You think that's bad. A former organisation I worked at had a similar thing happen where the Finance group bought a software package which was sold on "no IT department required" however the way we found out was even before they deployed it. It was of course a computer program so instead of the Finance department using their own budget allocation, the bought it out of the IT departments budget. When the CIO and the CFO had a meeting the shouting could be heard from the other end of the building.
Suffice to say the "no IT department required" bit was trash and at one stage we had a few people working on trying to deploy the system out.
Who votes for the prime minister?
"taking the th mayorship"? He's the mayor of Thailand now?
Maybe all of those things were sitting in a store room somewhere elsewhere in the complex that was inaccessible due to the attack or too far away to go off, grab and hope the planet didn't explode in the mean time. It felt like they picked up everything near by and just ran through since there was no way back out the other way. Atlantis was planned better and they went there on their own time, weren't rushed and most importantly was more organised.
You've never forgotten something when you're rushing out the door?
xserve and xsan stand as examples of Apple in the server room and looking stylish as always. Being more expensive than every other server sort of killed it and they've removed both of those lines (XSan first and now dedicated xserves) in preference for Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro Server hardware which build on their more mainstream client offerings.
The problem is that Apple initially released their device saying that you wrote web apps for it and that would be the way to develop for it. And everyone hated, said it was a stupid idea and practically demanded an API which Apple subsequently delivered with a controlled way of deployment. The first iPhone SDK was for web apps and bashing Apple for delivering what was requested even if now we have it we realise it isn't so much of a good idea really just gets bothersome. More importantly Apple continue to make that gateway open for developers, Android does though to a lesser extent however Microsoft seem to have the view that anything that runs on a Phone 7 device will be Silverlight or else.
You can put unapproved apps on an iOS device with the iOS developer programme membership as well but you have to pay to get the certificate.
Like the quality of your post, the opposition in the state and federal parliaments is a waste of time. If Baillieu was any good he'd win this election hands down over the horrific failure by the Brumby government regarding the bush fires. Instead we get yet another Liberal scare campaign, when they could be getting down to real issues.
My reference to reckless spending is regarding the Myki system which cost a billion dollars, and counting, to replace a system that wasn't broken. Worse still, the Metcard system it replaced is still required and the public transport network is still unreliable!
If you consider a billion dollars in context: We could have just had free public transport for 1-3 years without a single ticket instead of this failure. That's based on back of a napkin maths but a billion dollars buys a lot of zone 1 dailies. And it's not the only waste I can point to.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/355318/ipads_go_under_knife_victorian_hospitals/
Looks like this has been floating around for a good while.
This really shouldn't be a story, the likely case is the Labor government wont return to power at all.
If they do it will be with the Greens holding a deciding vote in policy and given their position to reckless spending like this they'd harpoon the idea anyway. This would be news if in three months time doctors were actually being given iPads to do their work via.
3. Space combat. This one is kinda a case of rule of cool. Realistic space combat wouldn't look like much. But really, the ranges involved in BSG are much too short, both for weapons fire and for targeting/detection.
I totally agreed with the ranges used in BSG space combat. Too many hours of EVE fleet fights have convinced me that regardless of what makes sense space combatants will always follow a simple rule regarding engagement ranges: furtherest 'safe' distance to effective deploy weapons. In BSGs context this meant incredibly close range battles due to the option of deploying nukes which needed as short a travel distance as possible since both forces had defense batteries. These close ranges were backed up with the ability to jump away, assuming the FTL stayed up (real life wouldn't have plot devices). In EVE the same sort of tactic exists, typical maximum range of battleships is 150KM and at that range it takes almost a minute to take direct action against a fleet giving it time to jump away. I assume this rule would be a constant in any combat where both parties have the option of fleeing at will.
The way space combat would look is entirely dependent on what sort of ships exist. A couple of shuttles duking it out would really be who landed the first shot. My only issue here is light source, how would you see the battle with no light. BSG battles often mimicked what you'd see in EVE where the larger ships really just sat there while the smaller ships had all the fun and the real action, if any, was in following them. BSG battles always heavily focused on the fighters.
The worst thing about VBV was not actually having it set up properly and then having a merchant require it compared to others that didn't. I had this happen to me when I was overseas trying to get internet and all of a sudden I got slammed by this Verified by VISA thing that wasn't setup and I could get internet to get the details I needed to get it set up (catch 22). Sounds like a good idea until it gets inconsistently applied in practice.
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
