in other departments when IT introduces new systems to them.
No, it's not an easy metric to obtain there, but IT is not a simple discipline to categorise. As an example, ask someone to give a hard metric on how much useful information they know (to 2 decimal places).
I'd worry about heading to any hospital.. They've already got the 'Pirate' bit put in the name, the next step is the Anti.. As in "There got Aunty Pirate".. Snip snip.
Comcast et. al. don't give a rat's ass if your machine is spyware infested or not. Providing an external ISP access to every room on a campus is prohibitively expensive, not to mention entirely at the mercy of an external entity to the Uni. The thing with extern ISPs is that if someone defaults on the line, they won't write it off. They'll expect payment for reconnection. As it's on Uni property, they'll expect the Uni to stump up. Begin to see where this is getting a little more complicated? It's always easy to say how bad a solution is when your job's not on the line for performing it. If you were put in that kind of position, I get the sneaky suspicion you'd learn a hell of a lot of things you're not currently privy to, and knowing all the facts and constraints, you'd end up making a similar kind of decision.
aSo, what happened to personal responsibility? As in people responsible for their own plumbing, electricity, building structural integrity, plastering? It all breaks down, THEN kick them out of the room. Seriously, you can't expect everyone at a uni to know how to spot an infected machine (there's a fair chance that unless you're a dedicated security tech as a job, you won't know either). The simplest front line defense is to run known agents that an understaffed IT department can monitor as a baseline to keep the worst of things at bay. This service is usually provided for free, and as such is a benefit for everyone (unless of course you active enjoy having a REAL trojan which'll keylog and pass that to the people who'll grab your cred card numbers etc.).
Sure, their machines are their machines, same as the IT department's network is the IT department's network. You don't want to subscribe to their terms and conditions for trying to keep their net secure, just don't hook YOUR machine to THEIR network. When resources are so tight they squeak, there aren't enough people in a support department to support everything. If you don't like that, speak to the people who provide the budget for it, and explain why you think the IT deprt is underfunded. After all, it's the financier's job to ensure there's enough cash to make things work correctly. Still, in the real world, it's likely that they'll cover about 95-99% of the people happily at a baseline that'll keep the worst at bay. To go further, it'll take 10 times the money for a very tiny payback. And this will come from other services (such as salaries for tutors etc.), or result in increases in the tuition fees.
Yes, it'd be wonderful if everyone could do what they wanted in a magically safe world where nothing ever went wrong, and there were mystical wise all knowing people that'd protect you without ever intruding on what you wanted to do without any compromise. However, the world isn't like that. There are usually choices and compromises to be made. If there are things you're not willing to do in compromise, then don't. But don't expect people to sacrifice everything to make sure you can do everything you want without consequence.
He may employ a similar tactic to the one I use when I have to deal with people above me in political clout on issues of a technical nature Rather than play their game, I simply produce a highly condensed set of the major risks that would be caused if the activity I recommend does not take place, then wander round to whoever it is that's trying to hold it all up/derail it, and get them to sign at the bottom of the page (has to fit on one side of paper) saying they agree that the risk is all on their own head and that they accept it entirely be not performing the activity. You then leave with a signature, or the support for the activity. You'd be surprised by how many people don't even try to understand the matter until their head is on the block for it. The pen is truly mightier than the sword sometimes. If they don't sign, they lose a lot of respect for trying to dodge the matter.
Bad analogy. More like (where domain tasting in in play, which is a fair portion of the time) you have a shop selling land at a given price for the area. You then prevent anyone entering this shop to bid on the land at a fair price, so nobody can buy it. You then sit a crack hut on this site, and claim that "it's a fair use", and you take a cut of the crack sales as "rent". When the rest of the area becomes built up (by whatever means), all of a sudden, this piece of land is valuable, but still nobody can get in to buy this plot of land from the vendor, at the fair price. One day, somebody asks to purchase this, and you quote them a price 100 fold the price of the surrounding land plots, because otherwise they can take the business elsewhere.
No, people will choose. Now, you can bet the industry will try and fob them off with the highest capital gain for themselves at the expense of the general public, but that doesn't mean people will always bite. If they make it completely inexpensive and always convenient for people, then they stand a good chance of getting a buy in, but that's not always the case (laserdisk et. al.). What'll be interesting with streaming is that they'll have to face up to long term survival of the music (it'll be better for them if they make music that people will listen to in 30 years time). Most of the pap peddled these days will survive a month or two "because it's the in thing", but almost nada after that. There's likely to be a big hole in their business model for quite some time if they just switch across, as people will wake up to the general costs quite soon when it's all billed.
Lawyers are not the guardians of our ethics, and I don't believe they ever state that it's their intention to be either. Lawyers are,first and foremost, people. Their ethics vary, and they bind themselves to their own ethical codes. Their first responsibility is not to ethics, it's to their client and the law. But the law being what it is, is open to interpretation (thus we have lawyers). We don't have a system of justice (though that does sometimes happen), we have a system of law. That's interpreted through a filter of the Lawyers' and Judges' ethical codes (with input from a Jury), with the result being the judgements.
The point I was aiming for wasn't to say Lawyers are all bloodsuckers (they're not), or that all companies are completely unethical (just that some are, and if the rewards are suitably large, it becomes increasingly profitable to engage in that behaviour).
The big problem is that you can't legislate ethics, and can't have a workable system of law that is tied down tight. At some point you need to trust the individuals to "do the right thing" and adhere to the spirit in which things are meant. The problem these days is that there is an increasing amount of people who see gain at the expense of everything else, and are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything to get their way. These people frequently find their way to the heads of companies (by destroying anyone in their paths), and just carrying on from there. I believe a lot of Japanese Law revolves around the concept of dealing in honour. Loss of honour is a devastating thing. A little more of that over here would be nice.
No, it's the logical conclusion of a culture that considers ethics of no consequence. You can worship money all you like, and still create a fantastic environment (run your own company? In a company that you enjoy being in? They're not there for the express purpose of making your life fun, they're there to chase money. Ethical companies make a great place to work, the leeches will burn you out and leave you broken). However, all this activity boils down to is parasitic behaviour. When you can make more by discarding ethics, not producing anything and basically sucking the life out of anything that does produce, then the problems start.
The point is that the insurance companies are doing worse than that. Almost everybody needs healthcare at some point. The hospitals are producers of healthcare, coupled with the manufacturers of the medical equipment that goes into them to increase efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis. The insurance companies produce nothing. They simply create a set of tables to say "how much money can we skim off the top". Given that nobody really has a choice but to insure for healthcare, they have a guaranteed money line. And remember, they actually produce nothing, and will try and stiff you out of your dues if something "isn't covered in the fine print".
All socialised medicine does is ensure that everyone is covered. Once the essentials are covered, the insurance companies can compete on the niceties (get in faster, have more dedicated staff per patient, more equipment, so on). As they'll have to compete properly in a market, and their insurance is no longer a "buy this, or you'll bankrupt yourself if you have a problem", they'll have to justify their price, or people won't buy. And it's not a 'take from the rich, give to the poor'. It's a take from everyone and give back to everyone.
This is a measure to ensure that those who want the option to keep on working, or are looking to work are covered and able to do so. Socialised healthcare is one of a very few things that works, as it's a safeguard to ensure your populace are in shape to be productive.
I'm no affictionado of "take from the rich to prop up the unproductive".. But socialised medicine has a good place as a baseline. A good workman looks after his tools. And for an economy, the population are the tools.
Interesting. Wonder where you get your figures from. Over in the UK, we have an 18 week referral to treatment process in place, where the hospitals are actually fined if they don't get you treatment within 18 weeks of being referred by your GP. When did a 50 year old get told they were too old for a transplant (I think it becomes an issue when the surgery could kill them with a significant degree of probability, which is in the late 70s). Actuarial tables make no difference in socialised medicine. If you need the treatment, and it's offered, you get it. That's the whole point. Everyone gets the treatment; it's not for profit. If it really worries you that much, you can take private insurance on top of this as well, where the prices are kept lower due to the insurance companies not having a monopoly on the market (if you're seriously injured/suffering from something that could be life threatening, you're in immediately, if you can wait a couple of months, you get the whole range of services for free).
Consider that partial data may be better than no data. Also consider that any recovered data should be inspected by someone familiar with the data. Since multiple versions could exist on disk (at least based on my home experience dealing with a lost set of email files), verification has got to be part of the recovery process.
Partial is fine for home, and recovering your CV, music and photos.. However, when you're playing in the commercial world, you can't trust partial. Even though people may be familar with the general data, they can't guarantee that what data is in the database (or storage area) is exactly what it's meant to be. Making big decisions based on invalid data can lead you to a whole world of pain (you believe you know something that is just plain wrong). If the data is missing, you know that you don't know what's meant to be there. So you can base your decisions on that (the first of which is usually 'find me that data, because I need to know'). Basically, you can verify your data, but you can't always validate it.
Absolutely with you that data needs the extra replication, storage etc. Where I work, I offer periods of data loss against cash spent for systems in my remit. If they part with the cash, I can get them to within a fraction of a second free of data loss on system failure. If they spend less, the period of data loss gets longer. Simple as that. If I ever have to do a recovery, the first thing I let anyone know is that I don't trust what I recover, period. The things I trust are the restores (validated on backup).
Nothing is costless, harmless and simple. All you have to work out is how much general cost, harm and complexity you're prepared to deal with (virus infections, P2P music downloading from your machine and possible exposure to lawsuit, porn, cracking attempts tied to your machine etc.). If you're simply not happy with the potential harm you see, then you're NOT a bad friend. You are simply protecting your investment in your future. Need does not equate to right. Just because your friends 'need' to use the laptop does not mean they have a right to do so. If you happen to feel like allowing someone to use it, then by all means, but you should never be obligated to someone else's 'need' above your own. A friend is much more than letting you read email on their laptop because you want to there and then. A friend that says you're not a friend of theirs because you won't let them is a leech, not a friend. As you've guessed, I'm not a 'massively popular' type, but I've a good group of friends that I trust, and when life went to hell in a hand basket were there to kick me in the behind until I got it back together again. And some of them don't let me borrow their dive kit! Doesn't stop 'em being damn good friends.
The bottom of the ship will be resting at 140'. This means the deck will be a lot higher, and the bridge higher than that. I'm not sure of the ship's dimensions, but I'd hazard a guess that the bridge will almost certainly be divable by complete beginners. This will give a great intro to what it's like to peer round a wreck (from the outside; I wouldn't recommend that you do a wreck penetration until well after you're comfy diving at depths , have a little training in wreck diving and would feel comfy handling emergencies. It completely changes the nature of the dives, and the risk shoots up drastically). Certainly an Advanced Open Water diver would be able to wander round the deck, where you get to see a lot. That'll likely be in about 70' of water, where Nitrogen Narcosis will be barely perceptible, so you won't get the real nark hit that you did on your deep dive.
Given that you'll be averaging about 70' or so on the dive (assuming you want to keep it light), you should have a good bottom time (at these kinds of depths, you could use Nitrox mixes to help extend your bottom time greatly; EANX-36 will probably be pre-mixed and ready to go on the shore filling stations, and will give you plenty of scope, as it's safe down to about 90'/28m). I'd be quite happy at those depths for a good long dive. If air consumption's the problem, then three things to do: Get fitter, dive more to improve your technique, and get larger cylinders/a twinset/a rebreather (though the second two options mean extra training too)..
The thing with wreck diving is that you may not get long down there, but you get to see so much on the dive that it feels like a lot longer. And some things you only get to see in wrecks (one of my most spectacular diving moments was in the bridge of a large wreck, where the light was shining through the view ports, and creating huge pillars of the bluest light contrasted against the darkness of the rest of the interior; breathtaking. Was distracted by that so much I nearly ran head first into a lionfish, and that wouldn't have been good!).
When it's down, give it a couple of years for sealife to make it 'home', then go pay a visit to the deck or bridge.. You'll soon know if wreck diving's for you.. And if it is, you'll soon know exactly what people the dive's for..
Just clarifying the parent post in case any real beginners are reading: Recommended for beginners is 60'/18m approx. With the next step up (assuming PADI or equivalent, then you'll need Advanced Open Water), then yep, 130/40m is the absolute maximum, with a recommended max of 100'/30m (for those that bounce that extra few feet up and down, and don't keep a close eye on the depth gauge). Also note, many holiday travel insurances will only cover you to 100' (30m). Spend any time at 40m, and just make sure you know what you're doing; deco stops come into play very quickly.
Ok, I think that establishes you as a system auditor, rather than an administrator. Without having seen the documentation you produce, I'm not going to judge either way (I've seem some 150 page documents that are invaluable as a crib sheet for some systems, and I've seen way too many 150 page documents that aren't worth the paper they were printed on).
From the sound of the original poster, he's in a tough spot. Way too much to do, and not enough time to do it (sole network admin).
I think this Dilbert cartoon has it pretty well pegged (especially when you take into account they'll be hiring cheaper next time)..
The real solution to this conundrum is to have the lower cost net admin working in tandem with him to pick up the vagaries of the net, to ensure that if he does fall under a bus, there's somebody that can keep the place running, even in a critical failure. Consider: Your network admin falls under a bus, and on the same day your whole company network locks solid so that nobody can do anything. Who, that is familiar with the network and is able to fault find on it, would be bringing service back?
If the answer is 'nobody', then the next question is, can your company survive for about 2-4 weeks with no IT (approx 3 months for a sizable site if you're not going to hire expensive external engineers)? If the answer to that is 'No', then there's a stupendous management failure that no amount of documentation will fix. Period.
Fix the underlying problem before trying to deal with symptoms. The first thing I ever document for anything (completely seperate document to any tech admin stuff) when I get a handle on the wider scope is a risk analysis which includes staffing levels and coverage.
In the current days of cutting things to the bone and beyond, nobody seems to remember the phrase "false economy".
Personally, cartoonish or not, I've never really found that gore added anything to the gameplay. It's an eyecandy that after a while fades into the background. If the story has me gripped, I'm wondering where things are going, and casting the brain into the bigger picture. The fights are incidental; they actively get in the way of where I want to be (which is a highly valid story device; after all, you opponents are all about stopping you being where you want to be). If I'm playing a game, and still notice the gore after an hour or so, then it's either so intrusive that it's actively turning me off playing the game, or there's not enough story to hold my attention (which means I'll likely have another 30 minutes of play time until I consign it to the 'history' pile to gather dust).
I'm all for a graduated gore level. There are always those who want to see lots of it (hey, I work in a hospital, so virtual gore.. No thanks..).. There are those (like me) who don't mind the odd little streak of red to indicate a well placed shot, or make a story point, but subtle and tasteful please. Adds a touch of 'realism'. It won't draw attention, but it's not like the final category that point blank wants nothing to do with gore at all (all off, sterile and sanitised).
I'm all for the psychological horror.. Something that gets under your skin and makes it crawl without a spot of blood having to be shown. That's all in the story and directing.. In a nutshell, I think in general games, there is such a thing as too much gore; it can distract your core market, and make them think of it more negatively. However, there are always the games that are catering for the pure gore hounds. Long as you pitch a game at the market you're after and advertise at that market, then all's good. One size does not fit all.
I bought an ATI card, and having no problems with it (4870). I used to be NVidia only and lived in fear of the ATI messes. AT the moment, I'm quite happy with it. Still, buy what you're happy with; just throwing in a point of view of a non-fanboy who's seen both sides of it and is quite content with both.
No, I think their reasoning is perfectly sound. In the movie, there are those who choose not to undergo genetic modification for their child, and have it born as is. There's also the corporate slant; All this modification costs. How much? As much as people can afford (c.f. the US education system). The thing that then differentiates people is the extent of their modifications, and the efficacy of them. The complete set of high flying mods would cost more than most could afford. The middling mods would be aimed at the general populace, and the basic would be aimed at the 'budget' market. Probably just enough to get rid of the susceptability to cancer, heart defects etc. Nothing to add brain/muscle/lifespan. Seeing as there's a resource, and only so many places that'll be licensed, you really think they'll give it all away for free?
How very peculiar. I take it those thousands of developers and designers are suddenly going to pack up and pick something else interesting to do today, leavign Linux to languish in its current state.
As another long term Linux user (I remember the call going out across the 'net to ask for input on Linus' little project, and quite a few of us at my Uni deciding to get our hands dirty with it), I've seen it grow. It seems to do it in true evolutionary style; nothing seems to change much for a period of time, just little bits of tinkering away from what your average user sees. Then all of a sudden, there's a huge raft of changes that alter the whole experience, and that takes a few months to bed in with the latest distros.
Hmm. Hobby OS.. Yes, I'm sure that all the machines propping up huge swathes of the internet are all there as a hobby. The machines running Oracle databases and more right here in a hospital are all a hobby of mine.
As for amateurs.. Phew, do you have a lot to learn about developers! Half the 'professional' developers I've met (probably more than half) are complete charlatans. I've interviewed people with lengthy backgrounds in financial institutions, technical institutions and so on.. And a goodly portion don't have the slightest idea of the true theory of what they're doing. They can quote buzzwords all day, but when it gets to the heart of it.. Not a snowflake's chance. And joy, oh joy, their code gets hidden away from scrutiny, so nobody can actually tell them their code's junk.
By lengthy experience, I'd say your post is wrong on so many counts, it's almost funny. Should I also believe that this is the apex of your technical knowledge, and that you're as good and knowledgeable as you're going to be, or should I believe that the world is a dynamic and ever improving place, where you'll start putting real thought behind your theories?
Actually, reminds me of working with a chap back in '95, who said exactly the same thing about Linux then. It was as good as it would ever be, only a toy, and never used in business. Sure.. Sure it hasn't. Not at all.
The 'aged' sector of the population is an ever increasing one. With the increases in med-tech over the next 20 years, 60 will still be quite spry. The sector of growth that's slowing down in the younger generation, as especially in areas of Europe, the land is becoming increasingly overcrowded. Most likely, the 14 year old sector of the market will be smaller by dint of being a smaller segment of the population as a whole. The majority of games aren't directed at 14-20 anymore. The casual market is exploding, and that covers all ages, and is of marked interest to the older. The 'hardcore' 14-20 something is decreasing, although still released with hype and ceremony; That sector probably isn't going to go away, as there'll always be good money in it, however the larger electronic gaming market will take over a lot of places that are currently occupied by older games (card games etc.) in society.. That's what the article seems to be predicting, and has a stab at seeing how the games companies are likely to adapt to bring in this ever growing segment. After all, it'll have a lot more disposable income than the 14-20 segment. A LOT more.
Wierd.. I've only once stayed awake for a whole week.. After 3 days, I started getting auditory hallucinations, after 5, that included visual. Most of the work I was on at that point was next to useless, and there was no guarantee that what went into my head actually made it intact to the paper I was writing on. Once I'd had sleep after it, and pieced together what I was trying to do and made sense of it all, I salvaged most of it, but hey.. Not a good way to work. The stresses on the system left me feeling not in such a good way for some time.. Personally, I'd not recommend it for any problem that you wouldn't try to solve by popping a tab of acid.
There is an unbroken chain of a billion years of evolution connecting us to simple bacteria. If God created any species from scratch, it must have been simple bacteria, but the rest evolved from that.
Actually, if the religious are correct, then God wrote the rules to say that chemicals would most likely someday combine to form the original organic compounds that would evolve to be life as we know it (I seem to remember that 'God made man from the earth', indicating abiogenesis, but aimed at people whose whole view of the world wasn't capable of understanding the concept).
Scientifically, there's nothing wrong with that, as we don't what made the rules what they are. The hypothesis is that our Universe was created by an external entity/process. It's something to mull over, and one day, Science may be able to point us to an answer, but as yet, we're way too primitive to have the tools to crack that one.
Now, what I wish is that the real nuts on both sides (Scientists that say "There's no God, because Science doesn't allow there to be a God, because that's what I believe Science says", and the religious that say "Science is wrong because it's not written down in a several thousand year old book, and besides, I don't believe that Science has it right, therefore it doesn't.") would wake up and smell the coffee. They can believe what they want, but until it's proven, then it's just so much conjecture.
My personal belief is that there isn't a heaven/hell/afterlife, and we have one shot. There probably isn't some great entity that's interested in my wellfare (if they are, they have a hell of a way of showing it!). But I may be wrong. I can't prove one way or another, so it has little to no relevance to me.
Slightly more on topic, for an excellent book to pass round to those that haven't really looked much at evolution, and see it as dosconnected and dry, have a peer at Steven Baxter's book "Evolution" (ISBN-10:0575074094) . I've had one or two that scoffed at the general subject until reading that one.. Yes, it's fiction, but based on the principles, and puts a lot of things in perspective.
It's due to the fact nasty stuff grows in bad food; There are fungal spores and airborne bacteria. If there's vomiting involved, then they've got a conclusive exposure. The hospital trip will be to give them a quick checkup and make sure they're covered. You can either give them a quick prophylactic treatment then, or hope all's good, and perhaps later be trying to scrape mushrooms out of their lungs. Everyone else would likely have been told to see their doc sharpish if they exhibit fevers or breathing difficulties. Mostly, it's unlikely to be too harmful, but better safe than sorry.. And whoever cleaned the thing should probably have been given shots, as they'd have been ground zero as they stirred up all the 'nice colourful things' growing there.
Slashdot Mirror
in other departments when IT introduces new systems to them.
No, it's not an easy metric to obtain there, but IT is not a simple discipline to categorise. As an example, ask someone to give a hard metric on how much useful information they know (to 2 decimal places).
I'd worry about heading to any hospital.. They've already got the 'Pirate' bit put in the name, the next step is the Anti.. As in "There got Aunty Pirate"..
Snip snip.
Comcast et. al. don't give a rat's ass if your machine is spyware infested or not.
Providing an external ISP access to every room on a campus is prohibitively expensive, not to mention entirely at the mercy of an external entity to the Uni.
The thing with extern ISPs is that if someone defaults on the line, they won't write it off. They'll expect payment for reconnection. As it's on Uni property, they'll expect the Uni to stump up. Begin to see where this is getting a little more complicated?
It's always easy to say how bad a solution is when your job's not on the line for performing it. If you were put in that kind of position, I get the sneaky suspicion you'd learn a hell of a lot of things you're not currently privy to, and knowing all the facts and constraints, you'd end up making a similar kind of decision.
aSo, what happened to personal responsibility? As in people responsible for their own plumbing, electricity, building structural integrity, plastering?
It all breaks down, THEN kick them out of the room.
Seriously, you can't expect everyone at a uni to know how to spot an infected machine (there's a fair chance that unless you're a dedicated security tech as a job, you won't know either).
The simplest front line defense is to run known agents that an understaffed IT department can monitor as a baseline to keep the worst of things at bay. This service is usually provided for free, and as such is a benefit for everyone (unless of course you active enjoy having a REAL trojan which'll keylog and pass that to the people who'll grab your cred card numbers etc.).
Sure, their machines are their machines, same as the IT department's network is the IT department's network. You don't want to subscribe to their terms and conditions for trying to keep their net secure, just don't hook YOUR machine to THEIR network.
When resources are so tight they squeak, there aren't enough people in a support department to support everything. If you don't like that, speak to the people who provide the budget for it, and explain why you think the IT deprt is underfunded. After all, it's the financier's job to ensure there's enough cash to make things work correctly.
Still, in the real world, it's likely that they'll cover about 95-99% of the people happily at a baseline that'll keep the worst at bay. To go further, it'll take 10 times the money for a very tiny payback. And this will come from other services (such as salaries for tutors etc.), or result in increases in the tuition fees.
Yes, it'd be wonderful if everyone could do what they wanted in a magically safe world where nothing ever went wrong, and there were mystical wise all knowing people that'd protect you without ever intruding on what you wanted to do without any compromise. However, the world isn't like that. There are usually choices and compromises to be made. If there are things you're not willing to do in compromise, then don't. But don't expect people to sacrifice everything to make sure you can do everything you want without consequence.
He may employ a similar tactic to the one I use when I have to deal with people above me in political clout on issues of a technical nature
Rather than play their game, I simply produce a highly condensed set of the major risks that would be caused if the activity I recommend does not take place, then wander round to whoever it is that's trying to hold it all up/derail it, and get them to sign at the bottom of the page (has to fit on one side of paper) saying they agree that the risk is all on their own head and that they accept it entirely be not performing the activity.
You then leave with a signature, or the support for the activity. You'd be surprised by how many people don't even try to understand the matter until their head is on the block for it. The pen is truly mightier than the sword sometimes.
If they don't sign, they lose a lot of respect for trying to dodge the matter.
Bad analogy. More like (where domain tasting in in play, which is a fair portion of the time) you have a shop selling land at a given price for the area. You then prevent anyone entering this shop to bid on the land at a fair price, so nobody can buy it.
You then sit a crack hut on this site, and claim that "it's a fair use", and you take a cut of the crack sales as "rent".
When the rest of the area becomes built up (by whatever means), all of a sudden, this piece of land is valuable, but still nobody can get in to buy this plot of land from the vendor, at the fair price.
One day, somebody asks to purchase this, and you quote them a price 100 fold the price of the surrounding land plots, because otherwise they can take the business elsewhere.
It's legal, but it's definitely not ethical.
No, people will choose.
Now, you can bet the industry will try and fob them off with the highest capital gain for themselves at the expense of the general public, but that doesn't mean people will always bite.
If they make it completely inexpensive and always convenient for people, then they stand a good chance of getting a buy in, but that's not always the case (laserdisk et. al.).
What'll be interesting with streaming is that they'll have to face up to long term survival of the music (it'll be better for them if they make music that people will listen to in 30 years time). Most of the pap peddled these days will survive a month or two "because it's the in thing", but almost nada after that. There's likely to be a big hole in their business model for quite some time if they just switch across, as people will wake up to the general costs quite soon when it's all billed.
Lawyers are not the guardians of our ethics, and I don't believe they ever state that it's their intention to be either. ,first and foremost, people. Their ethics vary, and they bind themselves to their own ethical codes.
Lawyers are
Their first responsibility is not to ethics, it's to their client and the law. But the law being what it is, is open to interpretation (thus we have lawyers). We don't have a system of justice (though that does sometimes happen), we have a system of law. That's interpreted through a filter of the Lawyers' and Judges' ethical codes (with input from a Jury), with the result being the judgements.
The point I was aiming for wasn't to say Lawyers are all bloodsuckers (they're not), or that all companies are completely unethical (just that some are, and if the rewards are suitably large, it becomes increasingly profitable to engage in that behaviour).
The big problem is that you can't legislate ethics, and can't have a workable system of law that is tied down tight. At some point you need to trust the individuals to "do the right thing" and adhere to the spirit in which things are meant. The problem these days is that there is an increasing amount of people who see gain at the expense of everything else, and are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything to get their way. These people frequently find their way to the heads of companies (by destroying anyone in their paths), and just carrying on from there.
I believe a lot of Japanese Law revolves around the concept of dealing in honour. Loss of honour is a devastating thing. A little more of that over here would be nice.
Diablo series uses heuristics, pure and simple. Each unit has a set behaviour rule, with no adaptive whatsoever.
No, it's the logical conclusion of a culture that considers ethics of no consequence.
You can worship money all you like, and still create a fantastic environment (run your own company? In a company that you enjoy being in? They're not there for the express purpose of making your life fun, they're there to chase money. Ethical companies make a great place to work, the leeches will burn you out and leave you broken). However, all this activity boils down to is parasitic behaviour. When you can make more by discarding ethics, not producing anything and basically sucking the life out of anything that does produce, then the problems start.
The point is that the insurance companies are doing worse than that.
Almost everybody needs healthcare at some point. The hospitals are producers of healthcare, coupled with the manufacturers of the medical equipment that goes into them to increase efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis.
The insurance companies produce nothing. They simply create a set of tables to say "how much money can we skim off the top". Given that nobody really has a choice but to insure for healthcare, they have a guaranteed money line. And remember, they actually produce nothing, and will try and stiff you out of your dues if something "isn't covered in the fine print".
All socialised medicine does is ensure that everyone is covered. Once the essentials are covered, the insurance companies can compete on the niceties (get in faster, have more dedicated staff per patient, more equipment, so on). As they'll have to compete properly in a market, and their insurance is no longer a "buy this, or you'll bankrupt yourself if you have a problem", they'll have to justify their price, or people won't buy.
And it's not a 'take from the rich, give to the poor'. It's a take from everyone and give back to everyone.
This is a measure to ensure that those who want the option to keep on working, or are looking to work are covered and able to do so. Socialised healthcare is one of a very few things that works, as it's a safeguard to ensure your populace are in shape to be productive.
I'm no affictionado of "take from the rich to prop up the unproductive".. But socialised medicine has a good place as a baseline. A good workman looks after his tools. And for an economy, the population are the tools.
Interesting. Wonder where you get your figures from.
Over in the UK, we have an 18 week referral to treatment process in place, where the hospitals are actually fined if they don't get you treatment within 18 weeks of being referred by your GP.
When did a 50 year old get told they were too old for a transplant (I think it becomes an issue when the surgery could kill them with a significant degree of probability, which is in the late 70s).
Actuarial tables make no difference in socialised medicine. If you need the treatment, and it's offered, you get it. That's the whole point. Everyone gets the treatment; it's not for profit.
If it really worries you that much, you can take private insurance on top of this as well, where the prices are kept lower due to the insurance companies not having a monopoly on the market (if you're seriously injured/suffering from something that could be life threatening, you're in immediately, if you can wait a couple of months, you get the whole range of services for free).
Consider that partial data may be better than no data. Also consider that any recovered data should be inspected by someone familiar with the data. Since multiple versions could exist on disk (at least based on my home experience dealing with a lost set of email files), verification has got to be part of the recovery process.
Partial is fine for home, and recovering your CV, music and photos.. However, when you're playing in the commercial world, you can't trust partial. Even though people may be familar with the general data, they can't guarantee that what data is in the database (or storage area) is exactly what it's meant to be. Making big decisions based on invalid data can lead you to a whole world of pain (you believe you know something that is just plain wrong). If the data is missing, you know that you don't know what's meant to be there. So you can base your decisions on that (the first of which is usually 'find me that data, because I need to know'). Basically, you can verify your data, but you can't always validate it.
Absolutely with you that data needs the extra replication, storage etc. Where I work, I offer periods of data loss against cash spent for systems in my remit. If they part with the cash, I can get them to within a fraction of a second free of data loss on system failure. If they spend less, the period of data loss gets longer. Simple as that. If I ever have to do a recovery, the first thing I let anyone know is that I don't trust what I recover, period. The things I trust are the restores (validated on backup).
Nothing is costless, harmless and simple. All you have to work out is how much general cost, harm and complexity you're prepared to deal with (virus infections, P2P music downloading from your machine and possible exposure to lawsuit, porn, cracking attempts tied to your machine etc.).
If you're simply not happy with the potential harm you see, then you're NOT a bad friend. You are simply protecting your investment in your future. Need does not equate to right. Just because your friends 'need' to use the laptop does not mean they have a right to do so.
If you happen to feel like allowing someone to use it, then by all means, but you should never be obligated to someone else's 'need' above your own. A friend is much more than letting you read email on their laptop because you want to there and then. A friend that says you're not a friend of theirs because you won't let them is a leech, not a friend.
As you've guessed, I'm not a 'massively popular' type, but I've a good group of friends that I trust, and when life went to hell in a hand basket were there to kick me in the behind until I got it back together again. And some of them don't let me borrow their dive kit! Doesn't stop 'em being damn good friends.
The bottom of the ship will be resting at 140'. This means the deck will be a lot higher, and the bridge higher than that. I'm not sure of the ship's dimensions, but I'd hazard a guess that the bridge will almost certainly be divable by complete beginners. This will give a great intro to what it's like to peer round a wreck (from the outside; I wouldn't recommend that you do a wreck penetration until well after you're comfy diving at depths , have a little training in wreck diving and would feel comfy handling emergencies. It completely changes the nature of the dives, and the risk shoots up drastically).
Certainly an Advanced Open Water diver would be able to wander round the deck, where you get to see a lot. That'll likely be in about 70' of water, where Nitrogen Narcosis will be barely perceptible, so you won't get the real nark hit that you did on your deep dive.
Given that you'll be averaging about 70' or so on the dive (assuming you want to keep it light), you should have a good bottom time (at these kinds of depths, you could use Nitrox mixes to help extend your bottom time greatly; EANX-36 will probably be pre-mixed and ready to go on the shore filling stations, and will give you plenty of scope, as it's safe down to about 90'/28m). I'd be quite happy at those depths for a good long dive.
If air consumption's the problem, then three things to do: Get fitter, dive more to improve your technique, and get larger cylinders/a twinset/a rebreather (though the second two options mean extra training too)..
The thing with wreck diving is that you may not get long down there, but you get to see so much on the dive that it feels like a lot longer. And some things you only get to see in wrecks (one of my most spectacular diving moments was in the bridge of a large wreck, where the light was shining through the view ports, and creating huge pillars of the bluest light contrasted against the darkness of the rest of the interior; breathtaking. Was distracted by that so much I nearly ran head first into a lionfish, and that wouldn't have been good!).
When it's down, give it a couple of years for sealife to make it 'home', then go pay a visit to the deck or bridge.. You'll soon know if wreck diving's for you.. And if it is, you'll soon know exactly what people the dive's for..
Just clarifying the parent post in case any real beginners are reading: Recommended for beginners is 60'/18m approx. With the next step up (assuming PADI or equivalent, then you'll need Advanced Open Water), then yep, 130/40m is the absolute maximum, with a recommended max of 100'/30m (for those that bounce that extra few feet up and down, and don't keep a close eye on the depth gauge). Also note, many holiday travel insurances will only cover you to 100' (30m).
Spend any time at 40m, and just make sure you know what you're doing; deco stops come into play very quickly.
Ok, I think that establishes you as a system auditor, rather than an administrator. Without having seen the documentation you produce, I'm not going to judge either way (I've seem some 150 page documents that are invaluable as a crib sheet for some systems, and I've seen way too many 150 page documents that aren't worth the paper they were printed on).
From the sound of the original poster, he's in a tough spot. Way too much to do, and not enough time to do it (sole network admin).
I think this Dilbert cartoon has it pretty well pegged (especially when you take into account they'll be hiring cheaper next time).. The real solution to this conundrum is to have the lower cost net admin working in tandem with him to pick up the vagaries of the net, to ensure that if he does fall under a bus, there's somebody that can keep the place running, even in a critical failure. Consider: Your network admin falls under a bus, and on the same day your whole company network locks solid so that nobody can do anything. Who, that is familiar with the network and is able to fault find on it, would be bringing service back?
If the answer is 'nobody', then the next question is, can your company survive for about 2-4 weeks with no IT (approx 3 months for a sizable site if you're not going to hire expensive external engineers)? If the answer to that is 'No', then there's a stupendous management failure that no amount of documentation will fix. Period.
Fix the underlying problem before trying to deal with symptoms. The first thing I ever document for anything (completely seperate document to any tech admin stuff) when I get a handle on the wider scope is a risk analysis which includes staffing levels and coverage.
In the current days of cutting things to the bone and beyond, nobody seems to remember the phrase "false economy".
Personally, cartoonish or not, I've never really found that gore added anything to the gameplay.
It's an eyecandy that after a while fades into the background. If the story has me gripped, I'm wondering where things are going, and casting the brain into the bigger picture. The fights are incidental; they actively get in the way of where I want to be (which is a highly valid story device; after all, you opponents are all about stopping you being where you want to be).
If I'm playing a game, and still notice the gore after an hour or so, then it's either so intrusive that it's actively turning me off playing the game, or there's not enough story to hold my attention (which means I'll likely have another 30 minutes of play time until I consign it to the 'history' pile to gather dust).
I'm all for a graduated gore level. There are always those who want to see lots of it (hey, I work in a hospital, so virtual gore.. No thanks..).. There are those (like me) who don't mind the odd little streak of red to indicate a well placed shot, or make a story point, but subtle and tasteful please. Adds a touch of 'realism'. It won't draw attention, but it's not like the final category that point blank wants nothing to do with gore at all (all off, sterile and sanitised).
I'm all for the psychological horror.. Something that gets under your skin and makes it crawl without a spot of blood having to be shown. That's all in the story and directing..
In a nutshell, I think in general games, there is such a thing as too much gore; it can distract your core market, and make them think of it more negatively.
However, there are always the games that are catering for the pure gore hounds. Long as you pitch a game at the market you're after and advertise at that market, then all's good. One size does not fit all.
I bought an ATI card, and having no problems with it (4870). I used to be NVidia only and lived in fear of the ATI messes. AT the moment, I'm quite happy with it.
Still, buy what you're happy with; just throwing in a point of view of a non-fanboy who's seen both sides of it and is quite content with both.
No, I think their reasoning is perfectly sound.
In the movie, there are those who choose not to undergo genetic modification for their child, and have it born as is.
There's also the corporate slant; All this modification costs. How much? As much as people can afford (c.f. the US education system). The thing that then differentiates people is the extent of their modifications, and the efficacy of them. The complete set of high flying mods would cost more than most could afford. The middling mods would be aimed at the general populace, and the basic would be aimed at the 'budget' market. Probably just enough to get rid of the susceptability to cancer, heart defects etc. Nothing to add brain/muscle/lifespan.
Seeing as there's a resource, and only so many places that'll be licensed, you really think they'll give it all away for free?
How very peculiar. I take it those thousands of developers and designers are suddenly going to pack up and pick something else interesting to do today, leavign Linux to languish in its current state.
As another long term Linux user (I remember the call going out across the 'net to ask for input on Linus' little project, and quite a few of us at my Uni deciding to get our hands dirty with it), I've seen it grow. It seems to do it in true evolutionary style; nothing seems to change much for a period of time, just little bits of tinkering away from what your average user sees. Then all of a sudden, there's a huge raft of changes that alter the whole experience, and that takes a few months to bed in with the latest distros.
Hmm. Hobby OS.. Yes, I'm sure that all the machines propping up huge swathes of the internet are all there as a hobby. The machines running Oracle databases and more right here in a hospital are all a hobby of mine.
As for amateurs.. Phew, do you have a lot to learn about developers! Half the 'professional' developers I've met (probably more than half) are complete charlatans. I've interviewed people with lengthy backgrounds in financial institutions, technical institutions and so on.. And a goodly portion don't have the slightest idea of the true theory of what they're doing. They can quote buzzwords all day, but when it gets to the heart of it.. Not a snowflake's chance. And joy, oh joy, their code gets hidden away from scrutiny, so nobody can actually tell them their code's junk.
By lengthy experience, I'd say your post is wrong on so many counts, it's almost funny. Should I also believe that this is the apex of your technical knowledge, and that you're as good and knowledgeable as you're going to be, or should I believe that the world is a dynamic and ever improving place, where you'll start putting real thought behind your theories?
Actually, reminds me of working with a chap back in '95, who said exactly the same thing about Linux then. It was as good as it would ever be, only a toy, and never used in business.
Sure.. Sure it hasn't. Not at all.
The 'aged' sector of the population is an ever increasing one. With the increases in med-tech over the next 20 years, 60 will still be quite spry.
The sector of growth that's slowing down in the younger generation, as especially in areas of Europe, the land is becoming increasingly overcrowded.
Most likely, the 14 year old sector of the market will be smaller by dint of being a smaller segment of the population as a whole.
The majority of games aren't directed at 14-20 anymore. The casual market is exploding, and that covers all ages, and is of marked interest to the older. The 'hardcore' 14-20 something is decreasing, although still released with hype and ceremony; That sector probably isn't going to go away, as there'll always be good money in it, however the larger electronic gaming market will take over a lot of places that are currently occupied by older games (card games etc.) in society.. That's what the article seems to be predicting, and has a stab at seeing how the games companies are likely to adapt to bring in this ever growing segment. After all, it'll have a lot more disposable income than the 14-20 segment. A LOT more.
Wierd.. I've only once stayed awake for a whole week.. After 3 days, I started getting auditory hallucinations, after 5, that included visual. Most of the work I was on at that point was next to useless, and there was no guarantee that what went into my head actually made it intact to the paper I was writing on.
Once I'd had sleep after it, and pieced together what I was trying to do and made sense of it all, I salvaged most of it, but hey.. Not a good way to work.
The stresses on the system left me feeling not in such a good way for some time..
Personally, I'd not recommend it for any problem that you wouldn't try to solve by popping a tab of acid.
There is an unbroken chain of a billion years of evolution connecting us to simple bacteria. If God created any species from scratch, it must have been simple bacteria, but the rest evolved from that.
Actually, if the religious are correct, then God wrote the rules to say that chemicals would most likely someday combine to form the original organic compounds that would evolve to be life as we know it (I seem to remember that 'God made man from the earth', indicating abiogenesis, but aimed at people whose whole view of the world wasn't capable of understanding the concept).
Scientifically, there's nothing wrong with that, as we don't what made the rules what they are. The hypothesis is that our Universe was created by an external entity/process. It's something to mull over, and one day, Science may be able to point us to an answer, but as yet, we're way too primitive to have the tools to crack that one.
Now, what I wish is that the real nuts on both sides (Scientists that say "There's no God, because Science doesn't allow there to be a God, because that's what I believe Science says", and the religious that say "Science is wrong because it's not written down in a several thousand year old book, and besides, I don't believe that Science has it right, therefore it doesn't.") would wake up and smell the coffee. They can believe what they want, but until it's proven, then it's just so much conjecture.
My personal belief is that there isn't a heaven/hell/afterlife, and we have one shot. There probably isn't some great entity that's interested in my wellfare (if they are, they have a hell of a way of showing it!). But I may be wrong. I can't prove one way or another, so it has little to no relevance to me.
Slightly more on topic, for an excellent book to pass round to those that haven't really looked much at evolution, and see it as dosconnected and dry, have a peer at Steven Baxter's book "Evolution" (ISBN-10:0575074094) . I've had one or two that scoffed at the general subject until reading that one.. Yes, it's fiction, but based on the principles, and puts a lot of things in perspective.
It's due to the fact nasty stuff grows in bad food; There are fungal spores and airborne bacteria.
If there's vomiting involved, then they've got a conclusive exposure. The hospital trip will be to give them a quick checkup and make sure they're covered. You can either give them a quick prophylactic treatment then, or hope all's good, and perhaps later be trying to scrape mushrooms out of their lungs.
Everyone else would likely have been told to see their doc sharpish if they exhibit fevers or breathing difficulties.
Mostly, it's unlikely to be too harmful, but better safe than sorry.. And whoever cleaned the thing should probably have been given shots, as they'd have been ground zero as they stirred up all the 'nice colourful things' growing there.