Sounds like someone who hasn't heard of Blue/Green discovering Blue/Green. You don't have "prod" and "dev" but you build in dev (or test, whatever you like to call it), then promote dev to prod, and down-grade prod to dev. A short hold-down to be able to roll back to previous prod, if problems occur, then old prod becomes new dev. Switching between environments happen every release.
SOX and HIPAA have no requirements around "uptime" other than being able to provide historic records within a matter of weeks, if required. DR and uptime are unrelated to most statutory requirements.
Nope. DR is a "solution" to the question of BCM. But you are speaking as if you assume BCM is some manner of redundancy (or diversity). They had BCM. BCM doesn't help. They had backups. They didn't properly test them. That means they had BCM, and BCM was worthless. So bringing it up looks to be more a way to talk buzzwords than help people.
BCM is "when the site goes down, we spin up the backups in AWS" or something like that. That the backups don't work, and aren't tested is unrelated to BCM, or DR, or any of your other worthless buzzwords.
The CIO who demanded we not test backups (the email, printed and filed) was promoted after the server failed, and we found out that the "never errored" backups didn't actually back up the systems in question, but the wrong sets of files from a selection of servers, set up long before I got there, but since the BackupExec job completed successfully every day for years, there couldn't be a problem, and it would be a waste of time to check them. I wasn't fired for that, but I was thrown under the bus by the guy that caused the problem.
Experts still call it a "backup plan". A "backup" is a copy. Nobody wants a copy. People want a usable service. There should never be a "backup plan". There should only be a "restore plan." So people stop saying "the backup completed without error, it should work". If you didn't restore it, you didn't test the restore.
I've seen too many places with backups that completed without error that didn't have usable backups. And never tested a restore.
That wouldn't be an issue, except there is no IT degree, so people hire CS graduates, expecting them to be programmers or sys admins. And you can get a CS degree without being competent in either (yes, "some" programming is required, but certainly not competency).
Where I am, the electricians do the clean-up. Almost always doing the drywall, and only not doing it when they are one contractor in a set of contractors (such as in a major re-model).
Nope. I meant what I said. Some companies choose to hire only people who can work a computer, then expect IT to not reboot. Other companies knowingly hire people without the expectation they can use a computer, then hire others around them to hand-hold them in using them. Sometimes this is in assistants. I worked for one "tech company" that the CIO didn't have and had never used a computer. Every email he received was printed and delivered on his desk on paper. His email replies were dictated (then typed up and emailed). An office supply chain expected IT to sit with finance and help finance "program" Excel equations.
This wasn't one idiot in marketing, but the expectation of the CEO/board of these companies, and was in written policies.
That you've lead a sheltered life doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That would be against the policies of the Fortune 500 companies I've worked for.
Why would they have policies against supporting users remotely? There are tools to reboot a PC remotely that would not allow the remote person to have any view of the work/files on the PC. Were you too stupid to know of those tools? Or too stupid to be able to sell the idea to the bosses? SMS/SCCM is used by "Fortune 500" companies, and allows remote rebooting of PCs. Why are are you not managing user PCs in an effective manner? The story seems absurd. That you are making up incompetence on your part to make an arguing point to make another slashdotter look stupid. You are only succeeding in making yourself look stupid.
It's possible to get a CS degree without ever using Windows, AD, a VPN, or ever hearing the term "OSI model". So, throw those people into a business with 10,000 users, all on Windows, and what could that CS grad do?
The expectation is that a CS student would self-teach themselves IT while getting a degree in CS. That's no longer true. It seemed more true for those who got a CS degree in the early '90s (and before).
Wire a house when it's a frame (and do so better than code, even if not strictly to code), yes.
Re-wire a house, no. You have to cut open walls, pull wires, drill, and put it all back to where nobody knows you were there. "electrician" is more builder than wiring. The wiring is trivial. Getting it to look professional is harder.
Uh, no. It's not IT's job to turn on your computer. The Fortune 500 companies I've worked for in the past have policies in place that prevent IT techs from running over to turn or reboot a user's workstation.
It's the IT's job to do whatever the company requires. I've worked in design houses, where they literally expected IT to re-position the mouse/mousepad when they went too far.
And have you worked at a "real" fortune 500? Everyone I've worked at (5000+ employees and computers at all) had a way for IT to reboot without "running over" so long as the base OS was reachable. So yeah, they'll have a policy about not running over to reboot, because if you are doing that, you are doing your job wrong. Why are you doing your job wrong?
Or, as Robert Kiyosaki writes in "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," the more you specialize about something in college the less you know about everything else in real life.
Writes -> Speculates. That someone wrote it in a book doesn't make it true. And the Renaissance man isn't dead yet. Instead, it's a complaint about people ignoring the basics. You can learn the basics to a level of competency and still specialize. Maybe not everyone, but enough that it's common.
Although I've shocked a few doctors when I refused to transfer their iTunes library to a new workstation because having iTunes installed on their workstation was against hospital policies.
They must have been shitty doctors. I've seen IT people fired for less. They are doctors, the rules don't apply. Though, I've never figured out, who's worse? Doctors or lawyers?
So, do they have health care, or don't they? If they do, then they are excluded. If they don't, then they are included. A lot of poor have no health care. Anyone working at Wal-Mart may be poor enough for food stamps, but not for medicaid, and they don't get any insurance through work, so they'd be a group that'd have no insurance. And there are many other similar groups.
Note, my comment was about health care, not wealth or income.
I kept my doctor. ACA's failing was that it was a subsidy for for-profit insurance companies. And doctors left those groups, as they changed with ACA. ACA didn't do it. ACA would have let everyone keep their doctor. But the for-profit doctors and for-profit insurance companies found it more profitable to juggle associations, so some doctors left some insurance companies, and joined others. If one under ACA wanted to, they could have kept their doctor, but may have had to change their insurance carrier to do so.
The metric is deliberately worthless to avoid value judgements. "2 minutes" to what? What are they asserting my chance of death is? When multiplied over 50 years, a 2% chance gets pretty large, and hasn't happened. So what's being measured?
It'll play back if it can't call back. It won't play if the authorization to play has expired (weeks). It won't play if the authorization to play back fails (you downloaded US-only content, then opened Netflix in Albania and connected to local Netflix regional servers that don't have that show.
You have to wait weeks for a time-out, or actively connect in a Netflix region where the content is not allowed. Otherwise, it works, no connection to a server is required to start playback (in fact, connection to a network is not allowed, if you are outside an area that has that content).
If you want to watch on the bus with no connection at all, that's a new option that now exists. You don't need a connection to do so.
I was commenting on the over-statement about the expiry. If you aren't cheating, and something "expires", it is trivial to get it reactivated without re-downloading. Re-activation isn't needed every time you play, just every few weeks.
Works 100% of the time. Did it myself on an airplane, no connection to anything. The part about 3G on the bus is that you don't have to worry about data charges. A few kb here or there to re-authorize is nothing compared to the massive downloads saved.
So long as you are flying from the US, you'll be fine. Connect to the WiFi at home, or at the airport, or mobile data and make sure everything is authorized, and you can watch it on the plane. Flying back 6 weeks later after your backpacking trip, though, and it'll likely not work.
Offline content doesn't have an expiration. Playing it does. So if you download in the US, then store it for 12 months to play elsewhere, it'll eventually refuse to play. But it's still there, unless you delete it. You just connect, open Netflix, go to your downloads, and click on it, and it'll play locally, after a quick check to the servers that it would be playable if you were to stream it.
Actually quite reasonable of a restriction. I've found stuff lasts about 2 weeks, but not everything expired at the same time, so that may not be a firm number (or I could have started looking at a time in the middle of an expiration period).
So if you are not trying to game the system, you can download at home, play on the bus (while connected via 3G) and 100% of playback will be from local, and nothing will ever expire. Also, if you open netlfix daily at home, but play offline at work, you shouldn't see a problem. So the "expiration" is over-stated in an attempt to generate clickbait to get people angry over the limitations that seem quite reasonable.
"Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"
He's clearly come out anti-vax. Probably more to pander to the idiots, than for any personal belief, as his kids were vaccinated, but he's supported anti-vax.
Nope. MRAs are anti-HPV-vax, not necessarily anti-vaxxers. MRAs see no problem with their sex acts killing women. The women shouldn't have been promiscuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like someone who hasn't heard of Blue/Green discovering Blue/Green. You don't have "prod" and "dev" but you build in dev (or test, whatever you like to call it), then promote dev to prod, and down-grade prod to dev. A short hold-down to be able to roll back to previous prod, if problems occur, then old prod becomes new dev. Switching between environments happen every release.
But you could do that without any backups or DR.
SOX and HIPAA have no requirements around "uptime" other than being able to provide historic records within a matter of weeks, if required. DR and uptime are unrelated to most statutory requirements.
Nope. DR is a "solution" to the question of BCM. But you are speaking as if you assume BCM is some manner of redundancy (or diversity). They had BCM. BCM doesn't help. They had backups. They didn't properly test them. That means they had BCM, and BCM was worthless. So bringing it up looks to be more a way to talk buzzwords than help people.
BCM is "when the site goes down, we spin up the backups in AWS" or something like that. That the backups don't work, and aren't tested is unrelated to BCM, or DR, or any of your other worthless buzzwords.
The CIO who demanded we not test backups (the email, printed and filed) was promoted after the server failed, and we found out that the "never errored" backups didn't actually back up the systems in question, but the wrong sets of files from a selection of servers, set up long before I got there, but since the BackupExec job completed successfully every day for years, there couldn't be a problem, and it would be a waste of time to check them. I wasn't fired for that, but I was thrown under the bus by the guy that caused the problem.
Experts still call it a "backup plan". A "backup" is a copy. Nobody wants a copy. People want a usable service. There should never be a "backup plan". There should only be a "restore plan." So people stop saying "the backup completed without error, it should work". If you didn't restore it, you didn't test the restore.
I've seen too many places with backups that completed without error that didn't have usable backups. And never tested a restore.
That wouldn't be an issue, except there is no IT degree, so people hire CS graduates, expecting them to be programmers or sys admins. And you can get a CS degree without being competent in either (yes, "some" programming is required, but certainly not competency).
Where I am, the electricians do the clean-up. Almost always doing the drywall, and only not doing it when they are one contractor in a set of contractors (such as in a major re-model).
Nope. I meant what I said. Some companies choose to hire only people who can work a computer, then expect IT to not reboot. Other companies knowingly hire people without the expectation they can use a computer, then hire others around them to hand-hold them in using them. Sometimes this is in assistants. I worked for one "tech company" that the CIO didn't have and had never used a computer. Every email he received was printed and delivered on his desk on paper. His email replies were dictated (then typed up and emailed). An office supply chain expected IT to sit with finance and help finance "program" Excel equations.
This wasn't one idiot in marketing, but the expectation of the CEO/board of these companies, and was in written policies.
That you've lead a sheltered life doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That would be against the policies of the Fortune 500 companies I've worked for.
Why would they have policies against supporting users remotely? There are tools to reboot a PC remotely that would not allow the remote person to have any view of the work/files on the PC. Were you too stupid to know of those tools? Or too stupid to be able to sell the idea to the bosses? SMS/SCCM is used by "Fortune 500" companies, and allows remote rebooting of PCs. Why are are you not managing user PCs in an effective manner? The story seems absurd. That you are making up incompetence on your part to make an arguing point to make another slashdotter look stupid. You are only succeeding in making yourself look stupid.
It is not a myth. I'm looking for someone with a PhD in CS and 20 years experience in Windows 2016. Oh, and the job pays $20k a year.
That I can't fill that position proves there's a labor shortage.
It's possible to get a CS degree without ever using Windows, AD, a VPN, or ever hearing the term "OSI model". So, throw those people into a business with 10,000 users, all on Windows, and what could that CS grad do?
The expectation is that a CS student would self-teach themselves IT while getting a degree in CS. That's no longer true. It seemed more true for those who got a CS degree in the early '90s (and before).
Wire a house when it's a frame (and do so better than code, even if not strictly to code), yes.
Re-wire a house, no. You have to cut open walls, pull wires, drill, and put it all back to where nobody knows you were there. "electrician" is more builder than wiring. The wiring is trivial. Getting it to look professional is harder.
Uh, no. It's not IT's job to turn on your computer. The Fortune 500 companies I've worked for in the past have policies in place that prevent IT techs from running over to turn or reboot a user's workstation.
It's the IT's job to do whatever the company requires. I've worked in design houses, where they literally expected IT to re-position the mouse/mousepad when they went too far.
And have you worked at a "real" fortune 500? Everyone I've worked at (5000+ employees and computers at all) had a way for IT to reboot without "running over" so long as the base OS was reachable. So yeah, they'll have a policy about not running over to reboot, because if you are doing that, you are doing your job wrong. Why are you doing your job wrong?
Or, as Robert Kiyosaki writes in "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," the more you specialize about something in college the less you know about everything else in real life.
Writes -> Speculates. That someone wrote it in a book doesn't make it true. And the Renaissance man isn't dead yet. Instead, it's a complaint about people ignoring the basics. You can learn the basics to a level of competency and still specialize. Maybe not everyone, but enough that it's common.
Although I've shocked a few doctors when I refused to transfer their iTunes library to a new workstation because having iTunes installed on their workstation was against hospital policies.
They must have been shitty doctors. I've seen IT people fired for less. They are doctors, the rules don't apply. Though, I've never figured out, who's worse? Doctors or lawyers?
I maintain that it's much more prevalent on the left because of their collectivist nature. It results in less independent thinking.
I've found exactly the opposite. Gun owners instantly bond over their collective suffering at the hands of "tough on crime" politicians.
So, do they have health care, or don't they? If they do, then they are excluded. If they don't, then they are included. A lot of poor have no health care. Anyone working at Wal-Mart may be poor enough for food stamps, but not for medicaid, and they don't get any insurance through work, so they'd be a group that'd have no insurance. And there are many other similar groups.
Note, my comment was about health care, not wealth or income.
I kept my doctor. ACA's failing was that it was a subsidy for for-profit insurance companies. And doctors left those groups, as they changed with ACA. ACA didn't do it. ACA would have let everyone keep their doctor. But the for-profit doctors and for-profit insurance companies found it more profitable to juggle associations, so some doctors left some insurance companies, and joined others. If one under ACA wanted to, they could have kept their doctor, but may have had to change their insurance carrier to do so.
Or, for all we know the complaints were lies.
People who post disagreeable things because they like the attention = Internet troll.
The metric is deliberately worthless to avoid value judgements. "2 minutes" to what? What are they asserting my chance of death is? When multiplied over 50 years, a 2% chance gets pretty large, and hasn't happened. So what's being measured?
The subsidies for fossil fuels are still orders of magnitude higher than renewables.
It'll play back if it can't call back. It won't play if the authorization to play has expired (weeks). It won't play if the authorization to play back fails (you downloaded US-only content, then opened Netflix in Albania and connected to local Netflix regional servers that don't have that show.
You have to wait weeks for a time-out, or actively connect in a Netflix region where the content is not allowed. Otherwise, it works, no connection to a server is required to start playback (in fact, connection to a network is not allowed, if you are outside an area that has that content).
If you want to watch on the bus with no connection at all, that's a new option that now exists. You don't need a connection to do so.
I was commenting on the over-statement about the expiry. If you aren't cheating, and something "expires", it is trivial to get it reactivated without re-downloading. Re-activation isn't needed every time you play, just every few weeks.
Works 100% of the time. Did it myself on an airplane, no connection to anything. The part about 3G on the bus is that you don't have to worry about data charges. A few kb here or there to re-authorize is nothing compared to the massive downloads saved.
So long as you are flying from the US, you'll be fine. Connect to the WiFi at home, or at the airport, or mobile data and make sure everything is authorized, and you can watch it on the plane. Flying back 6 weeks later after your backpacking trip, though, and it'll likely not work.
Offline content doesn't have an expiration. Playing it does. So if you download in the US, then store it for 12 months to play elsewhere, it'll eventually refuse to play. But it's still there, unless you delete it. You just connect, open Netflix, go to your downloads, and click on it, and it'll play locally, after a quick check to the servers that it would be playable if you were to stream it.
Actually quite reasonable of a restriction. I've found stuff lasts about 2 weeks, but not everything expired at the same time, so that may not be a firm number (or I could have started looking at a time in the middle of an expiration period).
So if you are not trying to game the system, you can download at home, play on the bus (while connected via 3G) and 100% of playback will be from local, and nothing will ever expire. Also, if you open netlfix daily at home, but play offline at work, you shouldn't see a problem. So the "expiration" is over-stated in an attempt to generate clickbait to get people angry over the limitations that seem quite reasonable.
"Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"
He's clearly come out anti-vax. Probably more to pander to the idiots, than for any personal belief, as his kids were vaccinated, but he's supported anti-vax.
Nope. MRAs are anti-HPV-vax, not necessarily anti-vaxxers. MRAs see no problem with their sex acts killing women. The women shouldn't have been promiscuous.
Nope. This is the real news. All the other statistics used before were the fake news.