|
Hello all,
INTRODUCTION
Given the new accounting laws in our country, every company will need an accounting software that sticks to those laws.
Even freelancers (as me) will have to adopt a software like that.
I don't trust the cloud + I don't want to pay a fee every month to be able to use my accounting data.
Now I own a NAS which is more than enough for my needs but is not capable to run the accounting programs I will be able to use in my country.
Most of the accounting programs I could use require SSD and Windows to run.
Getting a server would mean:
* Getting a server, some SSD and HDD disks.
* Getting an UPS.
* Getting a small rack.
* Getting a Windows server license.
* Using our current NAS as backup for that server and keep doing our NAS extra backups with external USB HDDs.
QUESTION
What server / option would you recommend for this kind of job?
Would it be better to get a tower server? or a rack server?
As soon as we have children the server, NAS, UPS... will have to be placed inside a rack anyway.
It would be nice to be able to have a mix of SSD and normal HDD, SSD for the OS and the accounting program and HDD to store everything else.
+/- 8TB of data space available would be nice.
+/- 32GB RAM available would be nice.
Would it be better to install the accountant program inside a virtual machine? just to make it easier to move it from one server to another one in the future (if needed).
Do you agree that it's better to get a server than a normal workstation for all this?
And as a bonus... what would you use that server for apart of all mentioned before? Any additional hint/idea?
Thank you all!
|
|
|
|
|
"Tablets were replaced by scrolls . Scrolls were replaced by Books . Now we scroll through through books on tablets ."
|
|
|
|
|
Oh crap. - That's right.
Stupid us all. 
|
|
|
|
|
Background: I've had this old HP LaserJet for years and try to give it a little occasional exercise to stop it seizing up. So yesterday, had a bit of B/W printing to do so though I'd take her for a spin ...
Printer has vanished from the list. OK, probably to do with the Win 11 upgrade. So I use the Windows Add Printer dialogue and it installs. Yay, this is easy.
I try printing to it. Quick as a flash, nothing happens. Document is in the print queue with the helpful message "There was an error." But it does let me cancel it and try again, with similar results.
Okay, I'll uninstall it and try again. After what seemed like successful removal, it's still there.
So, I run the troubleshooter which, surprise surprise, says that maybe making it the default printer will work. It doesn't. But we have now moved on - it can no longer use this as the excuse. This time it gives me a link to a HP page to download the correct driver. The link is to a page that doesn't exits.
Okay, now the gloves are off. HP Print & Scan Doctor which of course won't run until I update it. But then - KAPOW! It tells me that the standard Windows drivers might be inadequate and I should install the full set of drivers "Downloadable here." This link works, the file downloads but crashes out every time I try to run it.
I find another link to download all the drivers singly. I try it and this time it tells me not to use these but to use the Windows version that I started with.
At this point, I accept defeat and use the other printer. But now is where it gets interesting ...
I return home at about midnight and wake up the PC. Before I do anything else, there's a flashing of lights and a whirring sound and a single page pops out of the LaserJet. This was a document sent to the printer in May 2021!
It now becomes clear to me that the name "LaserJet" is in fact derived from "Lazarus" and I appear to have gained the ability to raise the dead.
Printer now seems to work perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Printer now seems to work perfectly.
Except the current document printout will be available in 2025.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
"LaserJet, come forth". 
At least you have yours working. That's good.
|
|
|
|
|
from as article titled "These 10 scientists are on the cusp of changing the world" link below the quote below made me laugh out loud .
MSN[^]
Quote: ... a multidisciplinary team of biologists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and more in analyzing more than 49,000 eggs from about 1,400 bird species. ... The team translated the shapes of the eggs into mathematical models and incorporated data such as habitat, diet, and how many eggs each species laid at a time. They found that one of the best predictors of egg shape was flight ability. “Birds that are strong fliers—birds that tend to fly a lot or migrate long distances—tend to lay eggs that are more elliptical, or more pointy,” says Stoddard. The team published its findings in the journal Science in 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, important stuff? 
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they will figure out how to add lightness to aircraft utilizing bird egg shell technology . seems logical . birds fly also .
|
|
|
|
|
I find this video, but it is in Hindi.
How can I understand it?
Can someone explain or put his conclusion here?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Although somewhat broken, if you play the video with auto translated subtitles, you may get the gist of it.
Other wise I can put a summary for you when I find the time to watch the whole video.
|
|
|
|
|
And looking for an English video on the subject, or text, was not applicable ?
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
if you wish to make a project out of it the cc text which by the way can be placed wherever you wish can be screen captured then w/ OCR results sent to Google Translate and of course accept the summed errors .
|
|
|
|
|
Learn Hindi! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6*
🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 4/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 5/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟨🟩⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years. Yes, RSS feeds are still a thing. I wouldn't have it any other way either, given that nobody places ads on those feeds (or perhaps rather, don't bother to, for some reason). But that's not the point.
I've been noticing for quite a while now that they'll often re-surface old articles - days, weeks, even months old - articles they've already published before, but republish them with updated bits and pieces - adjust some numbers, add some details that weren't there before, that sort of thing. Some of these (the same articles) show up repeatedly time and time again.
I never find these to be of particular interest (no matter what got updated), so I just delete these "new" entries that show up as unread at the bottom of the chronological list.
I really wonder who those updates are there for. RSS has fallen out of favor, so very few people should even notice. I can only assume that, among the population at large, only people searching for an article on a specific topic might find them, and read the latest version as if it were the first published instance (and really, how might one even know, unless they're marked as such, which they never are?) What's the point? After a while, if something's really worth bringing up again, doesn't it warrant having a brand new article written instead? If it's not, then presumably you're concluding people shouldn't care enough, so as a reporter, you should just let those old articles go...
I don't like to see history rewritten. If it has to do with fact-checking, or new details having come to light, I've seen newspapers publish follow-up articles, corrections as part of an addendum, that sort of thing. These online articles however don't get an addendum; the original gets modified and then passed off as if these were "as originally written".
I'm not sure whether this is common and other news sources do the same, as this is the only news feed I subscribe to. And they're the only ones who do it.
Anyone know anything about journalism that can shed some light as to what the real motive might be?
I'm sure I'm reading too much into this, as the topics in those revised articles are generally rather benign.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years.
They are probably having to correct the bits that are incorrect/downright lies.
|
|
|
|
|
They gave the job to AI.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a fundamental property of the Internet: You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available.
If you really need to have something documented, make a copy of that web page. It may be difficult sometimes; you may have to revert to PrntScrn - Save Page as... may not capture all you want to save. Always check the saved page.
Updating news articles is common practice with web newspapers. Sometimes, when reporting from an ongoing event, they put something along the lines of 'This story will be updated', but often they do not. Often, the 'breaking news' updates the first few paragraphs of the story, but if you read to the bottom, there can be a lot down there that they didn't remember to update - such as 'Due to the car accident, the E6 is closed for all traffic', but the (updated) headline and first few sentences declare 'E6 is now open after having being closed for two hours'.
Sometimes, when revising 'facts', they add a small note indicating that 'A previous version of this story said so-and-so. This has been updated to such-and-such'.
The one newspaper that really p me off was one where I could provoke an update. Officially, they were open to reader comments. If you made a comment that was in conflict with the newspaper's views, the article would be 'updated'. Several times I compared the article as it was at the time when I made my comment, with my comment displayed, showing that it was accepted, with the version marked 'Last updated at ...', and not a single character was changed, except for the 'Last updated' time.
And the list of comments were empty. Each update version had its own chain of comments. So they could pretend to accept disagreeing comments, while wiping unwanted comments by making a no-changes 'update'. If asked, they could present a technical explanation ('Every revision has its own comment chain - that's just how it is!'. And it was true: The new revision got a new URL, so if I saved the URL to the revision I commented on, I could use it to retrieve the version with my unwanted comment still in the comment chain.
I think it is far more honest to simply declare that 'We do not accept comments in disagreement with our views', and either inform the commenter the reason why he was rejected, or leaving an entry in the comment chain indicating that a comment was censored. Preferably both.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
