How common? On the other hand, perhaps there is a profitable niche there, sort of like how space tourist lies somewhere in between commoner and astronaut. There's a bunch of money involved and a lot of it covers training.
Your tastes and preferences define your notion of importance. This is empirically verifiable.
I don't dispute that. What I contend is that, while doing so, one should recognize that it amounts to viewing the world through the lens of one's own interests. Any decisions made are tempered by that knowledge.
It's a self-awareness beyond standard ego consciousness. It tends to make you truly ashamed of and prepared to abandon any sort of self-centered, exploitative motive.
It's one of those things that anyone is capable of doing, provided they really want to.
I've been saying all along that the schools should get the geeks laid instead of the jocks. Even with this study they still won't listen.
I don't know. There is something romantic about choosing to be a geek, against the grain, up the hill, against all odds and disincentives, doing it because you really want to and not because you were bribed into it. It shows great courage and spirit, which I believe is closer to what life is all about. The ones who "go with the flow" and do whatever is the path of least resistance are cowardly and hedonistic by comparison.
I believe that the "real world" is a fallacy. Everyone has their own perception of reality.
I would go so far as to say that you never truly reached adulthood until you can clearly and effortlessly distinguish objective, evidence-based reality from your own subjective feelings and opinions and wishes. Objectivity is when your own tastes and preferences do not influence your decision-making about anything important.
Until you can do that, life is a chaotic mess with no solutions except those that create more and more problems.
Aren't happier people better at pretty much everything? Isn't that sort of the problem with depression?
It's also the problem with alienation and dehumanization, not merely depression. Go out sometime and see for yourself, how rarely people talk to one another like fellow human beings. Usually they would rather talk at someone, listen poorly and keep interrupting (because they have no patience) even when they are listening to an answer to their own question, and generally can't relax and slow down and "take in" much of anything. The irony is, this rushed and hurried approach to life is so error-prone that they accomplish fewer of their goals than they would otherwise.
Compared to that, depression is just a particular special case, an instance of a much more widespread problem with the way we live.
The "RED" drives you see on the market are no different from standard hard drives, except their firmware will give up trying to recover such a read error after just a few seconds, before low end RAID systems have a chance to kick the drive out due to unresponsiveness.
It's called TLER. And fuck WD for segmenting this market. On some of their older drives (raptors), there used to be firmware setting to enable/disable TLER. I'm pretty sure Hiatchi (IBM) drives still makes this user selectable. Yes, WD is on my personal shit-list of drives not to buy.
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Statistically nobody would even understand what they were on about unless they devoted an entire episode to the concept. Which might be reasonable, of course.
I've never ran into a UBE in a RAID5. But then again, that's because I've always used Dell or HP machines that have Patrol Reading on the RAID card. It's proactive checking/correcting when the volumes is at a minimal use. It's frequency of checking is also a user changeable option is most cases.
No. The problem with RAID5 is that should one drive fail, and second drive could fail while in the rebuild process. That's because rebuilding stresses all the remaining drives. If one of them in the array is already on the cusp of failing, a rebuild could push it over the edge. Thus losing the entire volume. RAID6 is a waste in that it's N-2 drives of capacity lost. But when you have to be sure (and damned sure) of reliability and availability, it's worth looking into. Exceedingly so for a SAN.
After much reflection, and even making some other posts in this discussion, I figured out what the insightful comment would look like — thanks to your subject.
The real winners in the gold rush, with few exceptions, were not prospectors. They were shopkeepers who sold equipment to prospectors, and saloon owners who ran gambling establishments.
Have you priced restoration parts recently? Yowza.
And that point will be reached when all emissions are accounted for. There's no good reason why that can't be the case, heat aside. And even heat emissions should be managed.
Please inform me of how you intent to break several laws of physics. It is impossible to make a power station without having a heat sink and dumping the heat somewhere.
Please inform me if you intend to study English. Your intent is unclear.
I never said it must be eliminated, I said it must be managed. It is not generally a significant concern in any case, so far as we know. But there's no reason to simply ignore it.
Using solar power is a nifty way to have the heating go on elsewhere, yet still "somewhere". Ye olde solar power satellite concept rears its head again.
If you are thinking about carbon capture- don't.
If you are thinking about issuing me any more ignorant imperatives- blow them our your arse.
Nobody has proved it on a large scale. The largest projects I have heard of divert a tiny (~1-5) percentage of the exhaust gas from a test (small) power station.
Hello, the USDoE is calling you from the 1980s. You are woefully underinformed at best.
Likewise, capturing ALL the emissions would require more energy than the power station creates!
I'm happy if all the emissions are simply accounted for. For example, via carbon fixing schemes, like tree planting.
Carbon capture carries a huge parasitic loss, an inefficiency which if applied on a large scale would wastefully use up even more fossil fuels.
If you read the report I linked above, which has been around for quite some time now and cited all over teh interwebs and read by every person genuinely interested in this sort of thing and not just in it for the trollz, you will see that it actually helps produce fossil fuel substitutes. But I understand that you simply think you know what's best for me, and would like me to get on board.
In summary, get a dictionary and blow me.
You could pay the Chinese 50 billion just to install scrubbing technologies. That *alone* would clean up more pollution and save lives around the world.
> Robert Grosseteste
AKA Robert Bigballs
I think I'd have gone for "Bob BigBalls". It's got a certain ring to it.