|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AboAbo Date: Sep 4, 2008 02:08
Doug wrote:
> "Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating
> climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation
> costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned
> yesterday..."
>
> "...Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating
> between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the
> type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star
> rating.
What about the people who choose to install this equipment where money
is not the primary consideration? I bet they couldn't give a fuck what
the RICS warns!
> By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending
> £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years,
> while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60
> annually, paying back in five years..."
My in laws have cavity wall insulation and while it's fine in the winter
their house is far too warm in the summer...
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Sep 4, 2008 02:14
On 4 Sep, 09:35, Fod googlemail.com> wrote:> On Sep 3, 3:42 pm, Fod googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 3, 7:03 am, Doug riseup.net> wrote:>
>>> Told you so!
>
>> Ok Doug. So far I've not bothered to read up on either side of the
>> Global Warming/Climate Change debate.
>
>> Given you obviously have researched both sides and come to support the
>> pro change side can you point me at some of the more useful books/
>> websites ( on both sides for a balanced view) that I too can use to
>> form an enlightened position. I will be seeking these out myself but
>> given that you already have been through this information I thought
>> you might be willing to assist in my education on what you consider
>> the gravest issue facing humanity today.
>
> Any minute now Doug will be showing me the evidence and helping me to
> understand global warming/climate change. ...
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AboAbo Date: Sep 4, 2008 02:18
Doug wrote:
> and I would suggest using the internet to shop and work as much as
> possible.
I refuse to use the internet for grocery shopping; you end up with stuff
like bread and milk close to it's sell by date and manky fruit and veg.
I prefer to do my grocery shopping in person as I get to actually pick
the items I want to buy (shock); buying the stuff with a longer shelf
life means *less trips* to the supermarket. Surely better than *more
trips* from the delivery van?
And what about stuff other than groceries, such as clothes? Surely it's
better to make one trip to e.g. a shopping mall and buy from the various
shops there rather than ordering from the various internet shops and
generating multiple deliveries?
As far as working goes, I'm working from home now...
--
Abo
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AboAbo Date: Sep 4, 2008 02:39
Doug wrote:
> How about a remotely controlled reset? Or, instead of having employees
> widely dispersed and totally car-dependent why not instead disperse
> the servers into their homes? Where there is a will there is always a
> way.
I work for an IT multinational on a government contract. The servers
contain sensitive data. Which do you think the government would prefer;
that the servers be installed into various employee homes, or (as they
are now) into a secure data centre with high security fencing, very
restricted access and lots of security guards? You really are a nob...
--
Abo
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Sep 4, 2008 02:54
Abo wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> How about a remotely controlled reset? Or, instead of having
>> employees widely dispersed and totally car-dependent why not instead
>> disperse the servers into their homes? Where there is a will there
>> is always a way.
>
> I work for an IT multinational on a government contract. The servers
> contain sensitive data. Which do you think the government would
> prefer; that the servers be installed into various employee homes, or
> (as they are now) into a secure data centre with high security
> fencing, very restricted access and lots of security guards? You
> really are a nob...
You just *know* that Duhg is now going to blame *you* personally for the
disks/memory sticks/laptops that have gone missing that we hear about on the
news ;-)
Mike P
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 4, 2008 03:41
Conor hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A brilliant plan Baldric, with just one tiny flaw. Oh hang on no it's
>> got more holes than a colander. Remote administration is not permitted.
>
> Just because your company doesn't permit it doesn't mean it's not
> possible to.
Oh yes well remote administration is permitted. From another data site,
over private connections.
Other than that, no and no it's not possible to side step the
restriction.
And you're ignoring my comment about the fact that there's no kit in
site when I start work.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 4, 2008 03:41
Dr Zoidberg drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
> Just because something is technically possible , doesn't mean it's a good
> idea to do it
Well indeed I could telnet into the DC by modem over PSTN, technically.
If I tried it, it would be a career shortening experience.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gizmo.Gizmo. Date: Sep 4, 2008 03:53
> Doug wrote:
>
>> How about a remotely controlled reset? Or, instead of having employees
>> widely dispersed and totally car-dependent why not instead disperse
>> the servers into their homes? Where there is a will there is always a
>> way.
>
> I work for an IT multinational on a government contract. The servers
> contain sensitive data. Which do you think the government would prefer;
> that the servers be installed into various employee homes, or (as they are
> now) into a secure data centre with high security fencing, very restricted
> access and lots of security guards? You really are a nob...
The routers I'm currently installing for a couple of clients cost $1.1M USD
each. I'm guessing my home contents insurers aren't going to be overly
chuffed when I have to increase my level of cover. And even less to cover
consequential losses due to outages impacted SLAs.
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Sep 4, 2008 04:02
Gizmo. wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>> How about a remotely controlled reset? Or, instead of having
>>> employees widely dispersed and totally car-dependent why not
>>> instead disperse the servers into their homes? Where there is a
>>> will there is always a way.
>>
>> I work for an IT multinational on a government contract. The servers
>> contain sensitive data. Which do you think the government would
>> prefer; that the servers be installed into various employee homes,
>> or (as they are now) into a secure data centre with high security
>> fencing, very restricted access and lots of security guards? You
>> really are a nob...
>
> The routers I'm currently installing for a couple of clients cost
> $1.1M USD each. I'm guessing my home contents insurers aren't going
> to be overly chuffed when I have to increase my level of cover. And ...
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Sep 4, 2008 04:11
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:41:53 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
> And you're ignoring my comment about the fact that there's no kit in
> site when I start work.
Not at all. As I said, we built ours up in Bridlington and shipped it to
MK where a local muppet installed it.
Or are you honestly saying there's nobody else in that country capable of
fitting out a datacenter?
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
