks with tens or hundreds of thousands of people on them. I can build Linux, and throw on any of a number of DNS servers. But it's cheaper and easier to just buy an appliance. Let someone else optimize the hardware/software. It's worth the (small) cost for that, rather than having to build and maintain servers all the time.
The link (definition of rule of law) is about how the law is applied, not how it's made. The government doesn't have to follow its own rules. If the government is broken so badly that the judicial appointees are selected based on political affiliation, not general competency, there are bigger issues than whether the rules were bent making new laws.
You can't have the layers of protection designed the three branches, if all three branches answer to a single political master, rather than independent, and competitive, and answering to the people.
Torture was invented (for the Inquisition) for one reason and one reason only. Eliciting a confession. It didn't matter whether it was true or valid. The point was to force a confession. Same as plea bargains today. Torture is never a valid interrogation technique. But if you want someone to sign their name to a piece of paper, regardless of whether it's true, then it always works (always meaning you can sign their name for them, and the dead prisoner can't object).
I was writing letters and such before this came out. I "knew" before this release, and acted that way. There's nothing in here that would change anything I've done. They wouldn't act before, why would they now?
Or are you just insulting the "I told you so" people because you didn't believe, and feel guilt for supporting a bad government in contradiction of the truth?
Also, you can't know how many subsequent attacks have been stopped: several, such as the shoe bomber, might have worked,
The shoe bomber was stopped by non-government actors. The government in no way reduced the chances of the shoe bomber succeeding (if we are thinking of the same shoe bomber incident). The government is making it worse, not better.
After the invasions of Iraq, the count came back that the US has killed more "terorists" than existed in the world prior to the invasion, and there are more now than when the invasion began. Simple math and logic indicates that the US created more terrorists than all other sources combined.
Terrorists who have no rights.
Great. So now all we need to do is label the Gypsies, Social Democrats, and Jews as terrorists, and we are done. Right?
The Plutocrats are held to the same law as everyone else. It's just that the law is written with exceptions in mind. The law is applied evenly by the law, but not by the people executing it. The police in the US claim this is rule of law. So where's the problem? Are you telling me that police "discretion" can't co-exist with the rule of law?
If you have a problem with your car. Your rings in your 1967 Shelby Cobra GT 350 are shot. While you are looking for parts, you find a crate-motor for a GT500. It's a "simple" upgrade with a new engine that's better than the previous one. So you perform an engine swap, without fixing the old one.
Did you "solve" your problem of "bad rings" in the old engine? Your rings aren't bad anymore. But the rings in the engine that was bad are still bad.
It's quite confusing that you are going to such extraordinary lengths to avoid clarifying your position with accurate terminology which would match the definition of a word.
You are asserting I'm using a word wrong, when I don't believe I am. You are the one going to great lengths to maintain that solving a problem without finding the root cause isn't "solve", despite your definition clearly allowing for my use. "find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery)." Rebooting the router "finds an answer to" the problem of the CEO not being able to send emails, "effectively dealing with the problem."
Yet, you keep asserting that your definition is wrong, whenever I use it to explain my use of the word.
Why?