Nvidia does not manufacture most cards; companies like EVGA, ASUS, MSI, and so on do. And last I looked, (which was just a couple of weeks ago), they ALL recommended a minimum 600W psu for a 760. Probably because most of them today are overclocked to some degree.
The referenced 14 CFR 91.119 defines minimum altitudes as altitudes allowing a safe emergency landing, and various other restrictions depending on whether you're over a "congested area", "other than congested area", or a "sparsely populated area".
Did you actually read what I wrote? This:
Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.
Is actually pretty damned exactly what I described. It is only a fraction of "total airspace", and low altitudes in particular are not part of it.
If you're a pilot, but not a crop duster, what are you doing flying at low altitudes when not around an airport? As already discussed, twice now, areas around airports, for obvious reasons (takeoff and landing), are "navigable airspace" and drones are prohibited.
Flying drones in those areas is already against the law. So what's the problem?
I don't see anything wrong with remaining a mid-level programmer, better to serve as a good example through your code and behavior than to suffer from the Peter Principle and "rise to the level of their incompetence."
I agree that it is probably the best role for a lot of people. But I really have to wonder where this comes from:
I'm concerned about my increasing age in a business where, according to some, 30 might as well be 50.
I'm wondering who these "some" are. Study after study have shown that older, more experienced programmers tend to be more productive, even up to age 60.
Sounds like ageism on the part of young management to me. Which is illegal, by the way. Discrimination based on age, that is.
know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
Haha. Business as usual.:)
Actually, I think it IS extortion. Normally, telling somebody you're going to sue them is not considered a "threat"... as long as you actually have a reasonable basis to sue and you really intend to do it.
But telling somebody "pay up or we'll sue", when you don't have any actual intention to sue (and they don't... because judges don't allow those mass suits anymore, and individual suits would be way too expensive) you are just plain lying. And I think -- I don't know for sure -- that WOULD be considered intimidation and you would in fact be extorting somebody.
Also, I see in the BMG and Round Hill v Cox complaint linked by OP, that the complainants say in their point 3:
ISPs are required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to implement and maintain a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infnngers in order to maintain the safe harbor protection afforded by the DMCA from copyright infringement claims that the ISPs otherwise would enjoy.
This is just plain false. The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
Perhaps that's why Rightscorp is going bankrupt. Judges don't like to be lied to. A good defense attorney (and my guess is they have one) will tear that to shreds.
They also say, in point 4:
Despite these notices and its actual knowledge of repeat infringements...
How do they know Cox "has actual knowledge"? Because they notified Cox? That's not "actual knowledge", that's just an allegation. A very different thing.
All in all, I think I see why Rightscorp and its clients have not been very successful at these suits. Hell, *I* could probably rip them to shreds in court... if it weren't for the fact that IANAL and so I don't know proper court procedure.
Rightscorp is on the verge of bankruptcy, as it has not been very successful with its lawsuits. It is also being sued right now by some of its "victims", who claim its practices have been illegally intimidating and coercive, and otherwise legally unsound.
In other words, from what I read recently at EFF "Rightscorp" probably has little to do with IP "rights" at all... it is just another copyright troll looking to scare money out of Mom and Pop.
But they haven't been very successful at that game. My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
Cards like that generally show 600W or more power supply in their list of hardware requirements. Even a GTX 760 calls for a minimum 600W power supply.
So while a 500W psu might power it, if you starve your card your psu is going to heat up and the card might, too. Which is just going to make your fans run more. Not recommended.
a) Use a low-RPM, huge, CPU fan like Zalman along with a fanless power supply and video card. There should be very little noise from such a PC.
b) Go all the way and buy a water-cooled PC. No fans, no noise.
c) Buy an Apple laptop/desktop. These are noiseless except under heavy load.
a) "Fanless" video cards require large case fans. The heat doesn't just disappear... it has to be expelled somehow. You can use a water cooler instead, but... see (b). Also, it is almost impossible to get a "fanless" power supply that is big enough for serious gaming.
b) In general, water-cooled PCs are NOT quiet. There still must be high-volume air flow through the radiator, and in most cases that means: big fans.
c) Apples tend to be well-designed thermally but they still make noise under load.
The real answer is probably to just get a quiet case, like the Antec P180 or P280. It is designed for quiet operation. Set it on a hard surface (you have to anyway, because the power supply exhausts through the bottom), but on top of a piece of low level-loop carpet.
Get low-noise front case fans (fan mfrs. list the decibel level). The front fans are baffled but if you use low noise fans that are large (140mm) they can turn more slowly and make less noise. Also, cover the wall or whatever is behind the machine with the same carpet, as that is where the main air exhaust is.
In fact, you should probably cover the area the machine sits in with carpet, and that will make the already-low fan noise lower yet.
I have a newer, hot machine with one of these cases and it's barely audible. Once I finish arranging the area where it sits it will be pretty much silent.
At some point you're just misusing the limited classroom time you have available. Long division probably crosses that line
I disagree very strongly. Being able to perform division without the aid of a machine is a critical life skill. I would not allow a child to pass out of elementary school without it.
A thumbprint is a good way to verify identification, but terrible way to identify somebody.
And having said that... using thumbprints as signatures would also be a rather outrageous and completely unacceptable enabler of identity fraud.
A bank in my area started requiring thumbprints in order to cash checks, so I stopped cashing checks there. Not because *I* was doing anything wrong, but because I didn't want anyone else using a copy of my thumbprint for "identification".
The basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act was the authority of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce... hence the name! FAA has authority over "Navigable Airways", which are airways that can be used for interstate commerce (commercial flight). In practice, most any airport that supports private flight can also be used for interstate commerce, thus the breadth of regulation.
But just as "navigable" waterways are only a minority of all waterways, navigable airspace is not all airspace. It is generally limited to "cruising altitude" for various kinds of aircraft, plus areas around airports. And there are certain geographic regions which are explicitly excluded.
But the FAA does NOT have authority over everything in the air. The latest court ruling by a Federal judge was that the FAA does NOT have authority over small drones that are operating at low altitude and not around airports or other navigable airways... regardless of whether they are being used commercially.
So no... the Federal government does not have authority here, despite the Air Commerce Act. The authority for that act is Interstate Commerce, and little if any private drone use can reasonably be said to have anything at all to do with interstate commerce.
The FAA has appealed that ruling, though it will surely lose the appeal too. However, in the meantime it is trying to bull through regulation so that it's a "done deal" before they get to appeals court.
It means nothing of the sort. That is an assumption on your part.
OP asked for "biometric" ID, okay? RFID, cards, NFC, etc. are not biometric. The reasonable assumption -- unlike yours -- is that he had an actual REASON for asking for biometrics. People don't usually say things for no reason.
Having said that, most consumer-level biometrics are crap. Despite Apple, fingerprint readers are crap for any kind of real security. Capacitance is even worse. You can foil it (pun intended, but pretty literally) with a tinfoil hat.
My best recommendation would be voice recognition. Not the "Hey, Google, where is 'Interstellar' playing nearby?" kind but the person-recognition kind. It's pretty good and not terribly expensive.
Please total up a reasonable estimate of the cost of the CO2 and get back to me. "Horrendous" is not acceptable. I want figures based on real science and economics.
Pretty obviously there is no such figure. So far, nobody has managed to prove damage to date over the last couple of decades is any higher than ZERO. Sure, there have been lots of claims but there have been lots of claims of UFOs too. I want evidence.
You don't get to ruin MY economy simply because you're a coward who will believe anything you're told.
Give me a fucking break. Google may be "more" responsible than "some" companies about what it does with my information, but that hardly makes it a saint.
I'm not going to bother listing the UNETHICAL things Google has done. They are all around us. Should I count how many times it has been to court -- and either LOST or settled -- over privacy violation issues? Does that sound like an angel acting in your best interest?
I could go on for ages, but why should I? Your implication that Google is somehow "ethical" just because it doesn't do the worst of the shit that others do is ridiculous on its face.
The population density argument simply doesn't hold water, as otherwise all US cities would have far better internet than all of Europe, which is laughable.
No, you have it backward. The FIRST problem is that the Internet companies are badly (and inadequately) regulated. That's what causes internet to be worse there. The density problem in rural areas just makes it WORSE.
Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.
As usual, you have your context scrambled again.
I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now.
But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy.
This is why I don't engage you on this. My comments are only for the edification of other readers. You and I have been over this many, many times now, and your repetition of your BAD PHYSICS isn't going to make it any more true.
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
It should be pretty clear to anybody who has actually been following these exchanges that I'm just not playing your game. My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't.
No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way.
And AC first post -- and the first responder to the post -- appear to have been hit on the heat by a very heavy nail.
RFID, chips, cards, etc. have the SAME "problem" as IP addresses: they don't identify the PERSON, they just identify the identification. If someone else is holding the identification, all bets are off.
Entire movies have been made about this. I mean, come on.
That really is a concern for many distros, though.
I have to admit that the Linux principle "do one thing and do it well" actually does work. Did some things need improvement? Yes. But systemd has become like a Cthulhu in the system, with tentacles everywhere, far beyond its original concept.
I have to agree with some others who have said that systemd resembles Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux.
The sad part is that preventing this is really easy
Yes. I think it is pretty clear that the auto makers got themselves into this mess -- as they have often done -- by doing stupid shit they did not understand.
Pardon me for hijacking this higher position, but a serious pet peeve has been triggered.
Hey, Bennett, or samzenpus, or whoever did it:
You do NOT put your own hypotheticals in quotes. Got it? Quotes are used for QUOTING OTHER PEOPLE. That's their purpose. Learn it. Use it. And it's usually best if readers can tell who is being quoted, even if only via context.
Use this greasemonkey script to hide Bennett's shit from the main (and "older") pages. http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ
(I disable it once in a while to check for his shit so I can tell people about the script.)
Give Haselton a break. He has done us all not just one but many public services.
Having said that... let's be honest: sometimes Haselton expounds on things that are very clearly not in his area of expertise, and certain Slashdot editors (for that is exactly what they are) probably give him too much "air time" on Slashdot. Especially, it seems, when he is expounding on something that is not in his area of expertise.
But while this one is rather long-winded, it IS an issue everyone here should pay attention to, regardless of whether we happen to agree with Haselton and his analysis.
If Haselton bores you, blame the editor(s) for putting him up too often, in regard to things he is hardly an acknowleged authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia does not manufacture most cards; companies like EVGA, ASUS, MSI, and so on do. And last I looked, (which was just a couple of weeks ago), they ALL recommended a minimum 600W psu for a 760. Probably because most of them today are overclocked to some degree.
Can you explain a plausible scenario where manual long would be critical to survival?
Yeah. Getting shot because you couldn't properly divide the remaining cans of food among 13 people.
The referenced 14 CFR 91.119 defines minimum altitudes as altitudes allowing a safe emergency landing, and various other restrictions depending on whether you're over a "congested area", "other than congested area", or a "sparsely populated area".
Did you actually read what I wrote? This:
Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.
Is actually pretty damned exactly what I described. It is only a fraction of "total airspace", and low altitudes in particular are not part of it.
If you're a pilot, but not a crop duster, what are you doing flying at low altitudes when not around an airport? As already discussed, twice now, areas around airports, for obvious reasons (takeoff and landing), are "navigable airspace" and drones are prohibited.
Flying drones in those areas is already against the law. So what's the problem?
I don't see anything wrong with remaining a mid-level programmer, better to serve as a good example through your code and behavior than to suffer from the Peter Principle and "rise to the level of their incompetence."
I agree that it is probably the best role for a lot of people. But I really have to wonder where this comes from:
I'm concerned about my increasing age in a business where, according to some, 30 might as well be 50.
I'm wondering who these "some" are. Study after study have shown that older, more experienced programmers tend to be more productive, even up to age 60.
Sounds like ageism on the part of young management to me. Which is illegal, by the way. Discrimination based on age, that is.
know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
Haha. Business as usual. :)
Actually, I think it IS extortion. Normally, telling somebody you're going to sue them is not considered a "threat"... as long as you actually have a reasonable basis to sue and you really intend to do it.
But telling somebody "pay up or we'll sue", when you don't have any actual intention to sue (and they don't... because judges don't allow those mass suits anymore, and individual suits would be way too expensive) you are just plain lying. And I think -- I don't know for sure -- that WOULD be considered intimidation and you would in fact be extorting somebody.
ISPs are required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to implement and maintain a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infnngers in order to maintain the safe harbor protection afforded by the DMCA from copyright infringement claims that the ISPs otherwise would enjoy.
This is just plain false. The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
Perhaps that's why Rightscorp is going bankrupt. Judges don't like to be lied to. A good defense attorney (and my guess is they have one) will tear that to shreds.
They also say, in point 4:
Despite these notices and its actual knowledge of repeat infringements...
How do they know Cox "has actual knowledge"? Because they notified Cox? That's not "actual knowledge", that's just an allegation. A very different thing.
All in all, I think I see why Rightscorp and its clients have not been very successful at these suits. Hell, *I* could probably rip them to shreds in court... if it weren't for the fact that IANAL and so I don't know proper court procedure.
Rightscorp is on the verge of bankruptcy, as it has not been very successful with its lawsuits. It is also being sued right now by some of its "victims", who claim its practices have been illegally intimidating and coercive, and otherwise legally unsound.
In other words, from what I read recently at EFF "Rightscorp" probably has little to do with IP "rights" at all... it is just another copyright troll looking to scare money out of Mom and Pop.
But they haven't been very successful at that game. My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
Cards like that generally show 600W or more power supply in their list of hardware requirements. Even a GTX 760 calls for a minimum 600W power supply.
So while a 500W psu might power it, if you starve your card your psu is going to heat up and the card might, too. Which is just going to make your fans run more. Not recommended.
a) Use a low-RPM, huge, CPU fan like Zalman along with a fanless power supply and video card. There should be very little noise from such a PC. b) Go all the way and buy a water-cooled PC. No fans, no noise. c) Buy an Apple laptop/desktop. These are noiseless except under heavy load.
a) "Fanless" video cards require large case fans. The heat doesn't just disappear... it has to be expelled somehow. You can use a water cooler instead, but... see (b). Also, it is almost impossible to get a "fanless" power supply that is big enough for serious gaming.
b) In general, water-cooled PCs are NOT quiet. There still must be high-volume air flow through the radiator, and in most cases that means: big fans. c) Apples tend to be well-designed thermally but they still make noise under load.
The real answer is probably to just get a quiet case, like the Antec P180 or P280. It is designed for quiet operation. Set it on a hard surface (you have to anyway, because the power supply exhausts through the bottom), but on top of a piece of low level-loop carpet.
Get low-noise front case fans (fan mfrs. list the decibel level). The front fans are baffled but if you use low noise fans that are large (140mm) they can turn more slowly and make less noise. Also, cover the wall or whatever is behind the machine with the same carpet, as that is where the main air exhaust is.
In fact, you should probably cover the area the machine sits in with carpet, and that will make the already-low fan noise lower yet.
I have a newer, hot machine with one of these cases and it's barely audible. Once I finish arranging the area where it sits it will be pretty much silent.
At some point you're just misusing the limited classroom time you have available. Long division probably crosses that line
I disagree very strongly. Being able to perform division without the aid of a machine is a critical life skill. I would not allow a child to pass out of elementary school without it.
A thumbprint is a good way to verify identification, but terrible way to identify somebody.
And having said that... using thumbprints as signatures would also be a rather outrageous and completely unacceptable enabler of identity fraud.
A bank in my area started requiring thumbprints in order to cash checks, so I stopped cashing checks there. Not because *I* was doing anything wrong, but because I didn't want anyone else using a copy of my thumbprint for "identification".
Remember how Mythbusters copied a fingerprint and made a fake "finger" with it? It's not all that hard to do.
It doesn't matter how "unique" your signature is, if it's relatively easy to copy.
Using the fingers in place of an abacus, a calculation method known as Chis-An-Bop, has been around for a very long time, and it is very very fast.
I forget where the practice originated. Korea or somewhere. Apologies to the originating country if I got it wrong.
The basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act was the authority of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce... hence the name! FAA has authority over "Navigable Airways", which are airways that can be used for interstate commerce (commercial flight). In practice, most any airport that supports private flight can also be used for interstate commerce, thus the breadth of regulation.
But just as "navigable" waterways are only a minority of all waterways, navigable airspace is not all airspace. It is generally limited to "cruising altitude" for various kinds of aircraft, plus areas around airports. And there are certain geographic regions which are explicitly excluded.
But the FAA does NOT have authority over everything in the air. The latest court ruling by a Federal judge was that the FAA does NOT have authority over small drones that are operating at low altitude and not around airports or other navigable airways... regardless of whether they are being used commercially.
So no... the Federal government does not have authority here, despite the Air Commerce Act. The authority for that act is Interstate Commerce, and little if any private drone use can reasonably be said to have anything at all to do with interstate commerce.
The FAA has appealed that ruling, though it will surely lose the appeal too. However, in the meantime it is trying to bull through regulation so that it's a "done deal" before they get to appeals court.
It means nothing of the sort. That is an assumption on your part.
OP asked for "biometric" ID, okay? RFID, cards, NFC, etc. are not biometric. The reasonable assumption -- unlike yours -- is that he had an actual REASON for asking for biometrics. People don't usually say things for no reason.
Having said that, most consumer-level biometrics are crap. Despite Apple, fingerprint readers are crap for any kind of real security. Capacitance is even worse. You can foil it (pun intended, but pretty literally) with a tinfoil hat.
My best recommendation would be voice recognition. Not the "Hey, Google, where is 'Interstellar' playing nearby?" kind but the person-recognition kind. It's pretty good and not terribly expensive.
Please total up a reasonable estimate of the cost of the CO2 and get back to me. "Horrendous" is not acceptable. I want figures based on real science and economics.
Pretty obviously there is no such figure. So far, nobody has managed to prove damage to date over the last couple of decades is any higher than ZERO. Sure, there have been lots of claims but there have been lots of claims of UFOs too. I want evidence.
You don't get to ruin MY economy simply because you're a coward who will believe anything you're told.
Give me a fucking break. Google may be "more" responsible than "some" companies about what it does with my information, but that hardly makes it a saint.
I'm not going to bother listing the UNETHICAL things Google has done. They are all around us. Should I count how many times it has been to court -- and either LOST or settled -- over privacy violation issues? Does that sound like an angel acting in your best interest?
I could go on for ages, but why should I? Your implication that Google is somehow "ethical" just because it doesn't do the worst of the shit that others do is ridiculous on its face.
The population density argument simply doesn't hold water, as otherwise all US cities would have far better internet than all of Europe, which is laughable.
No, you have it backward. The FIRST problem is that the Internet companies are badly (and inadequately) regulated. That's what causes internet to be worse there. The density problem in rural areas just makes it WORSE.
You're fooling yourself. No one is safe from researchers.
Yeah, especially the taxpaying American public in recent years, it seems.
Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.
As usual, you have your context scrambled again.
I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now.
But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy.
This is why I don't engage you on this. My comments are only for the edification of other readers. You and I have been over this many, many times now, and your repetition of your BAD PHYSICS isn't going to make it any more true.
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
It should be pretty clear to anybody who has actually been following these exchanges that I'm just not playing your game. My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't.
No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way.
Have a nice day. Or not.
An AC first post hits the nail on the head.
And AC first post -- and the first responder to the post -- appear to have been hit on the heat by a very heavy nail.
RFID, chips, cards, etc. have the SAME "problem" as IP addresses: they don't identify the PERSON, they just identify the identification. If someone else is holding the identification, all bets are off.
Entire movies have been made about this. I mean, come on.
One day the sun will kick your ass.
That really is a concern for many distros, though.
I have to admit that the Linux principle "do one thing and do it well" actually does work. Did some things need improvement? Yes. But systemd has become like a Cthulhu in the system, with tentacles everywhere, far beyond its original concept.
I have to agree with some others who have said that systemd resembles Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux.
The sad part is that preventing this is really easy
Yes. I think it is pretty clear that the auto makers got themselves into this mess -- as they have often done -- by doing stupid shit they did not understand.
Pardon me for hijacking this higher position, but a serious pet peeve has been triggered.
Hey, Bennett, or samzenpus, or whoever did it:
You do NOT put your own hypotheticals in quotes. Got it? Quotes are used for QUOTING OTHER PEOPLE. That's their purpose. Learn it. Use it. And it's usually best if readers can tell who is being quoted, even if only via context.
Thank you very much.
Use this greasemonkey script to hide Bennett's shit from the main (and "older") pages. http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ (I disable it once in a while to check for his shit so I can tell people about the script.)
Give Haselton a break. He has done us all not just one but many public services.
Having said that... let's be honest: sometimes Haselton expounds on things that are very clearly not in his area of expertise, and certain Slashdot editors (for that is exactly what they are) probably give him too much "air time" on Slashdot. Especially, it seems, when he is expounding on something that is not in his area of expertise.
But while this one is rather long-winded, it IS an issue everyone here should pay attention to, regardless of whether we happen to agree with Haselton and his analysis.
If Haselton bores you, blame the editor(s) for putting him up too often, in regard to things he is hardly an acknowleged authority.