There are some cloud rendering solutions out there, but most studios have their own render farms in-house... and a lot of the companies you think are studios are mainly just production companies that outsource most of the heavy lifting to specialized shops (who work on multiple projects simultaneously and have no problem keeping a render farm busy).

~20 replies, and yours was the only one that mentioned workload?

Agreed. Seen plenty of PB+ systems with no SSD caching. Granted, also seeing increasing use of SSDs for metadata/journaling in highly sequential environments.

I didn't watch the episode (or think explosion from depressurization is the primary concern of bullets on airplanes), but... just tell me Myth Busters actually took a plane to altitude and did this? Because I don't think testing at ground level, not moving, in much hotter air, is valid. And from the comments here, that is the impression I am getting of their test.

Personally, I'm much more worried that stray bullets will take out electrical systems, hydraulics/control surfaces, lead to fires, or somehow damage bleed air systems. And any of these can set the conditions for a crew to react inappropriately.

It is refreshing to know some people understand the situation there and understand the use of American troops as tripwires.

That said, I think it's important to make the distinction that American bases in ROK are more than just a tripwire. "Speed bump" means that they are supposed to slow the enemy advance to buy time for other assets to be put to use. They also have the tertiary purpose of maintaining the vast supplies needed to fight that war.

While I get your broader point... $150k for 450 TB of higher tier storage? Properly replicated, regularly backed up, with enough IOPS and networking for a busy Exchange server? $150k is low. Very low. And don't forget you'll need a second one for that DR site.

I'm still looking at low single digit failure rates for WD Enterprise drives. Maybe I've just been lucky? Quantity in the 200-500 range.

Great point! Can't believe I forgot that one.

Doubtful. Solar power and other "renewables" are not consistent. I suppose the exceptions are some thermal and water motion systems but those sources are so rare as to be inconsequential.

Electricity cannot be stored efficiently. Thus, power plants need to generate more than the expected peak energy required at any given time. In the case of solar panels, that utility-generated power must be available for use as the solar panel output varies.

The reality is that IF economical storage of electricity ever exists, it will come to the utilities FIRST, industrial use SECOND and individual use far later. Economies of scale apply. Every electrical utility would love to have such tech available. Currently, they must generate at or above the historical/expected peak need at any time. The higher the peak demand, the higher the cost to customers.

Better technologies for individual users to reduce electrical draws would be displays that use primarily reflective light. That would also be much better for human eyesight. Passive heat dissipation and concentration would be really helpful. Imagine how much energy is used for displays and cooling of electronics. I have no idea your age but before home computers and cell phones existed, home use of electrical power was much lower. Things as simple as electric irons and ovens use a huge amount of power because they're huge resistors. Lower-power processors in smartphones would be great. The primary reason they have been getting larger is to have larger internal batteries. Larger screens on them are secondary reasons. Marketing promotes the large screens as a benefit because that's more attractive to people than a thicker device. Of course, the new ones are more like small clipboards, not a radio you can put in a pockets...but I digress.

This comment wasn't "insightful."

Profit IS a requirement because profit is needed to pay for upgrades/maintenance and other contingencies. The alternative is taxing citizens repeatedly at varying rates to match needs.

It's also not as simple as setting a percentage or total profit allowable. Suppose there's a major unexpected accident. The money to repair must come from somewhere. Suppose the population grows quickly or the electrical demands grow quickly such as when people started buying large screen TVs. Investment money must come from somewhere and it must be available when needed.

Then it's fairly safe to assume that you have been using Microsoft software the way they want you to: only reinstalling a couple times (at most) per device, or purchasing systems that include Microsoft's software.

You are almost certainly not doing any of the following:
- reinstalling Windows daily for fun
- regularly moving Windows installs between machines
- renting workstations that include Windows, but must be wiped and reimaged every every rental
- deploying and destroying large quantities of 2012 R2 servers in dev environments

I am not a Windows admin, so I could be ignorant on some solutions to the above, but MS makes all of these scenarios very difficult for paying customers.

I'm completely shocked that when given additional opportunity, you still won't back up your claims.

The bizarre thing is that you're accusing me of "singling out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it," when you have literally no example of me ever doing that, ever, least of all in this discussion, where if anything I was taking Gruber's side.

Not in any way, no, I did not.

You're a liar.

I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.

No. It's true that the framers and most people who understand politics want the people to be ignorant about most issues in government, because otherwise, the people would be spending too much time watching government and not enough time enjoying life and being productive. Everyone should want to be ignorant about most things, especially most things government does. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

But it's not true that they want people to be ignorant, but with a delusion of lack of ignorance. You're just making things up.

There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.

I'm a dope because you ... agreed with me? You think that little of yourself?

You're a liar.