Impossible to live there without driving. No planning and zoning, crime, one party theocratic rule to name just a few things.
Impossible to live there without driving. No planning and zoning, crime, one party theocratic rule to name just a few things.
There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.
You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.
Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.
Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.
So basically I'm responsible, because I didn't write the firmware, and instead it was written by an idiot? Like someone who runs Windows, and is therefore able to turn off Windows Update because it exists in the first place, and could be the very channel which, by means of DNS cache poisoning and/or router compromise and/or BGP poisoning, was the means to infect the thing in the first place?
How about we hold the idiot who thought giving the fridge a routable address via NAT off the local network in the first place, so that they could market specific brands of milk via coupons sent to me when I'm running low on milk, was a good idea, responsible instead?
It's clear you do not understand the position. You need to read about what the job entails, and then decide if you want to accept the offer or not. It's a substantial change in role from your current position. In this case, the Wikipedia article is pretty accurate:
As others have stated, your primary responsibility is specification. To do this, you meet with stakeholders, and do projective business IT strategic planning.
While you can relatively easily negotiate for read only access as a demand from "on high", you should not personally use it. It should be used by your staff, temporary or permanent, for the performance of detailed specification compliance audits and spot checks. This is adequate justification to get management buy-in for this type of access. This type of access is for a role, not for a person. This is one of the reasons it should not be you.
For day to day operations, what you need are dashboards, which measure the degree of compliance with the detailed specification in an ongoing basis. The main purpose of the dashboards are to give you information you can summarize periodically to the executives, and as feedback into your strategy decisions going forward (particularly decisions surround capacity planning and technology adoption).
The purpose of the ability to audit is to ensure that the dashboards are not giving you fudged numbers based on what you want to hear, vs. what IT whats to implement (or what they can implement; you may be asking for the impossible, as a dictator, when you should be viewing the detailed specifications as a negotiation). Audits can also provide progress reporting on deployment of specification changes, based on what IT is reporting vs. actual. Since you appear to be planning a lot of churn for them, I suspect you will need one FTE staff member to perform rolling audits to ensure that things are on schedule, and if they aren't, you can negotiate either a schedule change, or a working emphasis (this is a prioritization list: other things will suffer if you have insufficient staff in IT for the demands being made).
Good examples of what you can dictate are things you've complained about: Automated Provisioning, use of SRM in VMWare installations, enabling automated tiering in EMC storage hardware, and so on. Things which will bite the enterprise on the ass eventually, if they are not done.
Your initial dashboards should be based on displaying progress on this (e.g. "percentage of VMWare installations with SRM enabled", etc.).
Note that before any of your shit starts running down hill, you need to make sure you are not downhill from them. To do that, you are likely going to have to have meetings, a couple times a week (usually something like Tuesday/Friday), to collect requirements for the business, and then mash it into part of the requirements document that you will need to prepare before you start defining strategy and dictating conformance/performance). Otherwise you will find yourself buried in crap, because your goals will not be clearly derived from the enterprise goals.
Your ability to take new input from the early in the week meeting and report it in the late in the week meeting with the stakeholding execs is going to be your main performance metric until you go into the design, then implementation phases. Your goal is to get to an ongoing maintenance/change phase. Your metrics will be different in each phase. You will use these in your performance reviews to justify yourself.
If you have other things you care about, they need to be in the specifications -- and they probably need a dashboard, and they need to have a schedule.
For example, if you care about automated provisioning, then you need to have a scratch machine that is identical to the production machines, and you need to have a metric of "how long from a zeroed state does it take to provision the machine and make it ready for service. You would likely break this down further by provisioning category, if all machines are not provisioned identically (it's unlikely that they will be), and you need to have a list of configurations that the dashboard uses to display per-configuration percentage above/below goal speed (translates to downtime), and so on.
Note that for every metric you define, you will need to be prepared to negotiate a baseline acceptability, and then provide feedback into the IT performance review process as well -- and be prepared to give out "exceeds expectations", if they happen to do so -- be fair, do not just be a dictatorial ass: these people are your partners, not your minions.
If after reading the definition of the job -- and reading all of the above -- you feel that you are prepared to take the job, and define at least a rough outline of the stages of getting the processes in place, and demonstrate your progress on doing so to the execs -- and you want the job -- then take it. Otherwise, decline the job, and expect them to either find a second choice from inside to promote. Most likely whoever else has kept their systems up, and also bitched to management about the difficulty in doing so due to the environment, an outside person who can do the job, an outside person who's basically going to be a NOOP, or, worst case, an outside person who thinks they can do the job, but who will actually screw everything up. In other words, you should also think carefully about whether or not you can afford the risks of not taking the job, even if it's not entirely to your liking or inside your comfort zone.
Hope that all helps.
"Completes Great Pacific Garbage Patch Research Expedition"
A nuclear accident could easily release a lot more radiation than a coal plant. You are confused by the often-quoted fact that when operating normally, a coal plant can release more radiation. An accident though means the plant is not operating normally.
This may mean that the risk from the radiation from either type of plant when operating normally is pretty low. It's fun to point out that more radiation comes from a coal plant, but I'm pretty certain the danger from breathing the other crap that comes out of the coal plant way outweighs the radiation danger.
in-vehicle concierge (43%) - that means that 57% do use it
No it doesn't.
It would have been faster for everyone if you had of said "I dont understand surveys" because that's what you said.
Remember there will be a large percentage of people who answered along the lines of "I dont have this feature", "I dont know" and "I'm not sure".
We do not need Apple for this. What we need is an interface that is porgrammable that can do all of this and do it regardless of Apple or Samsung.
What we need are head units that are replaceable.
Head units will become obsolete faster than brakes, suspension or radiators, yet all of these are easy to replace.
In 5 years, your head unit will be horribly out of date, not just in software but hardware which cant be fixed by a firmware update. A $150 head unit will be more advanced than a $1000 head unit from 5 years ago. Even if the manufacturer has bothered to update it.
"I'd be happy if folks would just bother to use their blinkers, instead of fiddling around with other hi-tech in their cars."
I'd be happy if people would go forward when the light changes so I can get through the intersection before the light turns red again. instead of texting, or updating Facebook, or whatever the fuck they're doing with their stupid phones.
You have a device fitted to your vehicle for use in these cases. Its usually connected to the steering wheel (although old SAABs liked to put it in strange places) and when engaged it will make a loud sound.
I give people about 3 seconds before I do this, for those with a difficulty in perceiving time, this is long enough to say "wake up Jeff, we need you for the show".
BTW, as the owner of a loud car, when I see someone on their phone at the lights in my rear view mirror, I generally give it a bit of throttle to wake them up. Its fun to watch them drop their phone and panic. The death stares they give me after they realise I'm doing it deliberately are priceless.
what keeps you up? the noise, the awkward body position?
I wish it was that simple an answer.
I simply do not know, it's definitely not noise as I've slept through a cyclone before. Once asleep, I am a very difficult person to wake. Probably not vibration either as I can sleep in cars and trains.
Could be the atmospheric conditions (dry air, pressurised to a higher altitude) but I cant say anything for certain except I dont sleep on planes.
I can see you do not own an iPhone either.
That being said, I think the Nexus 5 really was the best looking phone on the market when I bought one. Mostly because it did not have that goofy curved back that some Samsung phones have, nor that absurdly large bezel that Motorola has. I hope the Nexus 5mkII looks the same.
When I showed my Nexus 5 to my car detailer, he was shocked at how good it was simply to hold compared to his Iphone 6 and Samsung Galaxy S 5.
This is a car detailer, so he really didn't know much, nor care about the technical details. He was just impressed by how easy it is to hold for such a large phone (IMHO, its due to the type of plastic used for the backing). These are the kinds of things that non-phone people find important. His first question was about how good the camera is, which is pretty damn good on the Nexus 5. The problem is, the Nexus 5 is no longer for sale.
"every consumer needs to assume some responsibility"
Really? When *I* go online, yes, I have to assume some responsibility.
I hold the "things" up to the same standard: when the "things" go online, *they* have to assume some responsibility. It's not my f***ing fault if my fridge wants to surf the web, it's the fridge's fault.
It's true, and to stay out of legal trouble, most now put it in their terms and conditions.
Citation or you are spewing garbage.
If he won't, I will (simple Google search, which you could do, if you knew how to work Google):
"You also understand and agree that there are users and members on the Site that use and subscribe to our Service for purely entertainment purposes. Those users and subscribers are not seeking physical meetings with anyone they meet on the Service, but consider their communications with users and members to be for their amusement."
In other words, they find it amusing to troll people, and some of the people who troll people may or may not be employed by the company.
but if you don't have enough people, it isn't logical that you let people just not work.
Considering the fact that overworked people are less effective than those with a better work/life balance, it is very logical to still encourage vacation time when your staff is busy. Sure there are some rare times when a very important release keeps people working 60 hour weeks for a month or two, but if the company constantly thinks it is always in crunch time their workers will suffer. And that will impact the company just as it impacts the employees.
There are plenty of very successful people who fool themselves into thinking their 80 hour work weeks are more productive than a 50 hour one, but no research backs this up. It is just one example of why you can't assume every opinion of a successful person is golden. Long work hours are a symptom of bad project management, nothing more.
Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.