You're right, I'm too stupid to get to work every morning. I was hoping it would go unnoticed. There's no possibility that two poeple in different frames of mind with different backgrounds could ever read the same paragraph and get slightly different ideas about what is going on. Good thing people like you, who know everything, are ready to take charge of this country.
Obviously, you are a person that cannot have a civil conversation, so I'm done. Just remember that thousands of people will read this thread and many of them will see you as a bitter, foul-mouthed, closed-minded jerk. They will also look at your opinions and remember that one closed-minded person believes fervently the way you do, therefore harming every cause that you get behind. Enjoy your smugness.
Unfortunately, with that attitude, there is no accountability for anything. Any time one of your schemes works out, you can take credit for it, even if it was caused by unrelated factors. Every time one of your schemes doesn't work, you simply blame it on something else. Since the real world can never be perfectly controlled, you can always do this.
The entire field of statistics is all about looking at data from multiple inter-related causes and trying to figure out which cause contributed to which effect. Your statement ignores the fact that there are plenty of good ways to assign numeric confidence levels to any correlation, and you simply assume that it is impossible.
Of course there are other factors involved. However, if CCTV cameras help so little that their effects are downed out by background changes in crime levels, then they aren't worth the incredible amount of money we are pouring into them. For the investment, there needs to be dramatic results.
Right, so according to you - CCTV has not helped any police activity in the UK, ever, and the cameras are used exclusively to look into the homes of individuals? Therefore a single instance of CCTV either helping an investigation, or not being used to look into a residential window, will disprove your statement
The phrase "not helped one bit" refers to the total number of crimes, not the outcome of each crime. One problem with looking at the result of cameras on a case by case basis is that any solved crime committed in an area where cameras exist are automatically attributed to cameras. What law enforcement professional wouldn't look at the tape? The only way to really see the advantages are to see if the cameras either catch criminals that would have otherwise gotten away, or to see if cameras can reduce the amount of time and effort necessary to catch a criminal that would have been caught even if cameras weren't installed. If either are true, then crime as a whole should go down. Unfortunately, crime isn't going down. Sure, it sometimes goes down a little, but it also sometimes goes up a little. However, in the final analysis, the public that paid for the cameras is no safer after their installation.
I suggest you go learn about the camera system in London, the system in question, and the big difference between the two.
I was not commenting on the system in the original article. I was simply responding to a comment. You only think I'm a dumbass because you are reading words into my post. Every word I said was true.
Oh, and if you are suggesting that "cameras may help stop a murderer" is to prevent a crime, one is not a murderer until AFTER the crime has been committed. If it were "stop a murder" it may be said to be preventing a crime. But, "stop a murder" is to stop a person who has already committed a crime. Back to reading comprehension you go.
London's system does not help catch murderers (or anybody else). It flat out doesn't work. It doesn't prevent crime, it doesn't catch murderers, it doesn't prevent muggings, it does nothing that couldn't have been done better by spending the money on almost any other form of public safety.
Back to reading comprehension you go.
OK, help me Great One. Where in this post does it reference, either directly or indirectly, the ShotStopper system (this is the entire post that I originally responded to):
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.
You are the one who originally went off topic and started talking about general surveillance. Since that is a topic I have opinions on, I gladly accepted the invitation to stray a bit off the main topic. Also, off-topic, troll, and dumbass are three totally different things. If I did go off topic, it would't have been due to a lack of reading comprehension, it would have most likely been due to disinterest in the current topic. If I were a troll and my goal was to get you all riled up, then I would be a freakin' genius.
Reading comprehension? Here is what I responded to:
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
The post specifically mentioned prevention. Don't pull out four letter words and degrading comments when you are flat-out wrong, it makes you look like an idiot. Besides, if cameras helped prosecution, then London would be safer. Since the cameras have not helped reduce crime in London, then they do not contribute to a reduction in crime, including by getting bad guys off the street. I know you want to believe that they work because it makes sense, but we have mountains of statistics that show that cameras are basically useless against crime.
So you trust your gut over actual data? Gun control has been proven to do very little to prevent gun crime. The only people who don't believe it are those who are selling a message or those who think it is so obvious that they don't even look at the research.
While we're at it, putting people in jail for using drugs doesn't work either. We stopped putting people in jail for not paying their bill hundreds of years ago because it didn't work, maybe we should bring that back? Oh wait, the new bankruptcy laws are the first step in getting that done.
People killing people is a separate problem from firearms ubiquity. It is easy to legally purchase and carry a weapon in both Isreal and Switzerland, yet they don't have high gun crime rates. Every large survey of gun crime rates and gun control laws show very low correlation between the two.
Cameras do not reduce crime. London has tens of thousands of cameras and they have not made the city safer. So, why spend millions and slightly erode privacy for no benefit?
This experiment show a potential, non-supernatural, explanation for why many people have similar NDEs. There are many people that think that since so many people see the same thing when near death, even if those people are not related in any way and have on reason to have seen the same thing, that they must be seeing something external, rather than something created from their own mids. This external place they have seen has been referred to as "heaven".
At best, a turbo can spool up instantly and offer a torque curve that is the same as a larger normally aspirated engine. Under no circumstances will a turbo work better at low rpm than at high rpm.
BTW, turbos provide the same benefits to both diesel and gasoline engines, they provide air at a higher pressure so that more fuel can be mixed in to get more energy from an engine of lower weight. Gas turbo engines benefit from small turbo bodies too. For a really wide operating range, some use two turbos and cut one off at low rpm. This gets boost built quickly while not choking airflow at higher rpm. Still, it won't match the grunt of a normally aspirated engine of much larger displacement.
Now, I'm not saying turbos are bad. I'm just mentioning that you don't get low end torque by going turbo. At best you don't lose low end torque.
I'd much rather have a 3.0l turbodiesel than a 5l V8 running my SUV
Of course you would. A three liter engine running at 10 pounds of boost has an effective displacement of 5.04 liters. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a diesel. Although, most turbo engines have a torque curve that can hardly be considered "torquey" due to the difficulty of building significant boost at low rpm. There's a good chance that most normally aspirated 5 liter gasoline engines have better low end torque than most turbo diesel 3 liter engines.
They've changed them. In 2006, my Civic had 30 city and 40 highway on the sticker. I get a little over 30 in mixed conditions. The car hasn't changed, but the news rules put 26/34 on the window, right in line with what I get.
but the impression it left on me was that we've been trading mpg for safety for quite some time in this country
The IIHS crashed a 1959 Bel Air into a 2009 Malibu for its 50 year anniversary. The biggest takeaway I had from the analysis of the crash test was that the 2009 Malibu was only 100 pounds lighter than the Bel Air. Cars have gotten way heavier since the 90's. That's why we used to get 50mpg from econoboxes like the Chevy Sprint and Dodge Omni, but now we are impressed by 45 from a Prius.
A motorcycle, for example, can easily get 45 to 55 mpg
I concur. Mine gets 40 and it is built for all out speed. It has 60 more horsepower than my Civic, gets ten more miles per gallon, and can go faster than 200 mph. However, I do spend more dollars per mile on tires than I do on gas.
The simple truth of the matter is, you've never encountered a 2D object, none such object exists in the real world (to my knowledge). So trying to place that constraint on it is rather folley.
Of course no 2D objects exist in the real world. That's because, as I said, the number of dimensions an object has is based on the world, not the object. Thank you for providing an example for my previous assertion.
There is nothing inconsistent about the world this game is set in.
I never said there was.
You obviously haven't done professional map development, 1 Sided objects in games are at the core of the development, and learning how to use them properly is what makes a great developer.
Say I want to create a hollow box for the player to play in. Easy enough, Lets say the box is 10 by 10 by 10. Easiest way, make a 1x10x10 brush, copy it 6 times, move each one to be the floor, roof, and walls.
Simple enough right? Yes, well, that will work, but you've got 6 sides to every brush now, and 6 brushes, so 36 Polygons needing to be rendered.
Or, instead, I could use 6 One sided brushes, using 6 polygons. Essentially cutting map poly's by a lot. How many polygons make up a map is one of the biggest problems Map developers have. For indoor maps, the entire level is never rendered all at once. They break it off into rooms and hallways, and hallways act at the airlocks between. On outdoor maps, its a bit easier, since you don't have walls or ceilings to render - you have 5 (or 6) poly's for a skybox, and the rest is just the terrain below.
Don't go around making those claims if you don't actually know about it.
==lack of resources
I didn't say it was a bad thing, I just said it was the truth. What if your player got out of the room? A full model would behave gracefully. It's probably unnecessary, so any rational game developer leaves it out because they are always pushing the boundaries of what their customer's computers can do (or trying to include those with older computers as part of the target market). The lack of resources forces a compromise.
But you have to pick a consistent model. My claim that 2D objects had thickness was only true because I stipulated that it was in a 3D world. I'm all for 4D games, as long as the world is consistent.
BTW, one-sided objects in games are usually due to mistakes, lazyness, lack of resources, or lack of time. Nobody plans to create a world with those rules.
Similarily, you can program 3D Objects that don't occupy 4D space
Sure. But if the objects are in a 4D space simulation, then they are 4D objects. Each object doesn't get to choose its dimensions, the world defines that.
... sliding them among a dimension that they do not occupy...
The two dimensional rings would have to have a thickness (even if it is small) when in the three dimensional world. They many be short prisms (or maybe infinite prisms), but you can't have true 2D stuff in a 3D system. I think it's simpler to simply say that you lift one ring over the other. When the rings were observed in two dimensions, there was no way to describe their height, so they could be short.
My biggest problem with most games, books, and movies that use extra dimensions, is that they treat three dimensional objects is if they don't have a value for their fourth dimension. That's like claiming that a circle drawn in the XY plane in a 3D world doesn't have a height. Or course it does, the whole plane shares the same height. You also can't "go to another dimension". That's just silly, how would a 2D object (width and depth) go to the height dimension? It could change it's height, but it always had one (assuming the third dimension exists). Also, one extra dimension allows for an infinite number of "alternate realities", it's not one for each dimension. For example, there could be an infinite number of flatlands in 3D space, each piled on top of each other. The occupants of each flatland would be inaccessible to occupants of the others.
Sixty to one consolidation is not uncommon in the real world. I work in a small division of my company and we put 64GB of RAM in every VMWare host. The parent company buys hosts with 256GB. We would go with more RAM, but we would end up with so few hosts that a single failure would take out a significant portion of our infrastructure. Besides, 4GB DIMMS are really cheap compared to 8s. I'd rather have eight hosts at 64GB each than two at 256GB each.
Anyways, we have no problem gobbling up 64GB of RAM without maxing out two quad core processors with around twenty guests per host. I'm sure the parent company gets close to 100 guests per host. VMWare DRS does a good job of distributing the heavily loaded servers across the hosts.
My goal is that, by the end of this refresh cycle, we will have consolidated four racks into 10U.
That's exactly Microsoft's explanation for continuing to charge per-CPU and not per-core. Their licensing is also very virtualization friendly. That way customers with a lot of small workloads can consolidate and continue to reap the software licensing benefits of Moore's law.
As for the last five years, it was just in 2007 that Microsoft made some clarifications to their licensing to make it clear that the license benefits of virtualization are for customers using any hypervisor, not just Hyper-V. And this was just on the eve of Hyper-V being released.
HP blade chassis are easy to power. They are designed to run three power supplies to the left and three to the right. Just run two PDUs on each side of the rack (30 to 50 amps each, depending on what servers you run). Twenty four power cords will supply about 100 devices (64 servers, 32 switches, and 8 management units). The system is designed so you will never need all six power supplies running at full tilt as that isn't fault tolerant. You can also get away with a few as four network cables for the entire rack, two 10 gig ethernet for data plus two for out-of-band management.
However, I wouldn't stand behind the rack without lip balm on. It will feel like a windy day in the desert.
Its handling of null and the empty string is incomprehensible and useless, in part because nobody involved ever had the cajones to do what needed to be done with both.
Many languages handle null strings as different from empty strings, C# and Java are two examples.
... and it was never intended to be. You link to an article stating that MSSQL timestamp isn't compliant with SQL 2003's timestamp definition. However, the first version of MSSQL out after 2003 deprecated the timestamp datatype. MSSQL timestamp is a unique update identifier that was never supposed to be a date/time. Think of it more as a update sequence number. If you want an actual timestamp, it's been there since the product was introduced in the form of the datetime datatype.
Saying MSSQL doesn't have a proper timestamp is like saying that Oracle doesn't have a proper VARCHAR because Oracle only has a VARCHAR2 data type.
The best part is that they'll never figure out who did it!!!! Oh, wait.
Anybody you have ever written a check has the technical means to drain your bank account tomorrow. Unfortunately, with this type of check fraud, it is really easy to identify who did it.
I would be more concerned about being framed than being scammed with this. Unfortunately, being framed doesn't require you to do anything, just the existence of the technology.
Slashdot Mirror
... screaming paranoia, fear, and spreading of FUD ...
What a strange description of "facts".
You're right, I'm too stupid to get to work every morning. I was hoping it would go unnoticed. There's no possibility that two poeple in different frames of mind with different backgrounds could ever read the same paragraph and get slightly different ideas about what is going on. Good thing people like you, who know everything, are ready to take charge of this country.
Obviously, you are a person that cannot have a civil conversation, so I'm done. Just remember that thousands of people will read this thread and many of them will see you as a bitter, foul-mouthed, closed-minded jerk. They will also look at your opinions and remember that one closed-minded person believes fervently the way you do, therefore harming every cause that you get behind. Enjoy your smugness.
Unfortunately, with that attitude, there is no accountability for anything. Any time one of your schemes works out, you can take credit for it, even if it was caused by unrelated factors. Every time one of your schemes doesn't work, you simply blame it on something else. Since the real world can never be perfectly controlled, you can always do this.
The entire field of statistics is all about looking at data from multiple inter-related causes and trying to figure out which cause contributed to which effect. Your statement ignores the fact that there are plenty of good ways to assign numeric confidence levels to any correlation, and you simply assume that it is impossible.
Of course there are other factors involved. However, if CCTV cameras help so little that their effects are downed out by background changes in crime levels, then they aren't worth the incredible amount of money we are pouring into them. For the investment, there needs to be dramatic results.
Right, so according to you - CCTV has not helped any police activity in the UK, ever, and the cameras are used exclusively to look into the homes of individuals? Therefore a single instance of CCTV either helping an investigation, or not being used to look into a residential window, will disprove your statement
The phrase "not helped one bit" refers to the total number of crimes, not the outcome of each crime. One problem with looking at the result of cameras on a case by case basis is that any solved crime committed in an area where cameras exist are automatically attributed to cameras. What law enforcement professional wouldn't look at the tape? The only way to really see the advantages are to see if the cameras either catch criminals that would have otherwise gotten away, or to see if cameras can reduce the amount of time and effort necessary to catch a criminal that would have been caught even if cameras weren't installed. If either are true, then crime as a whole should go down. Unfortunately, crime isn't going down. Sure, it sometimes goes down a little, but it also sometimes goes up a little. However, in the final analysis, the public that paid for the cameras is no safer after their installation.
I suggest you go learn about the camera system in London, the system in question, and the big difference between the two.
I was not commenting on the system in the original article. I was simply responding to a comment. You only think I'm a dumbass because you are reading words into my post. Every word I said was true.
Oh, and if you are suggesting that "cameras may help stop a murderer" is to prevent a crime, one is not a murderer until AFTER the crime has been committed. If it were "stop a murder" it may be said to be preventing a crime. But, "stop a murder" is to stop a person who has already committed a crime. Back to reading comprehension you go.
London's system does not help catch murderers (or anybody else). It flat out doesn't work. It doesn't prevent crime, it doesn't catch murderers, it doesn't prevent muggings, it does nothing that couldn't have been done better by spending the money on almost any other form of public safety.
Back to reading comprehension you go.
OK, help me Great One. Where in this post does it reference, either directly or indirectly, the ShotStopper system (this is the entire post that I originally responded to):
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.
You are the one who originally went off topic and started talking about general surveillance. Since that is a topic I have opinions on, I gladly accepted the invitation to stray a bit off the main topic. Also, off-topic, troll, and dumbass are three totally different things. If I did go off topic, it would't have been due to a lack of reading comprehension, it would have most likely been due to disinterest in the current topic. If I were a troll and my goal was to get you all riled up, then I would be a freakin' genius.
Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?
Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?
The post specifically mentioned prevention. Don't pull out four letter words and degrading comments when you are flat-out wrong, it makes you look like an idiot. Besides, if cameras helped prosecution, then London would be safer. Since the cameras have not helped reduce crime in London, then they do not contribute to a reduction in crime, including by getting bad guys off the street. I know you want to believe that they work because it makes sense, but we have mountains of statistics that show that cameras are basically useless against crime.
So you trust your gut over actual data? Gun control has been proven to do very little to prevent gun crime. The only people who don't believe it are those who are selling a message or those who think it is so obvious that they don't even look at the research.
While we're at it, putting people in jail for using drugs doesn't work either. We stopped putting people in jail for not paying their bill hundreds of years ago because it didn't work, maybe we should bring that back? Oh wait, the new bankruptcy laws are the first step in getting that done.
People killing people is a separate problem from firearms ubiquity. It is easy to legally purchase and carry a weapon in both Isreal and Switzerland, yet they don't have high gun crime rates. Every large survey of gun crime rates and gun control laws show very low correlation between the two.
Cameras do not reduce crime. London has tens of thousands of cameras and they have not made the city safer. So, why spend millions and slightly erode privacy for no benefit?
This experiment show a potential, non-supernatural, explanation for why many people have similar NDEs. There are many people that think that since so many people see the same thing when near death, even if those people are not related in any way and have on reason to have seen the same thing, that they must be seeing something external, rather than something created from their own mids. This external place they have seen has been referred to as "heaven".
At best, a turbo can spool up instantly and offer a torque curve that is the same as a larger normally aspirated engine. Under no circumstances will a turbo work better at low rpm than at high rpm.
BTW, turbos provide the same benefits to both diesel and gasoline engines, they provide air at a higher pressure so that more fuel can be mixed in to get more energy from an engine of lower weight. Gas turbo engines benefit from small turbo bodies too. For a really wide operating range, some use two turbos and cut one off at low rpm. This gets boost built quickly while not choking airflow at higher rpm. Still, it won't match the grunt of a normally aspirated engine of much larger displacement.
Now, I'm not saying turbos are bad. I'm just mentioning that you don't get low end torque by going turbo. At best you don't lose low end torque.
All I said was that cars weighed about the same in 1959 as they do in 2009. How does the Bel Air being bad in a crash change that?
I'd much rather have a 3.0l turbodiesel than a 5l V8 running my SUV
Of course you would. A three liter engine running at 10 pounds of boost has an effective displacement of 5.04 liters. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a diesel. Although, most turbo engines have a torque curve that can hardly be considered "torquey" due to the difficulty of building significant boost at low rpm. There's a good chance that most normally aspirated 5 liter gasoline engines have better low end torque than most turbo diesel 3 liter engines.
They've changed them. In 2006, my Civic had 30 city and 40 highway on the sticker. I get a little over 30 in mixed conditions. The car hasn't changed, but the news rules put 26/34 on the window, right in line with what I get.
but the impression it left on me was that we've been trading mpg for safety for quite some time in this country
The IIHS crashed a 1959 Bel Air into a 2009 Malibu for its 50 year anniversary. The biggest takeaway I had from the analysis of the crash test was that the 2009 Malibu was only 100 pounds lighter than the Bel Air. Cars have gotten way heavier since the 90's. That's why we used to get 50mpg from econoboxes like the Chevy Sprint and Dodge Omni, but now we are impressed by 45 from a Prius.
A motorcycle, for example, can easily get 45 to 55 mpg
I concur. Mine gets 40 and it is built for all out speed. It has 60 more horsepower than my Civic, gets ten more miles per gallon, and can go faster than 200 mph. However, I do spend more dollars per mile on tires than I do on gas.
The simple truth of the matter is, you've never encountered a 2D object, none such object exists in the real world (to my knowledge). So trying to place that constraint on it is rather folley.
Of course no 2D objects exist in the real world. That's because, as I said, the number of dimensions an object has is based on the world, not the object. Thank you for providing an example for my previous assertion.
There is nothing inconsistent about the world this game is set in.
I never said there was.
You obviously haven't done professional map development, 1 Sided objects in games are at the core of the development, and learning how to use them properly is what makes a great developer. Say I want to create a hollow box for the player to play in. Easy enough, Lets say the box is 10 by 10 by 10. Easiest way, make a 1x10x10 brush, copy it 6 times, move each one to be the floor, roof, and walls. Simple enough right? Yes, well, that will work, but you've got 6 sides to every brush now, and 6 brushes, so 36 Polygons needing to be rendered. Or, instead, I could use 6 One sided brushes, using 6 polygons. Essentially cutting map poly's by a lot. How many polygons make up a map is one of the biggest problems Map developers have. For indoor maps, the entire level is never rendered all at once. They break it off into rooms and hallways, and hallways act at the airlocks between. On outdoor maps, its a bit easier, since you don't have walls or ceilings to render - you have 5 (or 6) poly's for a skybox, and the rest is just the terrain below. Don't go around making those claims if you don't actually know about it.
==lack of resources
I didn't say it was a bad thing, I just said it was the truth. What if your player got out of the room? A full model would behave gracefully. It's probably unnecessary, so any rational game developer leaves it out because they are always pushing the boundaries of what their customer's computers can do (or trying to include those with older computers as part of the target market). The lack of resources forces a compromise.
BTW, one-sided objects in games are usually due to mistakes, lazyness, lack of resources, or lack of time. Nobody plans to create a world with those rules.
Similarily, you can program 3D Objects that don't occupy 4D space
Sure. But if the objects are in a 4D space simulation, then they are 4D objects. Each object doesn't get to choose its dimensions, the world defines that.
... sliding them among a dimension that they do not occupy ...
The two dimensional rings would have to have a thickness (even if it is small) when in the three dimensional world. They many be short prisms (or maybe infinite prisms), but you can't have true 2D stuff in a 3D system. I think it's simpler to simply say that you lift one ring over the other. When the rings were observed in two dimensions, there was no way to describe their height, so they could be short.
My biggest problem with most games, books, and movies that use extra dimensions, is that they treat three dimensional objects is if they don't have a value for their fourth dimension. That's like claiming that a circle drawn in the XY plane in a 3D world doesn't have a height. Or course it does, the whole plane shares the same height. You also can't "go to another dimension". That's just silly, how would a 2D object (width and depth) go to the height dimension? It could change it's height, but it always had one (assuming the third dimension exists). Also, one extra dimension allows for an infinite number of "alternate realities", it's not one for each dimension. For example, there could be an infinite number of flatlands in 3D space, each piled on top of each other. The occupants of each flatland would be inaccessible to occupants of the others.
Sixty to one consolidation is not uncommon in the real world. I work in a small division of my company and we put 64GB of RAM in every VMWare host. The parent company buys hosts with 256GB. We would go with more RAM, but we would end up with so few hosts that a single failure would take out a significant portion of our infrastructure. Besides, 4GB DIMMS are really cheap compared to 8s. I'd rather have eight hosts at 64GB each than two at 256GB each.
Anyways, we have no problem gobbling up 64GB of RAM without maxing out two quad core processors with around twenty guests per host. I'm sure the parent company gets close to 100 guests per host. VMWare DRS does a good job of distributing the heavily loaded servers across the hosts.
My goal is that, by the end of this refresh cycle, we will have consolidated four racks into 10U.
That's exactly Microsoft's explanation for continuing to charge per-CPU and not per-core. Their licensing is also very virtualization friendly. That way customers with a lot of small workloads can consolidate and continue to reap the software licensing benefits of Moore's law.
As for the last five years, it was just in 2007 that Microsoft made some clarifications to their licensing to make it clear that the license benefits of virtualization are for customers using any hypervisor, not just Hyper-V. And this was just on the eve of Hyper-V being released.
HP blade chassis are easy to power. They are designed to run three power supplies to the left and three to the right. Just run two PDUs on each side of the rack (30 to 50 amps each, depending on what servers you run). Twenty four power cords will supply about 100 devices (64 servers, 32 switches, and 8 management units). The system is designed so you will never need all six power supplies running at full tilt as that isn't fault tolerant. You can also get away with a few as four network cables for the entire rack, two 10 gig ethernet for data plus two for out-of-band management.
However, I wouldn't stand behind the rack without lip balm on. It will feel like a windy day in the desert.
Its handling of null and the empty string is incomprehensible and useless, in part because nobody involved ever had the cajones to do what needed to be done with both.
Many languages handle null strings as different from empty strings, C# and Java are two examples.
... and it was never intended to be. You link to an article stating that MSSQL timestamp isn't compliant with SQL 2003's timestamp definition. However, the first version of MSSQL out after 2003 deprecated the timestamp datatype. MSSQL timestamp is a unique update identifier that was never supposed to be a date/time. Think of it more as a update sequence number. If you want an actual timestamp, it's been there since the product was introduced in the form of the datetime datatype.
Saying MSSQL doesn't have a proper timestamp is like saying that Oracle doesn't have a proper VARCHAR because Oracle only has a VARCHAR2 data type.
The best part is that they'll never figure out who did it!!!! Oh, wait.
Anybody you have ever written a check has the technical means to drain your bank account tomorrow. Unfortunately, with this type of check fraud, it is really easy to identify who did it.
I would be more concerned about being framed than being scammed with this. Unfortunately, being framed doesn't require you to do anything, just the existence of the technology.