This Article is unavailable. Contact Us
Recently we were asked to attend an IME and was struck by how unprepared the client was for the exam. Throughout the IME this person gave answers that we believe could potentially be detrimental to his case. The client spoke up in an effort to be helpful and forthright. These answers were volunteered without prompting by the examining doctor. It was difficult to sit through the IME as an observer and not ask the client to only answer the questions asked and not volunteer information that could be misconstrued by the IME Physician. The position must be taken that IME physicians may be no less susceptible to secondary gain issues than some clients.
Since many Internet applications employ a multi-tier architecture, in this paper, we focus on the problem of analytically modeling the behavior of such applications. We present a model based on a network of queues, where the queues represent different tiers of the application. Our model is sufficiently general to capture (i) the behavior of tiers with significantly different performance characteristics and (ii) application idiosyncrasies such as session-based workloads, concurrency limits, and caching at intermediate tiers. We validate our model using real multi-tier applications running on a Linux server cluster. Our experiments indicate that our model faithfully captures the performance of these applications for a number of workloads and configurations. For a variety of scenarios, including those with caching at one of the application tiers, the average response times predicted by our model were within the 95% confidence intervals of the observed average response times. Our experiments also demonstrate the utility of the model for dynamic capacity provisioning, performance prediction, bottleneck identification, and session policing. In one scenario, where the request arrival rate increased from less than 1500 to nearly 4200 requests/min, a dynamic provisioning technique employing our model was able to maintain response time targets by increasing the capacity of two of the application tiers by factors of 2 and 3.5, respectively.
Parents send their children to school expecting that their kids will be safe. The parents trust that the school's staff will act in their place and look out for their children's welfare in the same way they would. The presence of security guards, school police, or resource officers at the school may even strengthen their trust, but this can be a false sense of safety. Just because guards and school police officers wear a uniform does not always mean additional protection for students. Reviewing and assessing the potential for harm to students and others on school grounds and at school-sponsored events requires careful consideration and proactive initiative to keep students safe, even when the presence of a security guard or school police officer may provide a veneer of safety. Inadequately screening, training, and supervising security guards and school police officers; failing to provide guards and officers with clear instructions for handling special circumstances known to the school; and inappropriately delegating the responsibility for keeping children safe can all be linked to student injury or death.
Welcome to the second part in our multipart blog series examining a young boy's fall and injury at a public playground. If you missed the first part in this series, click www.warrenforensics.com/2017/10/11/children-will-fall-at-playgrounds-what-shall-we-do-to-protect-them-a-multipart-blog-series-part-i/ to read it. In this post, we will highlight some resources that designers of public playgrounds can use to help ensure their designs are reasonably safe.
In March 2015, IEEE significantly amended its patent policy in what was couched as an "update" but that seeks to significantly revise commitments from parties holding patent claims essential to IEEE standards to license those rights on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. Changes disallow patent holders from receiving any value attributable to the standards, require licensing at the smallest saleable patent practicing unit level, and deny these rights holders entitlement to seek an injunction against an unlicensed implementer until appellate review is exhausted. IEEE’s stated objective was to protect implementers from patent holdup, which was alleged without any substantiation. IEEE is promoting, by reducing technology licensing costs, the short-term interests of certain implementers while undermining standard-essential patent values and the ability of SEP owners to receive adequate compensation, they are entitled to, from licensing their SEPs.
Suppose for the moment a noteworthy author published a paper dealing with the chemical properties of a flammable substance (like ethanol) made the following statements
I have been wandering around the aerosol industry for the last 35+ years both as an employee of major CPG companies, and, for the past 15 years as an independent aerosol technical consultant. While the attention to safety issues has dramatically improved over time, I am still amazed how often the simplest safety precautions are sometimes overlooked when filling aerosols with flammable propellants. I'll save my horror stories for another time, except for one particularly relevant example at the end of this article.
It might seem obvious that a bus driver would know how to properly turn a vehicle with a long wheelbase. Yet it is surprising how many are not taught to. More interesting, bus drivers often do not have the time to.
Those of us who run design consultancies embrace change. In fact, we are often our client's primary "change agents". We foresee the emerging need in the ever-evolving market, and mold our clients' brands and experiences to meet that new need.
With public cloud providers poised to become indispensable utility providers, neutrality-related mandates will likely emerge to ensure a level playing field among their customers ("tenants"). We analogize with net neutrality to discuss: (i) what form cloud neutrality might take, (ii) what lessons might the net neutrality debate have to offer, and (iii) in what ways cloud neutrality would be different from (and even more difficult than) net neutrality. We use idealized thought experiments and simple workload case studies to illustrate our points and conclude with a discussion of challenges and future directions. Our paper points to a rich and important area for future work.