Not necessarily, HP 3Par 20850 scales to 4 PB of SSD (raw, 15+ PB with dedupe) and 3.2 million sub 1ms IOPS, and 75GB/s of throughout but one LUN is still limited to 16TB because not enough customers need more than that it one logical disk to change underlying code.
What are you putting up for your guarantee?
(Mind you, I don't know how replicable the results may be, and I won't be at all surprised to find them not replicated, but I'm not the one stating that they're absolutely false.)
That doesn't go very far in the microprocessor world. I worked for Cisco back in the early 00's and even back then tape out costs were approaching $1M for a 5 layer mask, today with sub-wavelength masks and chips using 12+ layers it must be tremendously expensive to spin a chip.
So I wonder if the higher cost is just for the surgery itself? Because if so the average reduction of a day of inpatient care would easily make up the difference is surgery cost.
They did use non-St-36 locations. There were four groups, three of which were given the same stressors, with a fourth given no stressors and no treatment. The stressor groups received either St-36 treatment, treatment where needles were not inserted into any meridian point, or no treatment. I imagine an argument could be made for a group given treatment but not stressors.
I don't know if this provides any vindication for acupuncture (or even electroacupuncture)--something like this really needs to be repeated before I'll believe it--but the research was a little more robust than you imply.
Except it will change when Ubuntu moves to Mir by default.
RDP can do seamless remote applications, but you have to have a Terminal Server to use it. It's not available, AFAICT, from the basic version.
I can't speak for Debian, but Fedora has it available at least for Gnome in F21 and F22, and they're trying to make it the default under F23. You could create a live-boot USB drive to test it out on your hardware.
The accounting perspective is what the General Accounting Office examines. What you're talking about is more of a political exercise.
Hehe, nice story. Btw I looked it up and the air force did decide to build a replacement for the P3, the new P8 is based on an ~$100M 737NG airframe but so far the cost per P8 is ~$1.1 billion, those were some damn cheap seats if they allowed us to kick that kind of cost down the road 30-40 years.
It wasn't just a freaking seat, it was the entire bathroom, and they had to make large injection molding dies to create the new bathroom. The seat was just one of the parts that went into the new bathroom and the project cost was spread over x number of pieces of deliverable parts. Any time you deal with injection molding or just about any significant manufacturing process there are large upfront costs that lead to VERY expensive parts if you don't produce a lot of something (heck, even business cards get stupid expensive if you order less than a few boxes at once, which is why I have a few thousand business cards I'll never use as it's WAY cheaper to order me 10x more than I need then it is to even occasionally need an additional batch run). The alternative to the new bathrooms was scrapping the airframe and designing a new one, and if you haven't been paying attention lately to the way Air Force procurement is done that would have resulted in a LOT more cost than some $640 toilet seats. Btw thanks to those new bathrooms the P-3C Orion is one of a handful of aircraft to serve over 50 years bringing the cost per flight hour down quite a bit over building new replacements =)
It can be easily argued that any money spent to reduce waste that results in expenditures above what the waste would cost is itself waste. If you have a $1 billion project and identify that $100 million of it is waste (whether through fraud, abuse, or inefficiency), spending money to reduce the waste only makes sense as long as the combined costs of waste and waste-reduction are equal to or less than $100 million. Anything more than that and you're just adding to the waste.
When you have a more complex situation like a federal budget, it might be argued that the money can be more effectively spent elsewhere, and that's where it can get subjective, but that doesn't stop money spent to avoid waste that costs more than the waste becoming waste.
It's not a correction. It's a lie. The original article says $45 million, not billion. The total revenues for the commercial satellite industry were about $195 billion in 2013, and that includes satellite TV, photography, and communications. Even the US military isn't providing a quarter of that industry's revenue.
Sometimes looking at the smaller items gives a better idea of systemic problems that contribute to larger amounts elsewhere. The procedures meant to prevent losses have gummed up the works to such a degree that an alternate path was found that, while more expensive, got the job done. It might provide some opportunity to alter how things operate and ultimately save money later. (I'm not holding my breath, but it does sometimes happen.)
This is pretty common in the military. Red tape is just an obstruction to go around.
That's just for this part of things. One of the problems with putting in mechanisms to deal with fraud, waste, and abuse--a major part of the red tape--is that it adds waste to the process. Financially, this is acceptable up to the cost of the waste it's fighting, but after that, it becomes a bigger drain and should be curtailed.
Any large system is going to have some level of fraud, waste, and abuse, and it should be dealt with to a degree. Perfection in such systems cannot be obtained, so a certain amount of loss must be tolerated. Unfortunately, that's a lesson that politicians can never publicly learn.