I think you're actually right. That's exactly what I was looking for. I'm never going to get it because even though I'm only 30 and have lived and breathed tech for my whole life, I have no desire to talk to people without actually having something useful to talk about. As they said on a certain chick flick "That's not exactly a soup question".
I'll never call myself a true introvert - there were plenty of those at my college. Typical computer nerd style, and my friends and I were definitely not like them. But, your point is valid. I don't go out of my way to talk to people I have no reason to talk to right then.
I just had this discussion with my wife over the weekend, but in our case we were talking mainly about Facebook and not Twitter, but the same principal applies. My take is that I like the concept of being able to keep in touch with friends and family easily, but the implementation of facebook, myspace, twitter, and sms messaging leaves a lot to be desired. Facebook and myspace allow other people to post things which you may or may not want posted about you, and it keeps those postings for a certain amount of time (# of posts). Yes, you can delete them, but that's not the point. If there was damage, it's already done. Twitter is completely abused by people posting things about going to the store or going to a movie. Who really cares about that except stalkers or people who need to live vicariously through other more exciting people? I see the point for texting/sms, but I can't stand hearing about people that constantly text their friends. If you need to have a conversation with someone with multiple questions and answers, then it's a lot quicker (and cheaper) to call them. It's only quicker to text if it's a single message with a single response. Yes, I'm very technologically literate - I have worked in the computer networking hardware industry for ten years. But the implementation and addictiveness to many people of these four services is really bad. I know a few people who use these services solely for posting pictures and stories for family and good friends - I definitely get that.
For the flip side - my wife uses facebook quite a bit and likes getting updates from people she probably wouldn't call and talk to. Also enjoys looking at pictures when someone posts them. I get that - I just don't get the constant attention it requires. I look at her page, and see 3-4 updates from some of her friends on a daily basis, and we're not talking high school or college kids here. And half of them are lame attempts at introspective comments like - "can't wait to go drinking", "feeling lonely", "two days until the weekend", "my life is like xxx song lyric", etc. She agreed with me about that stuff, but it seems like most of our joint friends enjoy posting comments like that. As for twitter, she equated it to instant messaging. Definitely not the same thing because it's kept forever and isn't a two way conversation.
I'm not starting flames. I just don't understand why so many people are so addicted to these computer based types of social networks when to an outsiders perspective many of the posts seem either phony or useless. There have to be other people out there that agree with me, or that can come up with rational reasons as to why I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what country you're from. Since you say college instead of some other term I'm going to guess US. I'm not that long out of college myself. In my experience, and that of many of my friends, it's all in who you know. Very few people get internships out of the blue. It's either through family members and friends of family (church, people met at activites, etc), or something setup by your college's student employment department. At least one internship was required for us to grauate, and many people did two.
I actually did three (one with one company, and two summers with another), and I wasn't alone with that. Internships (at least for IT) aren't that hard to come by if you don't wait for them to find you. Engineering might be completely different. Then there's paid vs unpaid internships - all IT internships are paid, but I had friends in other areas that had to work for free.
Internships are not real jobs. The person doing the hiring isn't really all that concerned with your skill level. It is much more important to them that you are an outgoing person with opinions on things that might be able to bring the company some extra value. If they have a large internship program and routinely have dozens of interns, them might want to hire people they think will work well together personality wise. An internship interview is typically only a few minutes, vs a real interview of an hour three times with three different people.
Really, it shouldn't be very hard to find an internship - don't be shy and do ask around to everybody you know. You'll likely be surprised. And yes, a resume is a must - even for an internship. Once your name gets on the interview list for the internship, you have to screw up pretty bad to not get it.
First, I would work extremely hard to progress in my current position. I'm not sure why everybody's assuming you're level one tech support. I would assume if you're posting here that you're level two or level three. Regardless of what level you're at, you want to move up to the highest level. Study, get whatever certifications you can easily get, and move yourself forward in your current organization.
Next, try to move out of tech support at your current job and get a job with the same employer in the server or network department. Stay there for six months or so before applying for new jobs at new employers. If you jump around too quick they'll assume you're going to leave them quickly too and not give you the time of day.
If you absolutely cannot move past your current level at your current employer, or cannot take the time to move to a different department at the current employer, then do some creative editing of your resume. Use a headhunter or three - they will often edit your resume for you. You don't want to list tech support. Bill yourself as a level 2 NOC engineer, or something. Anything but tech support. List specific products and classes of components that you support - ie enterprise MPLS network troubleshooting, or wireless component deployment and design, etc.
Definitely use a headhunter - they'll help you stress the things that you need to stress, and gloss over the rest.
Citation please? I might need to get one for my 90 year old grandma. I've read that requesting a coupon does not mean it is sent to you immediately - they supposedly send the coupons only after the boxes are available from multiple retailers in the area the coupon was requested from. Mistakes happen, sure - a human wrote the software and runs the program. But is expiration of the coupons without valid retailers in the area rampant? I think they're supposed to be 90 day coupons. I'd love to see a citation that references what areas actually have them available for purchase today.
Completely agree with you on less distractions being better. I just don't understand why this one is singled out to be legislated separately from reckless driving laws. There may be studies out there showing comparisons between different types of distractions. I haven't gone out of my way to look for anything because this type of tragedy has not affected me personally. I'd feel completely different if I caused an accident, or someone I know was injured or caused an accident by doing this. I don't know enough to back up this claim, but I have serious doubts that the numbers/percentages of accidents caused by this type of distraction are high enough to warrant the attention that this topic gets. If you cause an accident it doesn't really matter what the reason is, you're going to get a ticket for something. It's largely irrelevant what the ticket is for.
I don't know. I'd stop if I saw concrete evidence that it was more dangerous than other common distractions with or without any legislation. Just haven't seen any actual evidence yet. I really do agree it's not good - I just do it anyway because in my mind it doesn't seem like much of a distraction for me. Probably the same for most users (at least in our minds). I firmly believe it is not always bad, which is where I think legislation shold come in. If something has a potential to be very bad in 9 out of 10 cases, then I think it's fair to pass a special law about it. Drunk Driving, waiting periods for handguns, purchasing large quantities of antihistamines or fertilizer, etc. Those could sometimes result in nobody being hurt, but often enough people do get hurt. I just don't see texting in the same category.
btw - it's nice to be able to disagree with someone who's rational for once!
Right, and mice like cheese. Lab tests usually show the result that people are looking for. They're comparing talking on the phone or texting to no distraction at all. I have yet to see a comparison of talking on the phone to listening to a favorite song or yelling at your kid in the backseat to stop pinching their brother. They're all distractions, and they're all covered under reckless driving laws. I don't see how one is less of a distraction then another.
A large portion of these posts are debates about RAID levels. That's not what the poster asked about.
I've heard really good things about both ReadyNAS and Thecus NAS solutions for home use. Both are supposedly incredibly stable, have a large following and forums behind them that build new features and assist with problems. But in my research (18 months ago), these were the best of the best and there were still problems with throughput. It seems that the chipsets that the manufacturers use in the home storage NAS solutions don't allow full 100Mb throughput much less a large portion of Gig throughput. If you're editing video, streaming to multiple machines on your network at the same time, or intend to transfer large multi-gig files to it routinely, you should probably do what I did and roll your own.
In my case, I couldn't find anything that supported Raid6 which is what I decided I wanted. So I bought a Promise controller for a few hundred bucks and rolled my own. Then I ran into problems with finding an operating system that supported a single logical partition of greater then 3TB on a 64bit AMD chip. I tried XP, a couple bootable ISO 64 bit versions of Linux, and finally ended up having to use Vista 64bit. I'm sure I was doing something wrong with the Linux versions, or maybe in the bootable ISO's something wasn't set right for large arrays, but I decided not to bother figuring it out. So since it's a real desktop, the drives can spin down when they're not in use, I get the full throughput that any standard (non-NAS) device would get on my network, and I can install any service I feel like for getting access to my data.
But, if you're sick of rolling your own and don't want to replace your 4u with another 4u server, and don't expect to need a lot of speed, check out Readynas and Thecus. If you roll your own make absolutely sure it's a true hardware raid card and not a raid card that does some computations in software. If it's over $150 you're probably safe.
Where do you drive that you constantly need to shift? I have only ever driving stick, and I live in Chicago and drive through traffic jams at least twice a week. I still can make a call (on my earpiece since it's illegal to not use handsfree in Chicago). If you need all of your attention and all of your skill to keep a car on the road, you shouldn't be driving. Nothing against you personally. I just don't understand how people think that nobody is capable of multitasking - see my post further down.
First, I agree that texting and using phones in general while driving is a bad idea. But it's not that bad in small doses. It seems that lots of Baby Boomers seem to think it's one of the most dangerous things ever. Let me help you understand - it's not.
Multitasking is a learned behavior. Depending on how often you do it, unless you're incredibly dumb, you get better the more often you do it. Things like talking while jogging - you can't do it when you first start out because you can't control your breathing. It takes a while to learn how to do it. Same with multitasking while driving. Yes, it does distract you. But as long as your not inept, it shouldn't distract you any more then reading billboards and streetsigns that you pass, changing stations on a radio, talking to passengers, drumming on your steering wheel when your jam comes on the radio, etc.
Yes, I text while driving. But on a blackberry, not a cell phone. Blackberry's are different - one button per letter. Since I've been using blackberry's for so long, I can pretty much type without looking at the screen, and I just have to glance at it every once in a while to make sure the last sentence was correct. I don't glance away any more then I do to look in the sideview mirrors or look at my center console to check my speed.
I agree it's bad, but I disagree that it is always dangerous. I think there is a small percentage of people who happen to be bad at multitasking who try to talk/text and drive at the same time. Same as there's a small percentage of semi-truck drivers who are dangerous and cut small cars off at the last second, but we all watch out when we're around any truck because they have a bad reputation. Some people can compartmentalize and do multiple things at the same time, and some people can't handle it.
I don't understand legislating the use of a phone while driving, because it's already covered under reckless driving laws. If you're sending a quick message, or having a few sentence conversation I don't see a problem with it at all. If you're having a heated argument, that's going to take a lot more attention away from you, and you should know better then to do that while driving.
I'm a little confused. How exactly is a search engine not a public forum? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is used or seen by more of the general public then Google is.
All right - your point is the same as dozens if not hundreds of other people here. I have a completely honest (non troll) question. I've been thinking about signing up for netflix for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I've never heard of profiles before. I don't really understand how they add value other than simple separation. If you have three queues (yours/spouse/kids), and the kids hang on to something for a while nobody else suffers. I don't see how that would change if there was only one queue. You'd have the same number of DVD's out at a time, you send back two but your kids hang onto their movie. You then get your next two movies and the kids still have the one they wanted. Nobody loses anything. What am I missing? I was under the impression that you can reorder your requests on the fly, so all you do is just set the kids movies to be one every three or five in your request list or whatever you want your interval to be, and you're all set.
As for recommendations, I don't really understand that difference either. It's all one account - people in your house have a myriad of tastes. So why isn't taking all those into account all at the same time a valid way to do it? Then you'll end up with movies that one or the other person likes, or even better, something that melds multiple types together.
If it's on Wikipedia it must be true, right? Wikipedia says they may get a bump, which is fair because I knew a lot of screwups who still managed to get Eagle Scout. In fact I know of one who was stationed on a nuclear sub. But that's a different story. I was told numerous times about the automatic bump, but that could have just been a myth that everybody just assumed was true. I never saw it written anywhere.
Here's the text: Eagle Scouts who enlist in the U.S. military may receive advanced rank in recognition of their achievements
As for discriminating against women, I'm surprised there weren't more posts on this. Technically the Girl Scouts of America was created to address this. Seemingly equivalent to the notion of the Boy Scouts of America, at least on paper. Both were created to follow Baden Powell's structure originally.
When I was in Scouts I heard about troops in the Western states that allowed girls to join. I googled for a bit and was unable to find any sanctioned girls (only a few lawsuits by girls that tried to join or had actually joined and then were found out and kicked out).
But, as fine a line as this is, the BSA as an organization does not actually discriminate against girls. They fully welcome female leadership. They also have a special group called Explorer scouts which is age 15-21 I think. Explorers are fully coed and from what I heard back then are generally grouped around a specific activity or activities that all the members enjoy. So you could have a group that does lots of backpacking or rock climbing, etc. At that point it's kind of like a social club with some structure, but strictly for older kids and it was always coed from the beginning.
So lets recap: The Boy Scouts as a child of the parent Boy Scout Association will allow women to be leaders. They will not allow girls to join. The Explorer Scouts as a child of the Boy Scout Association will allow girls to join, and actively encourage it. The Girl Scouts of America do not allow boys to join, but will allow men to be leaders.
There's really no functional difference (on the female topic), but the Boy Scouts get all the flak because there are more girls who are interested in doing the activities that boy scouts do then there are boys interested in doing activites girl scouts do.
You wish the world was nicer, and you say you have no problem with homosexuality, but your comments make it sound like you really feel exactly the opposite.
I agree with you that religion had very little to do with my Scouting experience as well.
Yes, scouts are an ill-suited place for anyone who is different. So are every other youth organization, because kids are cruel. They root out differences and make the most of them to make themselves look 'cool'. That's no reason to take a stance against homosexuality. It doesn't protect anyone because gays are still in Scouts and always will be. Many kids may not have even figured out yet that they were gay while they're that young.
I also take issue with the comment about gay boys growing up to be women (again, counterproductive to your claim that you are not anti-homosexual), and that scouts teaches boys to become men. I don't recall that being in the handbook at all. It certainly was never stressed. What was stressed for us all throughout, and while I was a leader for a few years was learning leadership skills, thinking for yourself, making your own decisions, honoring your fellow man, etc. Basically instilling all of the values of the golden rule (do unto others/etc), and trying to make sure that 'graduates' of the program have strong values and basic knowledge of leadership and how groups work to be able to function in the real world among other types of groups.
Do we really need to know how to tie a bowline or know that cleaning a cast iron pot with soap is normally a bad idea? Not really. The knowledge itself will come in handy a few times in our lives, but more then that is the fact that we learned it from other kids just a couple years older then us, and we in turn taught it to younger kids as we grew older. That method of learning how to actually teach and lead others, and respect others enough to help them is probably the single largest aspect of Scouts.
That whole concept of helping others is completely dead set against their policy of ostracizing any gay scouts that they ever hear about.
More then just military academies. Last I checked you automatically got a bump in rank and pay once you finished boot camp if you were an Eagle Scout. I never cared so I don't know the specifics, and Wikipedia only references a bump, not to what rank.
That's just an individual dumba$$ scoutmaster, not a council stance. It is very difficult to plan outings and have weekly meetings at certain times of the year (football mostly). For most kids it's simply a matter of where most of their friends are. If 90% are in sports, then they'll do that instead of Scouts, or the other way around.
You didn't feel oppresed because they don't put atheism in the same category as being gay. I have a few gay friends from my many years in the Scouts, and they were deathly afraid of being outted. Why should someone be forced to live a lie, just to be able to be part of a phenomenal organization? I have many lasting friendships from the scouts even though I've been out for almost 10 years. One was in a leadership position and was gay. He ended up leaving because having to hide 50% of his life from a very time demanding hobby (scouts takes a LOT of time) was giving him ulcers and screwing with his health.
I owe the scouts for a lot of my success, and I've even had job interviewers comment highly when they look at the bottom of my resume and see that I am an Eagle Scout and a Vigil member of OA. I firmly believe that the BSA will be forced to charge their policy in the not too distant future because the rest of America is warming up to the concept of gay people being just as American as the rest of us. But until that time comes I will not support the organization as a whole, but instead I will only support individual scouts or perhaps a local troop.
Absolutely. I went through the program and found it to be great. Everything from tiger cubs up through eagle scout, and almost all leadership posts inbetween except for actually being a scout master. I knew of a few gays. It was very hush-hush. Atheism wasn't that big a deal, but almost all scout troops do meet in church's - that's just how they get the space for meeting. I never thought too much about it as a kid, but once I started getting to know a few gay people after the age of 16, and then with the lawsuits a couple years ago it just absolutely isn't right that they get protection based on claiming they are a private 'club'. There are troops that allow girls, so apparently the rules can be bent for some people but not others. I support the kids that are part of the scouting organizations, but I do not support the organizations themselves. Taking those kinds of hard lines and basically saying that a whole class of people is completely ireelevant is just reprehensible and I won't help them.
That's because your troop leaders were given no reason to inform council/regional executive leadership (salaried people) about you. If they had felt obligated to mention you, or if you spoke about those topics in front of the wrong person you might have had a completely different story.
It's hosted in the US, right? Known people run it, right? (I think those are both true, I can't be bothered to spend two minutes googling to find out).
So people are posting trade secrets, things that they probably signed contracts not to distribute when they were hired by these companies, and somehow they think it's legal? I think the only whistleblowers that are protected are the ones that report those internal secrets directly to the government. No other outlet is technically legal, right? Freedom of speech, right to protest, yeah, yeah. It may or may not matter because most of us signed contracts when we were hired by these powerful companies to keep their secrets secret, as well as a non-compete clause. You can fight those contracts in the courts, but you are bound by their rules unless a judge determines otherwise.
I certainly wouldn't publish something that I thought would destroy my company on the internet. If I came across something like that that I felt morally or ethically violated some rules so badly that I couldn't sleep at night I would be taking it to the government in one way or another. I would never expect/hope that someone I've never met is going to protect my anonymity enough that I could get away with releasing it to the public regardless of how much better it might make me feel to know that the government and the public know about something vs often just the government (who has no obligation to followup).
If the GP is really trying to do something as extensive as you are, I would hope they don't expect to be able to find that data for free. 25Gig a day for a few hundred or thousand stocks is a lot of traffic. I would never expect someone to extrapolate the data, collate, host, and allow me to download that for free every day. That should definitely be a pay service.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're actually right. That's exactly what I was looking for. I'm never going to get it because even though I'm only 30 and have lived and breathed tech for my whole life, I have no desire to talk to people without actually having something useful to talk about. As they said on a certain chick flick "That's not exactly a soup question".
I'll never call myself a true introvert - there were plenty of those at my college. Typical computer nerd style, and my friends and I were definitely not like them. But, your point is valid. I don't go out of my way to talk to people I have no reason to talk to right then.
I just had this discussion with my wife over the weekend, but in our case we were talking mainly about Facebook and not Twitter, but the same principal applies. My take is that I like the concept of being able to keep in touch with friends and family easily, but the implementation of facebook, myspace, twitter, and sms messaging leaves a lot to be desired. Facebook and myspace allow other people to post things which you may or may not want posted about you, and it keeps those postings for a certain amount of time (# of posts). Yes, you can delete them, but that's not the point. If there was damage, it's already done. Twitter is completely abused by people posting things about going to the store or going to a movie. Who really cares about that except stalkers or people who need to live vicariously through other more exciting people? I see the point for texting/sms, but I can't stand hearing about people that constantly text their friends. If you need to have a conversation with someone with multiple questions and answers, then it's a lot quicker (and cheaper) to call them. It's only quicker to text if it's a single message with a single response. Yes, I'm very technologically literate - I have worked in the computer networking hardware industry for ten years. But the implementation and addictiveness to many people of these four services is really bad. I know a few people who use these services solely for posting pictures and stories for family and good friends - I definitely get that.
For the flip side - my wife uses facebook quite a bit and likes getting updates from people she probably wouldn't call and talk to. Also enjoys looking at pictures when someone posts them. I get that - I just don't get the constant attention it requires. I look at her page, and see 3-4 updates from some of her friends on a daily basis, and we're not talking high school or college kids here. And half of them are lame attempts at introspective comments like - "can't wait to go drinking", "feeling lonely", "two days until the weekend", "my life is like xxx song lyric", etc. She agreed with me about that stuff, but it seems like most of our joint friends enjoy posting comments like that. As for twitter, she equated it to instant messaging. Definitely not the same thing because it's kept forever and isn't a two way conversation.
I'm not starting flames. I just don't understand why so many people are so addicted to these computer based types of social networks when to an outsiders perspective many of the posts seem either phony or useless. There have to be other people out there that agree with me, or that can come up with rational reasons as to why I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what country you're from. Since you say college instead of some other term I'm going to guess US. I'm not that long out of college myself. In my experience, and that of many of my friends, it's all in who you know. Very few people get internships out of the blue. It's either through family members and friends of family (church, people met at activites, etc), or something setup by your college's student employment department. At least one internship was required for us to grauate, and many people did two.
I actually did three (one with one company, and two summers with another), and I wasn't alone with that. Internships (at least for IT) aren't that hard to come by if you don't wait for them to find you. Engineering might be completely different. Then there's paid vs unpaid internships - all IT internships are paid, but I had friends in other areas that had to work for free.
Internships are not real jobs. The person doing the hiring isn't really all that concerned with your skill level. It is much more important to them that you are an outgoing person with opinions on things that might be able to bring the company some extra value. If they have a large internship program and routinely have dozens of interns, them might want to hire people they think will work well together personality wise. An internship interview is typically only a few minutes, vs a real interview of an hour three times with three different people.
Really, it shouldn't be very hard to find an internship - don't be shy and do ask around to everybody you know. You'll likely be surprised. And yes, a resume is a must - even for an internship. Once your name gets on the interview list for the internship, you have to screw up pretty bad to not get it.
First, I would work extremely hard to progress in my current position. I'm not sure why everybody's assuming you're level one tech support. I would assume if you're posting here that you're level two or level three. Regardless of what level you're at, you want to move up to the highest level. Study, get whatever certifications you can easily get, and move yourself forward in your current organization.
Next, try to move out of tech support at your current job and get a job with the same employer in the server or network department. Stay there for six months or so before applying for new jobs at new employers. If you jump around too quick they'll assume you're going to leave them quickly too and not give you the time of day.
If you absolutely cannot move past your current level at your current employer, or cannot take the time to move to a different department at the current employer, then do some creative editing of your resume. Use a headhunter or three - they will often edit your resume for you. You don't want to list tech support. Bill yourself as a level 2 NOC engineer, or something. Anything but tech support. List specific products and classes of components that you support - ie enterprise MPLS network troubleshooting, or wireless component deployment and design, etc.
Definitely use a headhunter - they'll help you stress the things that you need to stress, and gloss over the rest.
that apparently /. decided we needed to hear it twice! Either that, or somebody forgot to read the followup link attached to the original story.
Thanks!
Citation please? I might need to get one for my 90 year old grandma. I've read that requesting a coupon does not mean it is sent to you immediately - they supposedly send the coupons only after the boxes are available from multiple retailers in the area the coupon was requested from. Mistakes happen, sure - a human wrote the software and runs the program. But is expiration of the coupons without valid retailers in the area rampant? I think they're supposed to be 90 day coupons. I'd love to see a citation that references what areas actually have them available for purchase today.
Completely agree with you on less distractions being better. I just don't understand why this one is singled out to be legislated separately from reckless driving laws. There may be studies out there showing comparisons between different types of distractions. I haven't gone out of my way to look for anything because this type of tragedy has not affected me personally. I'd feel completely different if I caused an accident, or someone I know was injured or caused an accident by doing this. I don't know enough to back up this claim, but I have serious doubts that the numbers/percentages of accidents caused by this type of distraction are high enough to warrant the attention that this topic gets. If you cause an accident it doesn't really matter what the reason is, you're going to get a ticket for something. It's largely irrelevant what the ticket is for.
I don't know. I'd stop if I saw concrete evidence that it was more dangerous than other common distractions with or without any legislation. Just haven't seen any actual evidence yet. I really do agree it's not good - I just do it anyway because in my mind it doesn't seem like much of a distraction for me. Probably the same for most users (at least in our minds). I firmly believe it is not always bad, which is where I think legislation shold come in. If something has a potential to be very bad in 9 out of 10 cases, then I think it's fair to pass a special law about it. Drunk Driving, waiting periods for handguns, purchasing large quantities of antihistamines or fertilizer, etc. Those could sometimes result in nobody being hurt, but often enough people do get hurt. I just don't see texting in the same category.
btw - it's nice to be able to disagree with someone who's rational for once!
Right, and mice like cheese. Lab tests usually show the result that people are looking for. They're comparing talking on the phone or texting to no distraction at all. I have yet to see a comparison of talking on the phone to listening to a favorite song or yelling at your kid in the backseat to stop pinching their brother. They're all distractions, and they're all covered under reckless driving laws. I don't see how one is less of a distraction then another.
A large portion of these posts are debates about RAID levels. That's not what the poster asked about.
I've heard really good things about both ReadyNAS and Thecus NAS solutions for home use. Both are supposedly incredibly stable, have a large following and forums behind them that build new features and assist with problems. But in my research (18 months ago), these were the best of the best and there were still problems with throughput. It seems that the chipsets that the manufacturers use in the home storage NAS solutions don't allow full 100Mb throughput much less a large portion of Gig throughput. If you're editing video, streaming to multiple machines on your network at the same time, or intend to transfer large multi-gig files to it routinely, you should probably do what I did and roll your own.
In my case, I couldn't find anything that supported Raid6 which is what I decided I wanted. So I bought a Promise controller for a few hundred bucks and rolled my own. Then I ran into problems with finding an operating system that supported a single logical partition of greater then 3TB on a 64bit AMD chip. I tried XP, a couple bootable ISO 64 bit versions of Linux, and finally ended up having to use Vista 64bit. I'm sure I was doing something wrong with the Linux versions, or maybe in the bootable ISO's something wasn't set right for large arrays, but I decided not to bother figuring it out. So since it's a real desktop, the drives can spin down when they're not in use, I get the full throughput that any standard (non-NAS) device would get on my network, and I can install any service I feel like for getting access to my data.
But, if you're sick of rolling your own and don't want to replace your 4u with another 4u server, and don't expect to need a lot of speed, check out Readynas and Thecus. If you roll your own make absolutely sure it's a true hardware raid card and not a raid card that does some computations in software. If it's over $150 you're probably safe.
Where do you drive that you constantly need to shift? I have only ever driving stick, and I live in Chicago and drive through traffic jams at least twice a week. I still can make a call (on my earpiece since it's illegal to not use handsfree in Chicago). If you need all of your attention and all of your skill to keep a car on the road, you shouldn't be driving. Nothing against you personally. I just don't understand how people think that nobody is capable of multitasking - see my post further down.
First, I agree that texting and using phones in general while driving is a bad idea. But it's not that bad in small doses. It seems that lots of Baby Boomers seem to think it's one of the most dangerous things ever. Let me help you understand - it's not.
Multitasking is a learned behavior. Depending on how often you do it, unless you're incredibly dumb, you get better the more often you do it. Things like talking while jogging - you can't do it when you first start out because you can't control your breathing. It takes a while to learn how to do it. Same with multitasking while driving. Yes, it does distract you. But as long as your not inept, it shouldn't distract you any more then reading billboards and streetsigns that you pass, changing stations on a radio, talking to passengers, drumming on your steering wheel when your jam comes on the radio, etc.
Yes, I text while driving. But on a blackberry, not a cell phone. Blackberry's are different - one button per letter. Since I've been using blackberry's for so long, I can pretty much type without looking at the screen, and I just have to glance at it every once in a while to make sure the last sentence was correct. I don't glance away any more then I do to look in the sideview mirrors or look at my center console to check my speed.
I agree it's bad, but I disagree that it is always dangerous. I think there is a small percentage of people who happen to be bad at multitasking who try to talk/text and drive at the same time. Same as there's a small percentage of semi-truck drivers who are dangerous and cut small cars off at the last second, but we all watch out when we're around any truck because they have a bad reputation. Some people can compartmentalize and do multiple things at the same time, and some people can't handle it.
I don't understand legislating the use of a phone while driving, because it's already covered under reckless driving laws. If you're sending a quick message, or having a few sentence conversation I don't see a problem with it at all. If you're having a heated argument, that's going to take a lot more attention away from you, and you should know better then to do that while driving.
I'm a little confused. How exactly is a search engine not a public forum? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is used or seen by more of the general public then Google is.
All right - your point is the same as dozens if not hundreds of other people here. I have a completely honest (non troll) question. I've been thinking about signing up for netflix for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I've never heard of profiles before. I don't really understand how they add value other than simple separation. If you have three queues (yours/spouse/kids), and the kids hang on to something for a while nobody else suffers. I don't see how that would change if there was only one queue. You'd have the same number of DVD's out at a time, you send back two but your kids hang onto their movie. You then get your next two movies and the kids still have the one they wanted. Nobody loses anything. What am I missing? I was under the impression that you can reorder your requests on the fly, so all you do is just set the kids movies to be one every three or five in your request list or whatever you want your interval to be, and you're all set.
As for recommendations, I don't really understand that difference either. It's all one account - people in your house have a myriad of tastes. So why isn't taking all those into account all at the same time a valid way to do it? Then you'll end up with movies that one or the other person likes, or even better, something that melds multiple types together.
If it's on Wikipedia it must be true, right? Wikipedia says they may get a bump, which is fair because I knew a lot of screwups who still managed to get Eagle Scout. In fact I know of one who was stationed on a nuclear sub. But that's a different story. I was told numerous times about the automatic bump, but that could have just been a myth that everybody just assumed was true. I never saw it written anywhere.
Here's the text:
Eagle Scouts who enlist in the U.S. military may receive advanced rank in recognition of their achievements
Linky
As for discriminating against women, I'm surprised there weren't more posts on this. Technically the Girl Scouts of America was created to address this. Seemingly equivalent to the notion of the Boy Scouts of America, at least on paper. Both were created to follow Baden Powell's structure originally.
When I was in Scouts I heard about troops in the Western states that allowed girls to join. I googled for a bit and was unable to find any sanctioned girls (only a few lawsuits by girls that tried to join or had actually joined and then were found out and kicked out).
But, as fine a line as this is, the BSA as an organization does not actually discriminate against girls. They fully welcome female leadership. They also have a special group called Explorer scouts which is age 15-21 I think. Explorers are fully coed and from what I heard back then are generally grouped around a specific activity or activities that all the members enjoy. So you could have a group that does lots of backpacking or rock climbing, etc. At that point it's kind of like a social club with some structure, but strictly for older kids and it was always coed from the beginning.
So lets recap: The Boy Scouts as a child of the parent Boy Scout Association will allow women to be leaders. They will not allow girls to join. The Explorer Scouts as a child of the Boy Scout Association will allow girls to join, and actively encourage it. The Girl Scouts of America do not allow boys to join, but will allow men to be leaders.
There's really no functional difference (on the female topic), but the Boy Scouts get all the flak because there are more girls who are interested in doing the activities that boy scouts do then there are boys interested in doing activites girl scouts do.
You wish the world was nicer, and you say you have no problem with homosexuality, but your comments make it sound like you really feel exactly the opposite.
I agree with you that religion had very little to do with my Scouting experience as well.
Yes, scouts are an ill-suited place for anyone who is different. So are every other youth organization, because kids are cruel. They root out differences and make the most of them to make themselves look 'cool'. That's no reason to take a stance against homosexuality. It doesn't protect anyone because gays are still in Scouts and always will be. Many kids may not have even figured out yet that they were gay while they're that young.
I also take issue with the comment about gay boys growing up to be women (again, counterproductive to your claim that you are not anti-homosexual), and that scouts teaches boys to become men. I don't recall that being in the handbook at all. It certainly was never stressed. What was stressed for us all throughout, and while I was a leader for a few years was learning leadership skills, thinking for yourself, making your own decisions, honoring your fellow man, etc. Basically instilling all of the values of the golden rule (do unto others/etc), and trying to make sure that 'graduates' of the program have strong values and basic knowledge of leadership and how groups work to be able to function in the real world among other types of groups.
Do we really need to know how to tie a bowline or know that cleaning a cast iron pot with soap is normally a bad idea? Not really. The knowledge itself will come in handy a few times in our lives, but more then that is the fact that we learned it from other kids just a couple years older then us, and we in turn taught it to younger kids as we grew older. That method of learning how to actually teach and lead others, and respect others enough to help them is probably the single largest aspect of Scouts.
That whole concept of helping others is completely dead set against their policy of ostracizing any gay scouts that they ever hear about.
More then just military academies. Last I checked you automatically got a bump in rank and pay once you finished boot camp if you were an Eagle Scout. I never cared so I don't know the specifics, and Wikipedia only references a bump, not to what rank.
That's just an individual dumba$$ scoutmaster, not a council stance. It is very difficult to plan outings and have weekly meetings at certain times of the year (football mostly). For most kids it's simply a matter of where most of their friends are. If 90% are in sports, then they'll do that instead of Scouts, or the other way around.
You didn't feel oppresed because they don't put atheism in the same category as being gay. I have a few gay friends from my many years in the Scouts, and they were deathly afraid of being outted. Why should someone be forced to live a lie, just to be able to be part of a phenomenal organization? I have many lasting friendships from the scouts even though I've been out for almost 10 years. One was in a leadership position and was gay. He ended up leaving because having to hide 50% of his life from a very time demanding hobby (scouts takes a LOT of time) was giving him ulcers and screwing with his health.
I owe the scouts for a lot of my success, and I've even had job interviewers comment highly when they look at the bottom of my resume and see that I am an Eagle Scout and a Vigil member of OA. I firmly believe that the BSA will be forced to charge their policy in the not too distant future because the rest of America is warming up to the concept of gay people being just as American as the rest of us. But until that time comes I will not support the organization as a whole, but instead I will only support individual scouts or perhaps a local troop.
Absolutely. I went through the program and found it to be great. Everything from tiger cubs up through eagle scout, and almost all leadership posts inbetween except for actually being a scout master. I knew of a few gays. It was very hush-hush. Atheism wasn't that big a deal, but almost all scout troops do meet in church's - that's just how they get the space for meeting. I never thought too much about it as a kid, but once I started getting to know a few gay people after the age of 16, and then with the lawsuits a couple years ago it just absolutely isn't right that they get protection based on claiming they are a private 'club'. There are troops that allow girls, so apparently the rules can be bent for some people but not others. I support the kids that are part of the scouting organizations, but I do not support the organizations themselves. Taking those kinds of hard lines and basically saying that a whole class of people is completely ireelevant is just reprehensible and I won't help them.
That's because your troop leaders were given no reason to inform council/regional executive leadership (salaried people) about you. If they had felt obligated to mention you, or if you spoke about those topics in front of the wrong person you might have had a completely different story.
It's hosted in the US, right? Known people run it, right? (I think those are both true, I can't be bothered to spend two minutes googling to find out).
So people are posting trade secrets, things that they probably signed contracts not to distribute when they were hired by these companies, and somehow they think it's legal? I think the only whistleblowers that are protected are the ones that report those internal secrets directly to the government. No other outlet is technically legal, right? Freedom of speech, right to protest, yeah, yeah. It may or may not matter because most of us signed contracts when we were hired by these powerful companies to keep their secrets secret, as well as a non-compete clause. You can fight those contracts in the courts, but you are bound by their rules unless a judge determines otherwise.
I certainly wouldn't publish something that I thought would destroy my company on the internet. If I came across something like that that I felt morally or ethically violated some rules so badly that I couldn't sleep at night I would be taking it to the government in one way or another. I would never expect/hope that someone I've never met is going to protect my anonymity enough that I could get away with releasing it to the public regardless of how much better it might make me feel to know that the government and the public know about something vs often just the government (who has no obligation to followup).
If the GP is really trying to do something as extensive as you are, I would hope they don't expect to be able to find that data for free. 25Gig a day for a few hundred or thousand stocks is a lot of traffic. I would never expect someone to extrapolate the data, collate, host, and allow me to download that for free every day. That should definitely be a pay service.
Did we read the same article? They use BMC Remedy along with some homegrown stuff.