Yeah, this is a consistant theme I see with Windows v. Linux TCO studies sponsored by big business with microsoft ties: The analysis is usually "Sticking with Windows(tm)" vs. "Migrating to Unix/Linux".
Well, duh. It's going to be cheaper in the short run to stick with what you've already got. And it's insanely expensive to migrate *from* microsoft. Derp.
The problem is, this is a real world scenario. While it might be cheaper over 10 years to migrate to linux, in terms of software cost, support cost, and hardware upgrades, investors want to see immediate cost v. income reports. Not to mention, there aren't many business out there running Linux environments that are willing to switch to Microsoft, so it's not feasable to do a study on the cost of switching the other way.
Sucks. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle. For non-specific applications, it's generally better to go with Windows Server-based user and group policy management and Active Directory (assuming windows desktops). Possibly exchange for the calendar. For anything that actually touches the internet, Linux is almost universally better: DNS, Web, Ftp, and mail are all services I wouldn't trust to Microsoft software, not with the maturity and (relative) security of bind, apache, vsftpd, and qmail.
Yeah, wow, good call on the CD Burning and the Wireless. Now-a-days, when I'm out doing tech support, if a client has SP2, I don't even use the provided utilities. Next to the wireless configuration in SP2, everything is dumb. Also, I encourage people to upgrade to SP2, as it seems to also fix a lot of random wireless issues.
Aside from the deep level programming stuff, which I don't know much about to be honest, there are some things in XP that I think do make it worthwhile to switch from 2000. Most of them are little things, but they are there.
*simple SMB file sharing. Right-click, sharing..., "just share this folder". Bang. Everyone in the workgroup can now read your files.
*network location awareness. A lot of the SMB stuff in XP is just done better than 2000, it seems to "just work" where as windows 2000 had problems with people seeing each other, especially networking 98--2000.
*When you open a folder with a bunch of directories under it (say, for instance, my mp3 collection), and then you go into a sub-directory (say, darkest hour), and then back out of the directory, the display is still at "D". Windows 2000 reset at "A". Small, but annoying.
*Remote desktop / Terminal Server. Obviously, this has been in linux/xwindows/openwindows/xfree86/your mom's wm since 17th century, but the windows TS client is hot; it works as well if not better than any of the 3rd party alternatives, including pcanywhere and VNC.
*Security. Well, mostly. Well, ok, it took until SP2. But, windows now has protected memory and stack overflow protections (to an extent), and a built in firewall, and yada yada yada.
*Driver support. Have you worked with windows 2000 lately, with modern hardware? If you're not installing onto a Celeron-333 440BX motherboard, windows thinks you've installed it on a delorian. Not to mention - in 2000, it seemed to be the theme of "We'll put the most common drivers in the OS", so it's got an HP LaserJet II driver and a Realtek 8139 driver, but not a whole lot else. Windows XP took the path of "We'll put everything that exists and has a driver in the OS".
*64-bit computing. For those of you with Athlon 64's and FX's. Lucky sods.
*Gaming support. DirectX built into XP, and just a lot better gaming support in general.
*Run-In-Compatibility-Mode. Right click, Properties, Compatability tab, "Run this program in compatability mode for Windows95". Lets you play those games you really want to play, or that application your company has to use.
*Start, Run, "msconfig". Thank freaking god. Where have you been since WinME, and why did you leave?
That's just off the top of my head. I mean, people say Windows XP has nothing on 2000, but there are enough compelling reasons to switch. Plus, as a ground-pounder tech support / consultant, I can tell you that I'd rather troubleshoot a WinXP/2003 server domain environment than a win2000/2000 server environment anyday.
Considering that I was hard-pressed to find Solaris to be at all useful except on Sparc and on the extreme high-end for some time now, I find it very, very difficult to imagine a job that Linux or even *BSD wouldn't be the better choice....
and I can have code that it will be reasonable to expect to have an API that will be present on any CPU architechture that would be typically used, ranging from x86 all the way to ARM and everything in between. Solaris on x86 brings me Sparc and ONLY Sparc as an option choice.
First off, I do agree with you on one point. Sun's best attribute is Sun hardware. Having dealt with it for a number of years, I can tell you that Sun's hardware is amazingly capable and very, very stable. It's awesome to see a 12mhz Sparc IPC chug through webserver or DNS server duties vastly quicker than a 133mhz pentium.
I can think of some things that would be better on Solaris. For one, the NFS server in Solaris (IMHO) is better than the one in Linux. The one in FreeBSD is about on par with the Solaris NFS server. I dunno, something about the Linux NFS server just seems... iffy. It's hard to put my finger on it. It's like... it should be faster than it is, and sometimes it works great, but if you have 70 computers mounting one NFS share off of a linux box, it really drops a turd on you... I dunno, I've always used Solaris or FreeBSD NFS servers in large installations, and I've always been happier than when I tried the Linux NFS server. Less crashes and better thruput. And that was even running Solaris x86.
Additionally, Solaris does some things like LDAP and NIS pretty well. I'm sure there are some people that have apps that are written for solaris that would like to increase speed (hardware) without paying the Sun hardware tax, too.
One thing that Sun / Solaris does *not* do well is desktop. Or, they do it ok, but everything they have they took from linux (or what happened to OpenWindows? I think it opened its self and jumped out).
As far as the second thing you say, though... For starters, Solaris x86 *doesn't* run on Sparc systems, and that's the point. It runs on x86 systems. As for interoperability... up until solaris 8 or 9, the same installation disc would install on everything from one of the aforementioned 12mhz Sparc IPC's from 1987 to the Sun heavy hardware SunFire E15k's $100,000 supercomputers.
And I happen to think it's actually a detriment to debian and others that they can install on everything from a quad-core opteron cluster to a See-n-Say. I think it wouldn't hurt the distro to introduce specific arch distributions, i.e. one for i386, one for i686, and one for "all".
Intel fabircates chips, from the Celeron to the Itanium. Celeron and Pentium are low end, Xeon and Itanium are high end. That's it, there's no mystery here. Name people who manufacture higher end processors than a Xeon? Opteron, PowerPC, Sparc, Alpha. The combined market share of those doesn't touch the Xeon, and some of them may not even be as good, depending on what you're doing.
Amd does make the faster stuff at the moment, but it's a constant leapfrog game. Intel's dual core is not a joke, it was at market first before AMD's, and it's still in its development. Was the Pentium-III a joke? Everyone said it'd never catch on, because it was so pricey, and the 550 could scramble eggs. Boy, we were wrong.
And what are you talking about SLI and servers in the same breath?!? For starters, the NVidia NForce4 with intel hardware was the *only* name in the game of SLI for a *long* time; it's only recently that you can do AMD + SLI. And yes, it works, and well. Pick up any MaximumPC put out in the past 6 months - all you see on the high end machines is NForce4 boards and SLI. And if you want dual core servers, whatever, buy an opteron.
I just don't get your post. It's a jumble of random crap, misdirections, idiocy, and spe'lling mistake's. Please, FOAD.
Never think critically when sensationalism(tm) will do.
Intel isn't dropping support for their low end processor because they want to add "draconian Trusted Computing DRM". Intel isn't dropping support for their low end chips because "the profit isn't there". Intel isn't going away in 20 years.
Let me see if I can say this clearly: INTEL IS NOT DROPPING THEIR LOW END CHIPSET.
Intel's main focus is the 945 / 955 chipset. The 945 is the low end chipset, the 955 is the high end.
The 915 / 925 chipsets are 1.) old and 2.) don't support multi-core processors. I'm honestly surprised they're not dropping support for the 925 at the same time. The 945 and 955 chipsets support the socket-T processors, single and dual core. They also support hi-def audio, gig-ethernet, native serial ATA, DDR-2, PCI-E, and everything everyone else wants. All intel is doing is dropping support for a chipset which has been replaced by another, more capable and almost equally priced, product.
If anyone should be slamming intel, it's only because the 915 / 925 chipsets, while they are a year to 18 months old, aren't that old, and don't support dual core procs. That's something to get peeved at - I actually own 2 915 boards, and I won't be able to pop a dual core Pentium into them. But, whatever, at the pace of technology, anymore you upgrade the whole nine yards when you upgrade any of it.
When I tell people they need to use firefox, and they ask why?, this is my answer:
If you use firefox, you'll get less spyware. Spyware comes from 2 sources: downloading it on purpose, and through bugs in internet explorer. Since IE is tied in so closely with windows, any time there's a bug, it usually leaks over into windows, and that's how they get spyware on your system. If you use firefox, it's just a program. I think it has less bugs in it, but even if it does have bugs, they're less likely to get into windows. So, 1.) Don't download weather bug or screen savers, etc, because a lot of times, spyware piggybacks on them, and 2.) Use firefox.
It's technical enough to get across the point that there's a lot of shit going on in the background that they don't need to know about, but it's simple enough that any moron can understand it, and still feel like they know something special, something l33t about computers.
That little grey bit to the right of the tabs allows you to create a new tab by clicking on it. That's fairly cool, but holy shit it just looks wrong.
By the way, if you want this in firefox, right click on the tool bar, go to "Customize...", and grab the "New Tab" button, drag and drop it into the button row.
The default button for this action looks ghetto, but if you install another theme like phoenity or pinball, it looks a lot better.
Giant heat sinks with crazy fast fans are loud as all hell. And often the default fan that comes with the CPU is sufficient.
Unless you have an LGA775 intel proc. The fan is relatively quiet when it's not spun up, but once you fire up a game, or try and print something (why?) or burn a CD, or use Photoshop, or anything that makes the CPU load above 15%, the fan ratchets up to 4000 rpm and sounds like a helicopter taking off.
Most of the aftermarket fans I've seen for the 775 intel procs are focused on quieter operation.
FYI: I cut the bullshit and just bought a coolermaster Aquagate Mini R-120* for $100. It's a watercooled kit that comes pre-assembled with liquid already in the hoses, and supposedly no need to even check the fluid levels for 1-2 years. The pump is integrated into the waterblock and runs off of a motherboard fan header. Since I'm not overclocking, I leave the adjustable fan on the lowest setting, and my comptuer stays chilly and almost silent.
*not a refer link, just a link to the description.
One stupid person gets a neg-am loan and can offer more than someone who isn't. It ends up forcing everyone to take risky loans to compete on price.
Not to mention, once one house in the neighborhood gets some asshat to pay 3 times what it's *really* worth, then everyone else's house is now more valuable. Just because that one incident means that "houses in that area are selling for $X".
*sigh* I hate the situation I live in. I live in a far-away suburb of Washington, D.C. It's far enough away that I don't want to commute 1+ hours each way, but it's close enough that a lot of people do, and they get paid D.C. salaries, and bring their $130,000/yr back here, and now the median price for a 3 bedroom 1.5 bath house is $250,000 if not more. Now, I know there are 5000 slashdotters saying "Yeah, well, San Jose blah blah blah." The problem is that most of the jobs here pay shit. There are hundreds of minimum wage jobs, and nothing in a pay scale where someone could actually afford to simultaneously live here and work here. So people end up commuting to the suburb because they can't afford to live here because of all the people that commute to the city.
It just hurts to know that I missed the real estate explosion by about 6 months because I was still graduating from college. And now I live somewhere where no one is happy, the traffic sucks, everything is expensive, and none of the employers pay well. All the D.C. people move here cause it's cheaper, because the employers haven't yet caught up to the point where they can't find any slave labor.
And now I live with my parents, with my wife and 14 month old. And I fix the spyware infected computers of hundreds of realtors and construction contractors, who couldn't give a crap that they're destroying the local economy, while my linux and solaris skills go unused because the only linux companies who want to hire me are in Falls' Church, 1.5 hours away in good traffic. I almost want the real estate bubble to burst to put a few of these artificial millionaires in their places.
Anyone in the Roanoke area want to hire me? I've got my MCP, several years onsite technician experience, and before this job, I was a linux/solaris sysadmin for a webhost / ISP for 3 years. All I want is a job where I can work hard for a fair wage, and go home at night to a home that I own. willjobs@dunnclan.net (yes, I do run my own mail server, qmail/vmailmgr/courrier-imap)
Let's cut to the chase - Bin Laden is being assisted by people - a LOT of people. A guy can hide for a lifetime with that kind of help.
Agreed. This is one of the *only* points I'll let Bush slide on. Everyone is repeating the soundbite about outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden to Pakistan, but no one is actually trying to take the time to understand the political climate in Pakistan. The government is not a long-lived, well established affair, and power in Pakistan is very decentralized. There are a number of places in Pakistan where the central government is unneeded and has no influence whatsoever. The central government is relatively pro-american; however, even that support is fleeting, based on our willingness to support Israel, invade Iraq, and keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Out in the provinces, there's enough people that detest America to: 1.) Hide bin Laden, and 2.) Overthrow the relatively weak central government.
So, when we say "outsourcing the search for bin Laden to Pakistan", what we mean is "we're on thin ice, and they're really doing us a favor by looking for him at all. If we screw this one up, we'll have made another state an enemy".
So, we let them do their thing. They probably won't ever find him. But, if we go in and start lobbing missles around, it's going to piss off a lot of Pakistanis.
Right. I remember when Iraq attacked the U.S. I was scared to death.
//oh wait.
Hijackers on 9/11/2001 were mostly from *SAUDI ARABIA*. Bin Ladin attracts newcommers to his cause mainly by expressing a distaste for U.S. presence in *SAUDI ARABIA*.
We invaded Afghanistan, spent 4 or 5 months there, and basically pulled out. Then we, for no justifiable reason, invaded a soverign nation and deposed the elected head of state.
Yes, we were provoked. But, it's time to ask the two critical questions: 1.) Are we attacking the right people? 2.) Why did they attack us in the first place?
Understanding the enemy is the first step to defeating him.
Not a problem, hopefully. Warrants have to be descriptive. If they weren't specifically looking for information on the offshore friend while searching, then anything they find related to the friend can't be used to prosecute for a non-related offense.
It's kind of like executing a warrant in a murder case to find corpses in the backyard, and the cops instead finding the next-door neighbor is using some of the person's property to grow weed. If the warrant didn't say anything about drugs, any good defense lawyer will get the evidence thrown out due to illegal search and seisure.
I wouldn't even worry about it. Once, when I went on a roadtrip, my friend brought his laptop and a copy of MS Streets and Trips, as well as a serial port GPS. The GPS was completely dependant on the laptop for power, it didn't function without the laptop (no display or anything). It drained the laptop's power very quickly (we only got about 45 minutes out of it, and then we got lost).
I think if they ever did built in GPS, it'd end up being one of those things that's turned off and you have to use a Fn+key combo to turn it on.
So it's like when you write a book, and something in it is confusing, and then some editor scribbles something less confusing in the margin, but everyone still ends up confused?
There's a "webserver", and this "webserver" is running "software". The people that make the "software" have released a "patch" 2 weeks ago that "fixes" a number of "security holes" in the "software".
Then, the people who run this "webserver" didn't apply the "patch", and "webserver" got "hacked".
The "webserver" was also storing "3rd party contact information"; ergo, the people who run the "webserver" should have applied the "patch" more quickly.
Come on, folks. Every thread on slashdot lately, it seems everyone tries to make analogies, and everyone else is correcting them. We're all geeks, it's not hard to understand the concept of "unpatched webserver gets haked" or "non-encrypted wireless internet used by passerby", or a hundred other things that seem foreign to the talking heads on CNN's "technology report". We get it. It is what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this is a consistant theme I see with Windows v. Linux TCO studies sponsored by big business with microsoft ties: The analysis is usually "Sticking with Windows(tm)" vs. "Migrating to Unix/Linux".
Well, duh. It's going to be cheaper in the short run to stick with what you've already got. And it's insanely expensive to migrate *from* microsoft. Derp.
The problem is, this is a real world scenario. While it might be cheaper over 10 years to migrate to linux, in terms of software cost, support cost, and hardware upgrades, investors want to see immediate cost v. income reports. Not to mention, there aren't many business out there running Linux environments that are willing to switch to Microsoft, so it's not feasable to do a study on the cost of switching the other way.
Sucks. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle. For non-specific applications, it's generally better to go with Windows Server-based user and group policy management and Active Directory (assuming windows desktops). Possibly exchange for the calendar. For anything that actually touches the internet, Linux is almost universally better: DNS, Web, Ftp, and mail are all services I wouldn't trust to Microsoft software, not with the maturity and (relative) security of bind, apache, vsftpd, and qmail.
~Will
Yeah, wow, good call on the CD Burning and the Wireless. Now-a-days, when I'm out doing tech support, if a client has SP2, I don't even use the provided utilities. Next to the wireless configuration in SP2, everything is dumb. Also, I encourage people to upgrade to SP2, as it seems to also fix a lot of random wireless issues.
Aside from the deep level programming stuff, which I don't know much about to be honest, there are some things in XP that I think do make it worthwhile to switch from 2000. Most of them are little things, but they are there.
*simple SMB file sharing. Right-click, sharing..., "just share this folder". Bang. Everyone in the workgroup can now read your files.
*network location awareness. A lot of the SMB stuff in XP is just done better than 2000, it seems to "just work" where as windows 2000 had problems with people seeing each other, especially networking 98--2000.
*When you open a folder with a bunch of directories under it (say, for instance, my mp3 collection), and then you go into a sub-directory (say, darkest hour), and then back out of the directory, the display is still at "D". Windows 2000 reset at "A". Small, but annoying.
*Remote desktop / Terminal Server. Obviously, this has been in linux/xwindows/openwindows/xfree86/your mom's wm since 17th century, but the windows TS client is hot; it works as well if not better than any of the 3rd party alternatives, including pcanywhere and VNC.
*Security. Well, mostly. Well, ok, it took until SP2. But, windows now has protected memory and stack overflow protections (to an extent), and a built in firewall, and yada yada yada.
*Driver support. Have you worked with windows 2000 lately, with modern hardware? If you're not installing onto a Celeron-333 440BX motherboard, windows thinks you've installed it on a delorian. Not to mention - in 2000, it seemed to be the theme of "We'll put the most common drivers in the OS", so it's got an HP LaserJet II driver and a Realtek 8139 driver, but not a whole lot else. Windows XP took the path of "We'll put everything that exists and has a driver in the OS".
*64-bit computing. For those of you with Athlon 64's and FX's. Lucky sods.
*Gaming support. DirectX built into XP, and just a lot better gaming support in general.
*Run-In-Compatibility-Mode. Right click, Properties, Compatability tab, "Run this program in compatability mode for Windows95". Lets you play those games you really want to play, or that application your company has to use.
*Start, Run, "msconfig". Thank freaking god. Where have you been since WinME, and why did you leave?
That's just off the top of my head. I mean, people say Windows XP has nothing on 2000, but there are enough compelling reasons to switch. Plus, as a ground-pounder tech support / consultant, I can tell you that I'd rather troubleshoot a WinXP/2003 server domain environment than a win2000/2000 server environment anyday.
~Will
k, tnx, gg, no re noob.
Considering that I was hard-pressed to find Solaris to be at all useful except on Sparc and on the extreme high-end for some time now, I find it very, very difficult to imagine a job that Linux or even *BSD wouldn't be the better choice.
and I can have code that it will be reasonable to expect to have an API that will be present on any CPU architechture that would be typically used, ranging from x86 all the way to ARM and everything in between. Solaris on x86 brings me Sparc and ONLY Sparc as an option choice.
First off, I do agree with you on one point. Sun's best attribute is Sun hardware. Having dealt with it for a number of years, I can tell you that Sun's hardware is amazingly capable and very, very stable. It's awesome to see a 12mhz Sparc IPC chug through webserver or DNS server duties vastly quicker than a 133mhz pentium.
I can think of some things that would be better on Solaris. For one, the NFS server in Solaris (IMHO) is better than the one in Linux. The one in FreeBSD is about on par with the Solaris NFS server. I dunno, something about the Linux NFS server just seems... iffy. It's hard to put my finger on it. It's like... it should be faster than it is, and sometimes it works great, but if you have 70 computers mounting one NFS share off of a linux box, it really drops a turd on you... I dunno, I've always used Solaris or FreeBSD NFS servers in large installations, and I've always been happier than when I tried the Linux NFS server. Less crashes and better thruput. And that was even running Solaris x86.
Additionally, Solaris does some things like LDAP and NIS pretty well. I'm sure there are some people that have apps that are written for solaris that would like to increase speed (hardware) without paying the Sun hardware tax, too.
One thing that Sun / Solaris does *not* do well is desktop. Or, they do it ok, but everything they have they took from linux (or what happened to OpenWindows? I think it opened its self and jumped out).
As far as the second thing you say, though... For starters, Solaris x86 *doesn't* run on Sparc systems, and that's the point. It runs on x86 systems. As for interoperability... up until solaris 8 or 9, the same installation disc would install on everything from one of the aforementioned 12mhz Sparc IPC's from 1987 to the Sun heavy hardware SunFire E15k's $100,000 supercomputers.
And I happen to think it's actually a detriment to debian and others that they can install on everything from a quad-core opteron cluster to a See-n-Say. I think it wouldn't hurt the distro to introduce specific arch distributions, i.e. one for i386, one for i686, and one for "all".
~W
You may laugh, but it's a real problem. See Jeremy's latest video for proof.
~Will
http://www.google.com/linux
Dude. You're retarted.
Intel fabircates chips, from the Celeron to the Itanium. Celeron and Pentium are low end, Xeon and Itanium are high end. That's it, there's no mystery here. Name people who manufacture higher end processors than a Xeon? Opteron, PowerPC, Sparc, Alpha. The combined market share of those doesn't touch the Xeon, and some of them may not even be as good, depending on what you're doing.
Amd does make the faster stuff at the moment, but it's a constant leapfrog game. Intel's dual core is not a joke, it was at market first before AMD's, and it's still in its development. Was the Pentium-III a joke? Everyone said it'd never catch on, because it was so pricey, and the 550 could scramble eggs. Boy, we were wrong.
And what are you talking about SLI and servers in the same breath?!? For starters, the NVidia NForce4 with intel hardware was the *only* name in the game of SLI for a *long* time; it's only recently that you can do AMD + SLI. And yes, it works, and well. Pick up any MaximumPC put out in the past 6 months - all you see on the high end machines is NForce4 boards and SLI. And if you want dual core servers, whatever, buy an opteron.
I just don't get your post. It's a jumble of random crap, misdirections, idiocy, and spe'lling mistake's. Please, FOAD.
~Wx
Good lord, slashdot.
Never think critically when sensationalism(tm) will do.
Intel isn't dropping support for their low end processor because they want to add "draconian Trusted Computing DRM". Intel isn't dropping support for their low end chips because "the profit isn't there". Intel isn't going away in 20 years.
Let me see if I can say this clearly:
INTEL IS NOT DROPPING THEIR LOW END CHIPSET.
Intel's main focus is the 945 / 955 chipset. The 945 is the low end chipset, the 955 is the high end.
The 915 / 925 chipsets are 1.) old and 2.) don't support multi-core processors. I'm honestly surprised they're not dropping support for the 925 at the same time. The 945 and 955 chipsets support the socket-T processors, single and dual core. They also support hi-def audio, gig-ethernet, native serial ATA, DDR-2, PCI-E, and everything everyone else wants. All intel is doing is dropping support for a chipset which has been replaced by another, more capable and almost equally priced, product.
If anyone should be slamming intel, it's only because the 915 / 925 chipsets, while they are a year to 18 months old, aren't that old, and don't support dual core procs. That's something to get peeved at - I actually own 2 915 boards, and I won't be able to pop a dual core Pentium into them. But, whatever, at the pace of technology, anymore you upgrade the whole nine yards when you upgrade any of it.
Calm down, slashdot rumor mill.
~Will
I mean, they've already shown us that being paralysed does nothing against intellegence (Stephen Hawking)
Well, duh. Being paralyzed is a huge dexterity hit, intelligence doesn't enter into it.
~Will
You need to dumb it down.
When I tell people they need to use firefox, and they ask why?, this is my answer:
If you use firefox, you'll get less spyware. Spyware comes from 2 sources: downloading it on purpose, and through bugs in internet explorer. Since IE is tied in so closely with windows, any time there's a bug, it usually leaks over into windows, and that's how they get spyware on your system. If you use firefox, it's just a program. I think it has less bugs in it, but even if it does have bugs, they're less likely to get into windows.
So, 1.) Don't download weather bug or screen savers, etc, because a lot of times, spyware piggybacks on them, and 2.) Use firefox.
It's technical enough to get across the point that there's a lot of shit going on in the background that they don't need to know about, but it's simple enough that any moron can understand it, and still feel like they know something special, something l33t about computers.
~Will
That little grey bit to the right of the tabs allows you to create a new tab by clicking on it. That's fairly cool, but holy shit it just looks wrong.
By the way, if you want this in firefox, right click on the tool bar, go to "Customize...", and grab the "New Tab" button, drag and drop it into the button row.
The default button for this action looks ghetto, but if you install another theme like phoenity or pinball, it looks a lot better.
~Will
Giant heat sinks with crazy fast fans are loud as all hell. And often the default fan that comes with the CPU is sufficient.
Unless you have an LGA775 intel proc. The fan is relatively quiet when it's not spun up, but once you fire up a game, or try and print something (why?) or burn a CD, or use Photoshop, or anything that makes the CPU load above 15%, the fan ratchets up to 4000 rpm and sounds like a helicopter taking off.
Most of the aftermarket fans I've seen for the 775 intel procs are focused on quieter operation.
FYI: I cut the bullshit and just bought a coolermaster Aquagate Mini R-120* for $100. It's a watercooled kit that comes pre-assembled with liquid already in the hoses, and supposedly no need to even check the fluid levels for 1-2 years. The pump is integrated into the waterblock and runs off of a motherboard fan header. Since I'm not overclocking, I leave the adjustable fan on the lowest setting, and my comptuer stays chilly and almost silent.
*not a refer link, just a link to the description.
~Will
One stupid person gets a neg-am loan and can offer more than someone who isn't. It ends up forcing everyone to take risky loans to compete on price.
Not to mention, once one house in the neighborhood gets some asshat to pay 3 times what it's *really* worth, then everyone else's house is now more valuable. Just because that one incident means that "houses in that area are selling for $X".
*sigh* I hate the situation I live in. I live in a far-away suburb of Washington, D.C. It's far enough away that I don't want to commute 1+ hours each way, but it's close enough that a lot of people do, and they get paid D.C. salaries, and bring their $130,000/yr back here, and now the median price for a 3 bedroom 1.5 bath house is $250,000 if not more. Now, I know there are 5000 slashdotters saying "Yeah, well, San Jose blah blah blah." The problem is that most of the jobs here pay shit. There are hundreds of minimum wage jobs, and nothing in a pay scale where someone could actually afford to simultaneously live here and work here. So people end up commuting to the suburb because they can't afford to live here because of all the people that commute to the city.
It just hurts to know that I missed the real estate explosion by about 6 months because I was still graduating from college. And now I live somewhere where no one is happy, the traffic sucks, everything is expensive, and none of the employers pay well. All the D.C. people move here cause it's cheaper, because the employers haven't yet caught up to the point where they can't find any slave labor.
And now I live with my parents, with my wife and 14 month old. And I fix the spyware infected computers of hundreds of realtors and construction contractors, who couldn't give a crap that they're destroying the local economy, while my linux and solaris skills go unused because the only linux companies who want to hire me are in Falls' Church, 1.5 hours away in good traffic. I almost want the real estate bubble to burst to put a few of these artificial millionaires in their places.
Anyone in the Roanoke area want to hire me? I've got my MCP, several years onsite technician experience, and before this job, I was a linux/solaris sysadmin for a webhost / ISP for 3 years. All I want is a job where I can work hard for a fair wage, and go home at night to a home that I own. willjobs@dunnclan.net (yes, I do run my own mail server, qmail/vmailmgr/courrier-imap)
~Will
That wasn't very insightful.
Let's cut to the chase - Bin Laden is being assisted by people - a LOT of people. A guy can hide for a lifetime with that kind of help.
Agreed. This is one of the *only* points I'll let Bush slide on. Everyone is repeating the soundbite about outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden to Pakistan, but no one is actually trying to take the time to understand the political climate in Pakistan. The government is not a long-lived, well established affair, and power in Pakistan is very decentralized. There are a number of places in Pakistan where the central government is unneeded and has no influence whatsoever. The central government is relatively pro-american; however, even that support is fleeting, based on our willingness to support Israel, invade Iraq, and keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Out in the provinces, there's enough people that detest America to:
1.) Hide bin Laden, and
2.) Overthrow the relatively weak central government.
So, when we say "outsourcing the search for bin Laden to Pakistan", what we mean is "we're on thin ice, and they're really doing us a favor by looking for him at all. If we screw this one up, we'll have made another state an enemy".
So, we let them do their thing. They probably won't ever find him. But, if we go in and start lobbing missles around, it's going to piss off a lot of Pakistanis.
~Will
Right. I remember when Iraq attacked the U.S. I was scared to death.
Hijackers on 9/11/2001 were mostly from *SAUDI ARABIA*. Bin Ladin attracts newcommers to his cause mainly by expressing a distaste for U.S. presence in *SAUDI ARABIA*.
We invaded Afghanistan, spent 4 or 5 months there, and basically pulled out. Then we, for no justifiable reason, invaded a soverign nation and deposed the elected head of state.
Yes, we were provoked. But, it's time to ask the two critical questions:
1.) Are we attacking the right people?
2.) Why did they attack us in the first place?
Understanding the enemy is the first step to defeating him.
Not a problem, hopefully. Warrants have to be descriptive. If they weren't specifically looking for information on the offshore friend while searching, then anything they find related to the friend can't be used to prosecute for a non-related offense.
It's kind of like executing a warrant in a murder case to find corpses in the backyard, and the cops instead finding the next-door neighbor is using some of the person's property to grow weed. If the warrant didn't say anything about drugs, any good defense lawyer will get the evidence thrown out due to illegal search and seisure.
Applies to America, at least.
From TFA:
The device has 32MB of SDRAM, 8MB of NOR Flash, built-in 10/100 (not yet supported in litte-endian mode), and dual USB 2.0 ports.
How are you planning on accessing those files? Hopes and dreams? Network Attached Storage with no Network Attached is just a hard drive.
~Will
I wouldn't even worry about it. Once, when I went on a roadtrip, my friend brought his laptop and a copy of MS Streets and Trips, as well as a serial port GPS. The GPS was completely dependant on the laptop for power, it didn't function without the laptop (no display or anything). It drained the laptop's power very quickly (we only got about 45 minutes out of it, and then we got lost).
I think if they ever did built in GPS, it'd end up being one of those things that's turned off and you have to use a Fn+key combo to turn it on.
So, in other words, just turn it off.
~Will
So it's like when you write a book, and something in it is confusing, and then some editor scribbles something less confusing in the margin, but everyone still ends up confused?
Exactly.
How about this analogy:
There's a "webserver", and this "webserver" is running "software". The people that make the "software" have released a "patch" 2 weeks ago that "fixes" a number of "security holes" in the "software".
Then, the people who run this "webserver" didn't apply the "patch", and "webserver" got "hacked".
The "webserver" was also storing "3rd party contact information"; ergo, the people who run the "webserver" should have applied the "patch" more quickly.
Come on, folks. Every thread on slashdot lately, it seems everyone tries to make analogies, and everyone else is correcting them. We're all geeks, it's not hard to understand the concept of "unpatched webserver gets haked" or "non-encrypted wireless internet used by passerby", or a hundred other things that seem foreign to the talking heads on CNN's "technology report". We get it. It is what it is.
~Wil
"What OS are you going to use now?"
"What ever I feel like, gosh!"
Hell, most of my monitors in college were capable of this double-vision thing. We called it "drunk".
I'll set my watch and warrant on it
There's a dark tower fan!