The US has what is called "At-Will" employment, meaning that basically either you or the employer can terminate the arrangement at any time without consequence. Then of course we have protected classes which prevent termination based on the protected class. For example, you cannot fire a woman because she is a woman, however if she performs poorly or you can no longer afford to keep her then she can be terminated for those reasons.
I believe he is actually referring to the disk usage caused by having to copy the contents of My Documents out to the workstation, not the network utilization. He is stating that you should redirect My Documents to a file share. Then they are not included in the Roaming Profiles that are copied, this will reduce your disk access at the peak login/logout times. It also could solve your problem if the roaming profiles are the culprit. Although an assessment of your SAN probably would not hurt anything.
Everyone knows that City driving is much harder on a vehicle than highway driving, that is why when everyone sells there car they put "Well cared for over 45K highway miles driven by my Grandmother"
I am simply saying that he is being contradictary. If you want to complain about the quality of the product and how they simply do not last, then do so. However quit buying them because they "hold up well." That is insane.
How can you say that they hold up well to city driving when you have said in your previous posts that they don't last?
As far as Honda's holding up to the "Average Joe" I think that it has been pretty well proven that at a BARE MINIMUM Hondas can last as long as any domestic auto. I also think that if you have succeeded in going through 3 Hondas with around 100K on each of them it is safe to say that you are no "Average Joe" my friend, city driving or not.
I am fairly skeptical of the outcome of your automobiles. It almost sounds to me like you got tired of Honda taking care of your warranty issues and you traded them in. Yet you keep getting more Hondas because "They hold up well in city driving."
Dude just stick with the F350, oh and by the way... F350 is not short for F350,000 miles. Better join AAA.
There is no market (yet) for a laptop with over 4GB of RAM, you have to remember that in order to have a MS OS and over 4GB of RAM you will have to have 2003 Server Enterprise Edition (or 2000 Advanced, etc). While I am sure it would be nice to have, you may want to look at purchasing a high powered workstation/server and having that host your vhds so that you can simply develop on the laptop and test on the VMs (hosted on the other box).
I am sure that he knows enough of what he is doing to be able to accurately determine if he is using Windows 2003 or Windows XP. Just because 2003 is server class, does not mean that there is no reason to install it on a laptop.
I think we just have to agree to disagree. Basically I do not want any of my information discussed with anyone but me sensitive or not. So I would prefer having the merchant notify the card issuer and then there fraud department should contact me. After all the merchant does not have any way of verifying my identity.
I can sympathize with your problems, however I also understand why Google would have done what they have done. I mean seriously Google cannot just tell you that your number has been blacklisted. Theoritically if you were the bad guy you now know not to use the number at Google, or even at all. If they don't say that will allow the Credit Card company to collect more information, and possibly catch the bad guy. Otherwise he simply moves onto the next poor fool's card number.
Now I do find it odd that your CC company did not call you to let you know. But perhaps that was because Google did not notify said company.
Its because they are selling the final version. This no different than any other public beta. No one expects Microsoft to offer the final version of Vista for free because there was a free public beta.
You are very correct, however here is the beauty of this whole scenario, after the kinks are ironed out with all of this, then I anticipate that they will release an appliance with the Web/App and storage included (or SAN attachable), allowing for corporations to have their own Office Solution. The real bonus from this comes from the ability to archive and search all from the web/app. Imagine being to be able to search all of the companies documents (assuming your position allows) to find that essential piece of data. This gives you all of the bonuses with minimal pitfalls.
Except of course the single point of failure.
Remember Google and these other companies have to be able to make money some way. Ad supported is fine, but eventually they need to be able to expand.
I agree. With my money is involved I don't want any sort of additional "feel good" authentication. Unless of course it is physical such as an RSA token. That way if it goes missing I can report it as such. How will you know if someone figures out how to move that flash object from one computer to another. How will you know?
Although I must admit ING Direct has a pretty good "feel good" authentication. It will at least make it more difficult to determine your password over your shoulder.
Well by all means that close that horrible company down, fire those oil workers and soldiers. Lets see how much of a problem HIV and teen pregnancy are when everyone is starving to death.
Withdrawing the investment of the foundation is not going to close this place down, so why should the foundation even consider this. Should they be worried about noble investments or helping the people that they have made it their mission to help?
I also would urge you to withdrawl any and all of your personal investments in the market. The market is structured around business relationships that essentially tie the good to the bad. If you have a sour stomach for it then I recommend you take no part in it.
And in response to your first sentence:
It says that the environmental impacts of these businesses are part of the cause of the things the foundation is trying to treat: The Bill and Melinda Gates tries (through the funding of others) to TREAT not PREVENT. There is a huge difference in these two approaches.
I had to report a credit card stolen when AOL reactivated a canceled account without my consent.
AOL did not reactivate your account, in your cardmember agreement it tells you that if upon closing if recurring charges still come in that the credit card company has the right to reactivate your account. And by just reporting your card stolen via the credit card you are still leaving AOL with authorization to maintain an account in your name, which means that when they do not collect money from you they can send it to collections.
Why not just cancel AOL, or of course the super-dooper-easy method get your spouse to do it.
I highly doubt that this company would fail if not for the Gates Foundation investment, if they have a solid business model then they will have investors and they will make money, so one could say that the plant is going to be there anyways so it is good that a portion of the proceeds are going to helping the locals.
Heise Security released an script called Offline Updater.
This script will allow you to create all-inclusive, fully-automated update cds for the English and German versions of Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 2003. The script will create a CD.iso for each OS and/or it can also create an all-inclusive DVD.iso for all of the above versions. You then burn the.isos you created and the installation is entirely automated (some reboots required but automatically continues with the install).
Well then I suppose we will have to agree that we have never worked in the same places. In all of my time I have never experienced data loss as a result of any sort of failure of a RAID 5 array.
The data can be accessed the same as before, the only difference is the performance hit from the reduced number of drives, then when a new drive is added the array will automatically rebuild the drive in the background. This will have a performance impact as well, however the server is still up and accessible, although not in its top form. The only time you have an actual failure is if there is more than one drive that fails (unless you have hot spares built into the array) or if you have a raid controller fail, then there is an outage until the controller is replaced (at which point the controller would read its configuration from the drives back into the controller, a very minimal amount of time). However a RAID controller failure can happen with any sort of RAID, not just RAID 5.
All of this I am assuming you are using a server grade raid controller, I cannot speak for some of the cheaper desktop RAID controllers.
Yeah, I am sure about that. You are right downtime is more expensive than disks, however I never said it wasn't. I am having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make with your post.
RAID 5 does not equal downtime. When there is a failure in a RAID 5 array there will be no downtime if the admin is paying attention and replaces the failed drive (allowing the array to rebuild itself) before a second drive fails.
If I completely missed the point of your post please be a little more succinct in your future posts. For example if you are inferring that a RAID 5 array will have more downtime than a different type then just say that, and give some examples as to what would be a better solution and why.
RAID 5 isn't generally for speed (it can be a by product). It is mostly for redundancy without wasting large amounts of storage capacity, that is why it is the defacto standard in production server environments. RAID 5 includes overhead in calculating the parity, those are not there in RAID 0+1/1+0/10.
For those of you who may not be familiar with RAID 0+1/1+0/10 it is basically a stripe of mirrors (or a mirror of stripes). Because of this it is twice as fast with half the disk space. (example 4 200GB hard drives would give you a raw data capacity of 800GB and a usable capacity of 400GB, and the disk access would be twice as fast).
RAID 5 is striping with parity, basically the data is divided into as many peices as there are drives (at least three) and then parity is calculated (basically redividing the data to ensure that there is an overlap of data to allow for rebuilding of the array in the event of a single drive failure. with 4 200GB drives you would have a raw data capacity of 800GB and a usable capacity of 600GB.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 70's Gary Dahl was pushing the Pet Rock as a big thing.
Some bought, some didn't... How is Vista any different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock
The US has what is called "At-Will" employment, meaning that basically either you or the employer can terminate the arrangement at any time without consequence. Then of course we have protected classes which prevent termination based on the protected class. For example, you cannot fire a woman because she is a woman, however if she performs poorly or you can no longer afford to keep her then she can be terminated for those reasons.
No, I actually thought that Best Buy just had a great idea one day to buy VW Beetles and put a geek in them...
</sarcasm>
I believe he is actually referring to the disk usage caused by having to copy the contents of My Documents out to the workstation, not the network utilization. He is stating that you should redirect My Documents to a file share. Then they are not included in the Roaming Profiles that are copied, this will reduce your disk access at the peak login/logout times. It also could solve your problem if the roaming profiles are the culprit. Although an assessment of your SAN probably would not hurt anything.
Everyone knows that City driving is much harder on a vehicle than highway driving, that is why when everyone sells there car they put "Well cared for over 45K highway miles driven by my Grandmother"
I am simply saying that he is being contradictary. If you want to complain about the quality of the product and how they simply do not last, then do so. However quit buying them because they "hold up well." That is insane.
How can you say that they hold up well to city driving when you have said in your previous posts that they don't last?
As far as Honda's holding up to the "Average Joe" I think that it has been pretty well proven that at a BARE MINIMUM Hondas can last as long as any domestic auto. I also think that if you have succeeded in going through 3 Hondas with around 100K on each of them it is safe to say that you are no "Average Joe" my friend, city driving or not.
I am fairly skeptical of the outcome of your automobiles. It almost sounds to me like you got tired of Honda taking care of your warranty issues and you traded them in. Yet you keep getting more Hondas because "They hold up well in city driving."
Dude just stick with the F350, oh and by the way... F350 is not short for F350,000 miles. Better join AAA.
Oops, I meant peddle
In Communist Russia constitutional rights pedal you.
There is no market (yet) for a laptop with over 4GB of RAM, you have to remember that in order to have a MS OS and over 4GB of RAM you will have to have 2003 Server Enterprise Edition (or 2000 Advanced, etc). While I am sure it would be nice to have, you may want to look at purchasing a high powered workstation/server and having that host your vhds so that you can simply develop on the laptop and test on the VMs (hosted on the other box).
I am sure that he knows enough of what he is doing to be able to accurately determine if he is using Windows 2003 or Windows XP. Just because 2003 is server class, does not mean that there is no reason to install it on a laptop.
I think we just have to agree to disagree. Basically I do not want any of my information discussed with anyone but me sensitive or not. So I would prefer having the merchant notify the card issuer and then there fraud department should contact me. After all the merchant does not have any way of verifying my identity.
I have a shocker for you. Boot Camp is beta as well.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
Hence the big words that say "Boot Camp Public Beta"
Feel free to mod me +1 Snarky.
I can sympathize with your problems, however I also understand why Google would have done what they have done. I mean seriously Google cannot just tell you that your number has been blacklisted. Theoritically if you were the bad guy you now know not to use the number at Google, or even at all. If they don't say that will allow the Credit Card company to collect more information, and possibly catch the bad guy. Otherwise he simply moves onto the next poor fool's card number.
Now I do find it odd that your CC company did not call you to let you know. But perhaps that was because Google did not notify said company.
Its because they are selling the final version. This no different than any other public beta. No one expects Microsoft to offer the final version of Vista for free because there was a free public beta.
Nothing to see here.
disclaimer - this is entirely speculation
You are very correct, however here is the beauty of this whole scenario, after the kinks are ironed out with all of this, then I anticipate that they will release an appliance with the Web/App and storage included (or SAN attachable), allowing for corporations to have their own Office Solution. The real bonus from this comes from the ability to archive and search all from the web/app. Imagine being to be able to search all of the companies documents (assuming your position allows) to find that essential piece of data. This gives you all of the bonuses with minimal pitfalls.
Except of course the single point of failure.
Remember Google and these other companies have to be able to make money some way. Ad supported is fine, but eventually they need to be able to expand.
I agree. With my money is involved I don't want any sort of additional "feel good" authentication. Unless of course it is physical such as an RSA token. That way if it goes missing I can report it as such. How will you know if someone figures out how to move that flash object from one computer to another. How will you know?
Although I must admit ING Direct has a pretty good "feel good" authentication. It will at least make it more difficult to determine your password over your shoulder.
Mod +1 Snarky
Yeah, because the cost of WSUS ($0) is just too much to turn a profit when factoring in the jobs they are creating.
For the Acronym Illiterate WSUS = Windows Server Update Services
Withdrawing the investment of the foundation is not going to close this place down, so why should the foundation even consider this. Should they be worried about noble investments or helping the people that they have made it their mission to help?
I also would urge you to withdrawl any and all of your personal investments in the market. The market is structured around business relationships that essentially tie the good to the bad. If you have a sour stomach for it then I recommend you take no part in it.
And in response to your first sentence:
It says that the environmental impacts of these businesses are part of the cause of the things the foundation is trying to treat: The Bill and Melinda Gates tries (through the funding of others) to TREAT not PREVENT. There is a huge difference in these two approaches.
AOL did not reactivate your account, in your cardmember agreement it tells you that if upon closing if recurring charges still come in that the credit card company has the right to reactivate your account. And by just reporting your card stolen via the credit card you are still leaving AOL with authorization to maintain an account in your name, which means that when they do not collect money from you they can send it to collections.
Why not just cancel AOL, or of course the super-dooper-easy method get your spouse to do it.
I highly doubt that this company would fail if not for the Gates Foundation investment, if they have a solid business model then they will have investors and they will make money, so one could say that the plant is going to be there anyways so it is good that a portion of the proceeds are going to helping the locals.
G uidingPrinciples.htm
The Gates Foundation is not an environmental group, I fail to see why they should concern themselves with something that is not in their "Guiding Principals" found here: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/OurValues/
Heise Security released an script called Offline Updater.
.iso for each OS and/or it can also create an all-inclusive DVD .iso for all of the above versions. You then burn the .isos you created and the installation is entirely automated (some reboots required but automatically continues with the install).
/ ctupdate302.zip i st=1&forum_id=108277
This script will allow you to create all-inclusive, fully-automated update cds for the English and German versions of Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 2003. The script will create a CD
Here is an short and sweet write-up on this - http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682/3
Here is where you download the file (.zip) - http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/projekte/offlineupdate
Here is Heise Security's Forum on the script - http://www.heise-security.co.uk/forums/go.shtml?l
Well then I suppose we will have to agree that we have never worked in the same places. In all of my time I have never experienced data loss as a result of any sort of failure of a RAID 5 array.
The data can be accessed the same as before, the only difference is the performance hit from the reduced number of drives, then when a new drive is added the array will automatically rebuild the drive in the background. This will have a performance impact as well, however the server is still up and accessible, although not in its top form. The only time you have an actual failure is if there is more than one drive that fails (unless you have hot spares built into the array) or if you have a raid controller fail, then there is an outage until the controller is replaced (at which point the controller would read its configuration from the drives back into the controller, a very minimal amount of time). However a RAID controller failure can happen with any sort of RAID, not just RAID 5.
All of this I am assuming you are using a server grade raid controller, I cannot speak for some of the cheaper desktop RAID controllers.
Yeah, I am sure about that. You are right downtime is more expensive than disks, however I never said it wasn't. I am having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make with your post.
RAID 5 does not equal downtime. When there is a failure in a RAID 5 array there will be no downtime if the admin is paying attention and replaces the failed drive (allowing the array to rebuild itself) before a second drive fails.
If I completely missed the point of your post please be a little more succinct in your future posts. For example if you are inferring that a RAID 5 array will have more downtime than a different type then just say that, and give some examples as to what would be a better solution and why.
RAID 5 isn't generally for speed (it can be a by product). It is mostly for redundancy without wasting large amounts of storage capacity, that is why it is the defacto standard in production server environments. RAID 5 includes overhead in calculating the parity, those are not there in RAID 0+1/1+0/10.
For those of you who may not be familiar with RAID 0+1/1+0/10 it is basically a stripe of mirrors (or a mirror of stripes). Because of this it is twice as fast with half the disk space. (example 4 200GB hard drives would give you a raw data capacity of 800GB and a usable capacity of 400GB, and the disk access would be twice as fast).
RAID 5 is striping with parity, basically the data is divided into as many peices as there are drives (at least three) and then parity is calculated (basically redividing the data to ensure that there is an overlap of data to allow for rebuilding of the array in the event of a single drive failure. with 4 200GB drives you would have a raw data capacity of 800GB and a usable capacity of 600GB.