He gives it a few good whacks on the side of an aquarium (after dunking the phone in the water, and managing to still receive a phone call on the device). It's kind of funny, but not terribly exciting.
most members of group #3 either aren't very active (since they're normally working for beer and weed money, not tuition)
Actually, I think you proved my point for me. For any girls you've met who may actually have been attending classes at some school (rather than just claiming that they are as many do), too often, they're actually stripping to support the things you're referring to, rather than the noble pursuit of paying their tuition. Typically, the fun and partying becomes a lot more appealing than the various sacrifices it takes to complete a degree and enter the working world, and the allure of higher education and a "real job" fades.
hey end up transforming into a member of one of the other groups
Yep, I agree....although they transform into group #1 or group #2.
members of group #4 don't exactly strip in your regular strip joint in the bad part of town, they can most likely be found in places where you have to pay $50 for a drink and just checking your jacket at the door ends up costing more than what most people are prepared to spend on beer in one night...
I'm familiar with the so-called "feature dancer", and yes, I've been in attendance for several. They too are an illusion, as they all have dreams/aspirations of becoming actresses (whether in porn or not) and one day leaving the trenches in the strip clubs, while the reality is that most do not, and in fact also eventually morph in to members of group #1 or group #2. As I commented to another poster, I've been in many, many clubs of many types from the pristine ones where most of the girls look like models to the ones where you're not entirely sure you're going to make it out the door alive, and the stories (and story-lines) are the same wherever you go, just slightly modified to fit the situation/people involved.
You must be looking in the wrong places (or just not close enough to a local college). Trust me I've been in and out of them for a LONG time...I think you're just visiting the wrong caliber of club;).
Well, let's see, I started going to them when I was 17 (with my boss at the time who was dating one of the "girls"....though his wife didn't know), and have been in and out of many different ones in many different cities over the last 20 years, so I'm not exactly a stranger to the scene. I've had more than casual "acquaintances" with several girls often spanning several years, so it's not as if I'm making these statements based solely on the table-talk. All I'm saying is that IF you've met any who actually did complete their respective degrees and went on to leave the stripper life, you sir, have met a rare breed indeed. It has been my experience that the clubs are filled with plenty of girls with seemingly good intentions, that rarely manifest.
I've been in all walks of clubs, with all types of girls, from the seedy to the chic, and the stories/archetypes appear to be universal.
Hate to break it to you, dude, but #3 and #4 are figments of your imagination. Every strip joint has at least 1 girl who's "working her way through college", but it's just a story line that's been repeated 100 million times to sucker some dude for a few extra bucks. It's the same as the illusion that they make $2500 per night. It's always interesting to ask one of these characters "if you make $2500 per night, how come your boyfriend has to drop you off and pick you up in your 1982 Ford Escort?" and watch her head explode.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against strip clubs, and have had some great times in them. I've just been in enough of them for long enough to know that there is no mythical lawyer-in-the-making who's paying her tuition with tips.
this is just an example of it becoming easier for smaller artists/designers/producers etc to be able to show themselves on the world stage, nothing more.
I agree with that.
Yo Fede, if you need a composer, I promise I wouldn't take up too much of your $30MM budget.
I disagree. I think it would've been much smarter to put the cooling at the top of the silo. That way, you could push the cold air down through the outside supply column, then once the heat has moved to the inner "heat core", you could assist mother nature and push the heat up to the top, where it can be extracted. This would also make it a LOT easier to do Air Side Economization, since you could put the make-up and exhaust air assemblies at the top of the silo along with the other Air Handling and Cooling equipment.
Except that it should be "Wild (and somewhat short-sighted) New Design...". To be specific, from TFA:
The cooling coils and air handlers are located in the basement. Chilled air flows upward through the outside cold aisle and through the racks of servers. The waste heat exits the rear of the racks into the hot core, and is returned to the basement via the cold aisle.
Why on earth would they go against the laws of physics and push the cold air up and the warm air down? This would have been a much better design had they reversed the air flow. Also, I can't help but think that they painted themselves into a corner in terms of expansion in the future. Unless of course they just want to make the silo taller (just kidding).
Thank you for replying to that. I confess (as the person who seems to have started the thread which led to this ridiculous "the Dalai Lama is really evil" tangent), I was pretty awestruck by several people's responses implying that Tibet was somehow a horrible place prior to their "liberation" by the Chinese. I haven't run across this type of propaganda before, so it was with great pleasure that I read your reply.
So one's moral compass should be determined by the government?
No, where did you come up with that?
What part of "hey, we want you to turn over all this information on dissidents so that we can lock them in cages for the rest of their lives and threaten their family, etc, etc" is justified by "well, gosh, it's what they have to do if they want to do business in China, man.."?
No part of it is justified, and I never claimed that it was. Rather, I was pointing out that taking issue with the actions of the government is separate from a corporation's willingness to abide by various requirements set forth by said government. Furthermore, I pointed out (in other sections of this thread) that it we're going to take Google to task for this, there is a LONG list of other corporations participating in equally horrifying exploitation by choosing to "employ" people in China (and thus become complicit in the awful working conditions thrust upon those people).
Speak for yourself. A lot of us feel that Nike, Wal-Mart, Fruit-of-the-Loom, etc. SHOULD "stand up" to the Chinese Government
I feel that same way. But before you get too high-and-mighty, other than thinking that these companies should stand up to China, what are you doing to support that message? Are you boycotting any/all companies who do business with China? I sincerely doubt it. So, by extension, I'm saying that if we're going to take a position of excoriating Google for acting in accordance with the Chinese Government's demands, it's only fair that we apply this same level of scrutiny to many, many other companies.
I'll assign culpability as I see fit, and if you use ideology to give Google an unmitigated pass, you're part of the f&*king problem.
Good. Do us all a favor, flip over your soap box, and make sure it's not "Made in China". While you're at it, you might want to check your keyboard, monitor, mouse, shirt, pants, shoes, cell phone, printer, chair, microwave, TV, alarm system, bed sheets, curtains, door hardware, various automobile components, etc etc.
After all, someone who's so obviously enlightened as yourself woudn't think of giving "unmitigated passes" to any other companies, right?
If you weren't so intent on being argumentative for argument's sake, you might realize that you too are passively advocating China's oppressive regime. You might further realize that I'm not defending China's record, merely pointing out that Google isn't doing half the "evil" that other companies are.
By that logic, nothing obliges Congressmen from accepting huge contributions from lobbyists in exchange for votes
Are you related to BadAnalogyGuy? Need I remind you that Congressmen work for the US Taxpayers as representatives in making governmental decisions and proposals. This is in stark contrast to Google, who owe the US Taxpayers no such responsibility. Again, please bear in mind, I'm not defending or advocating government censorship, nor am I defending China's human rights record. Rather I'm pointing out that one shouldn't engage in transferring the blame from the government of China to Google.
I wonder why Google doesn't disclose the search terms they do censor in China? Perhaps they 'don't want anyone to know' because they 'shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'...
Or perhaps, they've been told by the Chinese Government that a condition of them being provided access to internet users in their country is that they censor various searches, and not disclose that information to the public. While I personally disagree with any form of government censorship, I can at least separate out Google's desire to do business from some implied moral obligation they ought to feel. I'm not saying it's savory, but it's really not any more incendiary than many, many other businesses.
A lot of us buy clothing or other items that are made in China, complete with all of the horrible working conditions that the people are exposed to, but we don't feel that Nike, Wal-Mart, Fruit-of-the-Loom, or whoever else should "stand up" to the Chinese Government, so why should Google be any different? I'm not saying it's right, but it's hardly unique.
To be fair, doesn't that fundamentally have more to do with the Chinese government than it does Google? I'm sure there are those who feel that Google should be willing to "stand up" to the Chinese Government, but when you boil it down to the basics, there is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.
By the way, before you flame me into oblivion, I am a supporter of a free Tibet, and would love nothing more than to see His Holiness the Dalai Lama returned to his rightful place in Tibet.
You might want to look at the "Computer Employee Exception" where the regulations gets much, much more muddled.... and the "minimum wage" that you need to look at is $27.63 per hour. If you get paid less than this rate on a per hour basis, you can demand retroactive pay for all overtime hours for which you were not compensated.
I have looked at that exception, and you'll note that the requirement for salary states:
The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;
See? If your position has been defined as salaried (which most in the IT field probably are), the requirement is $455 per week (the equivalent of $11.38 per hour). The rest of the criteria is pretty easy to meet. I hate to say it, but I stand by my argument that unless your specific contract states otherwise, there is no requirement for compensation for "on call" time, nor is there a guarantee of overtime compensation.
[*disclaimer- I am going to assume that in accordance with my other posts, we are talking about the legal situations in the U.S.]
I must respectfully disagree with you. While I do wish some of your statements were true, and I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of what you say, the reality is far different than you are presenting it.
he regulations are pretty explicit about what is considered "time on the clock"...Typically in a work environment, an employer is required to pay employees for every hour that they are "at the work site" and "capable of performing work"...As I said, especially for IT workers, overtime pay is required by law if you work over 40 hours per week.... even if you are "salaried".
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all of those statements are patently false. Yes "time on the clock" is very specifically defined, and as you'll see, there is specific language regarding "on call" work when not on the work premises to clarify that this work is NOT considered "on the clock". There is absolutely no truth to your assertion that hours worked in excess of 40 hours for salaried employees needs to be paid. The reality is, once you've been deemed "exempt", you are paid for the job you do, not the hours you work. Typically, this means that you find a balance between how many hours you put in at certain times with others to "cancel out" any hours in excess of 40.
here is also the additional regulation that no employee can work more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period of time. In addition, you must have at least 8 hours of continuous time off (presumably for sleep)
Again, this is simply not true. There seems to be (in my experience) to be a large misconception that an employer is required to put limits on what constitutes a "work day" and to provide "breaks". There are absolutely NO labor laws in the US that require either of these items for workers over the age of 16.
Any sort of "on call" interruption that wakes you up at say midnight and causes you to work in until 4 A.M. will force the employer to accept that you may not report back to work until noon... to give those 8 hours of continuous break. It is also the responsibility of the supervisor to enforce this requirement and not the employee. If an employee shows up in violation of this law, it is the employer who can get cited and not the employee.
Oh how I wish that were true. If it were, I'm owed some serious back wages, but alas, it is not at all true. Moreover, if you believe that you can make a potential employer abide by such demands, I wish you good luck in your job search.
labor judges (those judges and arbitrators who deal with enforcement of labor laws) tend to be much more sympathetic to a suggestion that they might in fact be an employee and should be paid for overtime or professional services.
Not disagreeing with this thought, but my point was specifically about the OP's statement regarding an actual employee (versus a contractor) and the lack of labor laws in the US providing for any compensation for being "on call". I was not intending to refer to the actual work performed while on call, merely pointing out that there are no laws requiring an employer to pay an employee merely for being on call.
If he's on the payroll, then I'm sure labor laws in his jurisdiction will very likely require that he be paid a certain amount per hour for being on call.
I do realize what the 5th amendment states, thank you. However, this does not change the fact that it was not the responsibility of the record executive to Tweet that the crowd should leave. If the police wanted to disperse the crowd, they should have taken appropriate steps (i.e. called for backup, used bullhorns/public address, set up barricades, etc etc).
Regarding your assertion that the executive was required by law to comply, I will reply with the much overused "Citation Please".
Incorrect. Even if he were arrested, he could simply inform the officers of his desire to remain silent, and to speak to his attorney. The police cannot force him to say/Tweet anything. It is the police department's job to keep the peace, not this executive's.
Our numbers include all power-consuming items in the facility, with one single exception (power used by the office area).....the facilities themselves are located in different climates, which influences the PUE performance....PUE values are impacted by seasonal weather patterns, and thus the PUE during cooler quarters tends to be lower than in warmer ones
This explains some of the lower numbers that they're achieving. While I do not disagree with the methodology, and I do agree with Google that this type of measurement is truly more in line with the spirit of PUE measurement, most facilities do not have the type of sub-metering in place to exclude "office space" electrical loads from the overall measurement. I would argue that if one could make the calculations as Google is doing (measuring exclusively the data center, excluding all other "office" type loads, and including data centers in cooler geographic/seasonal locations in the averages), we would see a trend of lower PUEs being reported at other facilities.
Now don't get me wrong here, I am a fan of Google. I think they're very smart, and I like a lot of their innovations. I interviewed with them extensively, and almost chose to work for them running one of their data centers, believe it or not. With that said, I still disagree with your assumption that "using raised floor for cold air handling is not the way you get better than 1.5 PEU (sic)". I am arguing that there are very effective methods of impacting PUE that incorporate raised floor environments, like hot aisle/cold aisle containment. I also argue that things like water or air side economizers and ultrasonic humidification systems (as opposed to infrared or other heat generating humidification methods) have a very large impact on PUE. In short, you and I agree that Google is doing a great job at achieving and driving lower and lower PUE, we just disagree that raised flooring is an obstacle to that.
In fact, one of the articles that is linked in the footnotes of the article you linked to talks pretty specifically about utilizing raised flooring and various ways to improve upon the airflow by maximizing some of the facets of raised floor system. I don't mean you any disrespect, and I am not trying to incite an argument/flame war. Rather, I'm merely trying to dispel an idea of raised floor environments somehow being inferior.
Slashdot Mirror
He gives it a few good whacks on the side of an aquarium (after dunking the phone in the water, and managing to still receive a phone call on the device). It's kind of funny, but not terribly exciting.
Maybe the cause is a disgruntled BB Engineer who didn't get a Christmas Bonus.
most members of group #3 either aren't very active (since they're normally working for beer and weed money, not tuition)
Actually, I think you proved my point for me. For any girls you've met who may actually have been attending classes at some school (rather than just claiming that they are as many do), too often, they're actually stripping to support the things you're referring to, rather than the noble pursuit of paying their tuition. Typically, the fun and partying becomes a lot more appealing than the various sacrifices it takes to complete a degree and enter the working world, and the allure of higher education and a "real job" fades.
hey end up transforming into a member of one of the other groups
Yep, I agree....although they transform into group #1 or group #2.
members of group #4 don't exactly strip in your regular strip joint in the bad part of town, they can most likely be found in places where you have to pay $50 for a drink and just checking your jacket at the door ends up costing more than what most people are prepared to spend on beer in one night...
I'm familiar with the so-called "feature dancer", and yes, I've been in attendance for several. They too are an illusion, as they all have dreams/aspirations of becoming actresses (whether in porn or not) and one day leaving the trenches in the strip clubs, while the reality is that most do not, and in fact also eventually morph in to members of group #1 or group #2. As I commented to another poster, I've been in many, many clubs of many types from the pristine ones where most of the girls look like models to the ones where you're not entirely sure you're going to make it out the door alive, and the stories (and story-lines) are the same wherever you go, just slightly modified to fit the situation/people involved.
You must be looking in the wrong places (or just not close enough to a local college). Trust me I've been in and out of them for a LONG time...I think you're just visiting the wrong caliber of club ;).
Well, let's see, I started going to them when I was 17 (with my boss at the time who was dating one of the "girls"....though his wife didn't know), and have been in and out of many different ones in many different cities over the last 20 years, so I'm not exactly a stranger to the scene. I've had more than casual "acquaintances" with several girls often spanning several years, so it's not as if I'm making these statements based solely on the table-talk. All I'm saying is that IF you've met any who actually did complete their respective degrees and went on to leave the stripper life, you sir, have met a rare breed indeed. It has been my experience that the clubs are filled with plenty of girls with seemingly good intentions, that rarely manifest.
I've been in all walks of clubs, with all types of girls, from the seedy to the chic, and the stories/archetypes appear to be universal.
Hate to break it to you, dude, but #3 and #4 are figments of your imagination. Every strip joint has at least 1 girl who's "working her way through college", but it's just a story line that's been repeated 100 million times to sucker some dude for a few extra bucks. It's the same as the illusion that they make $2500 per night. It's always interesting to ask one of these characters "if you make $2500 per night, how come your boyfriend has to drop you off and pick you up in your 1982 Ford Escort?" and watch her head explode.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against strip clubs, and have had some great times in them. I've just been in enough of them for long enough to know that there is no mythical lawyer-in-the-making who's paying her tuition with tips.
this is just an example of it becoming easier for smaller artists/designers/producers etc to be able to show themselves on the world stage, nothing more.
I agree with that.
Yo Fede, if you need a composer, I promise I wouldn't take up too much of your $30MM budget.
I disagree. I think it would've been much smarter to put the cooling at the top of the silo. That way, you could push the cold air down through the outside supply column, then once the heat has moved to the inner "heat core", you could assist mother nature and push the heat up to the top, where it can be extracted. This would also make it a LOT easier to do Air Side Economization, since you could put the make-up and exhaust air assemblies at the top of the silo along with the other Air Handling and Cooling equipment.
Why on earth would they go against the laws of physics and push the cold air up and the warm air down? This would have been a much better design had they reversed the air flow. Also, I can't help but think that they painted themselves into a corner in terms of expansion in the future. Unless of course they just want to make the silo taller (just kidding).
You have no idea. People who say this is the worst TV ever made are NOT exaggerating
That's a bold statement. Remember this?
Thank you for replying to that. I confess (as the person who seems to have started the thread which led to this ridiculous "the Dalai Lama is really evil" tangent), I was pretty awestruck by several people's responses implying that Tibet was somehow a horrible place prior to their "liberation" by the Chinese. I haven't run across this type of propaganda before, so it was with great pleasure that I read your reply.
So one's moral compass should be determined by the government?
No, where did you come up with that?
What part of "hey, we want you to turn over all this information on dissidents so that we can lock them in cages for the rest of their lives and threaten their family, etc, etc" is justified by "well, gosh, it's what they have to do if they want to do business in China, man.."?
No part of it is justified, and I never claimed that it was. Rather, I was pointing out that taking issue with the actions of the government is separate from a corporation's willingness to abide by various requirements set forth by said government. Furthermore, I pointed out (in other sections of this thread) that it we're going to take Google to task for this, there is a LONG list of other corporations participating in equally horrifying exploitation by choosing to "employ" people in China (and thus become complicit in the awful working conditions thrust upon those people).
Speak for yourself. A lot of us feel that Nike, Wal-Mart, Fruit-of-the-Loom, etc. SHOULD "stand up" to the Chinese Government
I feel that same way. But before you get too high-and-mighty, other than thinking that these companies should stand up to China, what are you doing to support that message? Are you boycotting any/all companies who do business with China? I sincerely doubt it. So, by extension, I'm saying that if we're going to take a position of excoriating Google for acting in accordance with the Chinese Government's demands, it's only fair that we apply this same level of scrutiny to many, many other companies.
I'll assign culpability as I see fit, and if you use ideology to give Google an unmitigated pass, you're part of the f&*king problem.
Good. Do us all a favor, flip over your soap box, and make sure it's not "Made in China". While you're at it, you might want to check your keyboard, monitor, mouse, shirt, pants, shoes, cell phone, printer, chair, microwave, TV, alarm system, bed sheets, curtains, door hardware, various automobile components, etc etc.
After all, someone who's so obviously enlightened as yourself woudn't think of giving "unmitigated passes" to any other companies, right?
If you weren't so intent on being argumentative for argument's sake, you might realize that you too are passively advocating China's oppressive regime. You might further realize that I'm not defending China's record, merely pointing out that Google isn't doing half the "evil" that other companies are.
By that logic, nothing obliges Congressmen from accepting huge contributions from lobbyists in exchange for votes
Are you related to BadAnalogyGuy? Need I remind you that Congressmen work for the US Taxpayers as representatives in making governmental decisions and proposals. This is in stark contrast to Google, who owe the US Taxpayers no such responsibility. Again, please bear in mind, I'm not defending or advocating government censorship, nor am I defending China's human rights record. Rather I'm pointing out that one shouldn't engage in transferring the blame from the government of China to Google.
I wonder why Google doesn't disclose the search terms they do censor in China? Perhaps they 'don't want anyone to know' because they 'shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'...
Or perhaps, they've been told by the Chinese Government that a condition of them being provided access to internet users in their country is that they censor various searches, and not disclose that information to the public. While I personally disagree with any form of government censorship, I can at least separate out Google's desire to do business from some implied moral obligation they ought to feel. I'm not saying it's savory, but it's really not any more incendiary than many, many other businesses.
A lot of us buy clothing or other items that are made in China, complete with all of the horrible working conditions that the people are exposed to, but we don't feel that Nike, Wal-Mart, Fruit-of-the-Loom, or whoever else should "stand up" to the Chinese Government, so why should Google be any different? I'm not saying it's right, but it's hardly unique.
To be fair, doesn't that fundamentally have more to do with the Chinese government than it does Google? I'm sure there are those who feel that Google should be willing to "stand up" to the Chinese Government, but when you boil it down to the basics, there is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.
By the way, before you flame me into oblivion, I am a supporter of a free Tibet, and would love nothing more than to see His Holiness the Dalai Lama returned to his rightful place in Tibet.
You might want to look at the "Computer Employee Exception" where the regulations gets much, much more muddled.... and the "minimum wage" that you need to look at is $27.63 per hour. If you get paid less than this rate on a per hour basis, you can demand retroactive pay for all overtime hours for which you were not compensated.
I have looked at that exception, and you'll note that the requirement for salary states:
See? If your position has been defined as salaried (which most in the IT field probably are), the requirement is $455 per week (the equivalent of $11.38 per hour). The rest of the criteria is pretty easy to meet. I hate to say it, but I stand by my argument that unless your specific contract states otherwise, there is no requirement for compensation for "on call" time, nor is there a guarantee of overtime compensation.
I must respectfully disagree with you. While I do wish some of your statements were true, and I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of what you say, the reality is far different than you are presenting it.
he regulations are pretty explicit about what is considered "time on the clock"...Typically in a work environment, an employer is required to pay employees for every hour that they are "at the work site" and "capable of performing work"...As I said, especially for IT workers, overtime pay is required by law if you work over 40 hours per week.... even if you are "salaried".
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all of those statements are patently false. Yes "time on the clock" is very specifically defined, and as you'll see, there is specific language regarding "on call" work when not on the work premises to clarify that this work is NOT considered "on the clock". There is absolutely no truth to your assertion that hours worked in excess of 40 hours for salaried employees needs to be paid. The reality is, once you've been deemed "exempt", you are paid for the job you do, not the hours you work. Typically, this means that you find a balance between how many hours you put in at certain times with others to "cancel out" any hours in excess of 40.
here is also the additional regulation that no employee can work more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period of time. In addition, you must have at least 8 hours of continuous time off (presumably for sleep)
Again, this is simply not true. There seems to be (in my experience) to be a large misconception that an employer is required to put limits on what constitutes a "work day" and to provide "breaks". There are absolutely NO labor laws in the US that require either of these items for workers over the age of 16.
Any sort of "on call" interruption that wakes you up at say midnight and causes you to work in until 4 A.M. will force the employer to accept that you may not report back to work until noon... to give those 8 hours of continuous break. It is also the responsibility of the supervisor to enforce this requirement and not the employee. If an employee shows up in violation of this law, it is the employer who can get cited and not the employee.
Oh how I wish that were true. If it were, I'm owed some serious back wages, but alas, it is not at all true. Moreover, if you believe that you can make a potential employer abide by such demands, I wish you good luck in your job search.
labor judges (those judges and arbitrators who deal with enforcement of labor laws) tend to be much more sympathetic to a suggestion that they might in fact be an employee and should be paid for overtime or professional services.
Not disagreeing with this thought, but my point was specifically about the OP's statement regarding an actual employee (versus a contractor) and the lack of labor laws in the US providing for any compensation for being "on call". I was not intending to refer to the actual work performed while on call, merely pointing out that there are no laws requiring an employer to pay an employee merely for being on call.
If he's on the payroll, then I'm sure labor laws in his jurisdiction will very likely require that he be paid a certain amount per hour for being on call.
Not Likely if he's in the U.S.
I do realize what the 5th amendment states, thank you. However, this does not change the fact that it was not the responsibility of the record executive to Tweet that the crowd should leave. If the police wanted to disperse the crowd, they should have taken appropriate steps (i.e. called for backup, used bullhorns/public address, set up barricades, etc etc).
Regarding your assertion that the executive was required by law to comply, I will reply with the much overused "Citation Please".
Incorrect. Even if he were arrested, he could simply inform the officers of his desire to remain silent, and to speak to his attorney. The police cannot force him to say/Tweet anything. It is the police department's job to keep the peace, not this executive's.
Insightful??
Hmmmph! My cat Phydeaux must have mod points again.
Yeah, but if you make your plane shiny and reflective, you make it a lot easier to target with other weapons, like missiles.
See? Wonder Woman was always ahead of the pack.
*not to mention Lynda Carter's unwavering hot-ness!!
This explains some of the lower numbers that they're achieving. While I do not disagree with the methodology, and I do agree with Google that this type of measurement is truly more in line with the spirit of PUE measurement, most facilities do not have the type of sub-metering in place to exclude "office space" electrical loads from the overall measurement. I would argue that if one could make the calculations as Google is doing (measuring exclusively the data center, excluding all other "office" type loads, and including data centers in cooler geographic/seasonal locations in the averages), we would see a trend of lower PUEs being reported at other facilities.
Now don't get me wrong here, I am a fan of Google. I think they're very smart, and I like a lot of their innovations. I interviewed with them extensively, and almost chose to work for them running one of their data centers, believe it or not. With that said, I still disagree with your assumption that "using raised floor for cold air handling is not the way you get better than 1.5 PEU (sic)". I am arguing that there are very effective methods of impacting PUE that incorporate raised floor environments, like hot aisle/cold aisle containment. I also argue that things like water or air side economizers and ultrasonic humidification systems (as opposed to infrared or other heat generating humidification methods) have a very large impact on PUE. In short, you and I agree that Google is doing a great job at achieving and driving lower and lower PUE, we just disagree that raised flooring is an obstacle to that.
In fact, one of the articles that is linked in the footnotes of the article you linked to talks pretty specifically about utilizing raised flooring and various ways to improve upon the airflow by maximizing some of the facets of raised floor system. I don't mean you any disrespect, and I am not trying to incite an argument/flame war. Rather, I'm merely trying to dispel an idea of raised floor environments somehow being inferior.