I get one of these this summer! We were about ready to go with a regular Athlon, when some numbers clicked.
To get to the 1Gb of ram I need with current motherboards, we had to use 2x256 + 1x512. THe latter runs abour $800. Going to 4x256 and not needing a u160 controller will pretty much cover the motherboard and extra processor.
However, I won't get cold . . . hey, wait a minute! my office is already too hot in the winter--though not as bad as poor Bill next door, who has to open his window when it's 10F outside . . .
ohh, and the noise. Not just all those fans, but I'm going to have 3x15k scsis in here, along with the 4ide drives.
I think this puppy only gets powerred up for the heavy runs, and I work on the laptop most of the time . . .
Nope, 3--the raid-5 is a backup device:). The system is scsi; the atas are the backup device. To lose data, I first need a scsi to fail (and this is frealistic; these are cutting edge 15k drives), at which pint I need to go to the ata raid backup system. When the first of those fails, I still have the parity drive to rely on (raid 5). If *another* tdrive fails, I'm in trouble (but then, hopefully, I've used the CD-RW recently enough, or my scripts copying critical data to my account on the server that gets a nightly tape backup are ok.)
The tax was approved in (iirc) the 92 election (or was it 91?). The first thing the new board did was try to revoke the charter of the existing bus company. THey were forcecd to buy it out instead (that pesky "takings clause" of the state constitution). Soon thereafter, we had empty buses all over town.
Anyone who has only been there in the last five years has never seen a bus from the former system . . .
I love my crown victoria, but unlessi's icy I take a bicycle.
When I closed down my practice to go to grad school, we sold the second car. THis was because we'd be living cdloser than I could park:) I quickly came to love only dealing with one car. Now I commute by bicycle and leave the car for my wife. (mm, and you can goo 100k without tuning that model. 110 turned out to be a different story--two spark plugs completely corroded . ..)
at my visiting professor gig last year, it was actually *faster* to bike than drive--I had to cdircumnavigate the campus with the car, and could take a straight line in by bicycle. (and bicycles tend to be faster than bus, too . ..).
I'm not against mass trnasit (though I still regret voting for the.5% sales tax in Vegas--it caused a functional private system to be replaced with a crummy public one . . . ). I *am* against subsidizing systems that people won't use.
I bicycled through the iowa winters, including heavy snow, rain, and days where I needed to swap sunglasses every mile because they had developed too much ice from my breath.
Ice, however, is another matter. That stuff *hurts*, and is how I broke the second helmet. Then again, one day when I had my wife drop me due to ice, when I stepped out of the car onto the curb, I discovered that *it* was covered in a sheet of ice (IIt was painted under the ice, so it wansn't obvious).
> Bicycle vs. Phoenix Summer.
Wimp!
It was Vegas, not Phoenix (OK, so that's about 5F cooler on average). The quack said my cholesterol was high, so to get aerobic exercise. The second evening, someoen didn't want to wait for a light, hit me, and sent me flying 20 feet. *that* hurt a lot more than ice (but my homeowners insurance replaced my laptop sfreen and the first helmet I broke). The bicycle landed on top of me, and I'm still using it . . .
> There gets to be a point where laptops become too small to be usable.
they're too *big* today. My first laptop had a 40x8 display (but you could use a shift key to see another 8 lines) and *no* popup lid; the display was above the keyboard. With slight reconfiguration, you could have fit a 512x392 display instead.
there's only a handful of cities in the US dense enough for public transportation to be a practical alternative--SF, NY, Chicago, uhh . . . there must be a couplemore . . .
In many (most?) cities/towns, both the total cost *and* the energy consumed are *higher* on a per rider basis.
Too get people in to mass transportation for other than ideological reasons the system needs to meet at least one of these:
1) It's actually more convenient or faster than driving
2) The individual trip costs less than gas
3) mass transit supplemented with taxi and/or car rental costs less than the total cost of car ownership.
ON the heels of the "$3 gas!" warning, the wall street journal cited a couple of analysts who swere downgrading their recommendation on gas stocks, and expecting it to go *down*. The increasing margins have led to new supply, which will push price and profits back downt.
Still, I won't be happy until unleaded is back below $1/Gallon (yes, I'm one of*those* people:)
drifting a bit, but HDD's are getting close to the price of tape, too. I'm looking at $35-$40/cartridge for 40g tape, and $100 for a 40G cheap hard drive.
my new workstation will be u160 scsi, but we'll be tossing in 3x40G in raid-5 instead of a tape. I'll need 3 disks to fail to lose any data . . .
The next step seems to be using those warm swap front panel disk cages and just using hard drives as tape . . .
> As a side note, too many people who've never learned economics confuse
> demand with quantity demanded
*sigh*
Unfortunately, so do many taking economics courses . . . I drill it through them. I ask the question again and again. I call on random people to explain the difference. Still, come test time . . .
I'm not bothered by those who have trouble learning. It's those that *refuse* to learn that bug the daylights out of me . . .
In this day and age, it would have to be a coed crew, and it would be at least a couple of weeks to get there--and in very close quarters. Do you *really* think he'd make it past the moon before someone killed him for messing with his wife?:)
>It always amazes me that people think these guys will box by Marquis of
>Queensbury rules instead of punching for the balls without gloves,
Wait a minute--when you nuke someone, it's M of Q as long as youuse a missle?:)>P>
>I don't like the idea, either, but it's the only useful thing the military industrial complex can do
The Pax Americana (or Pax Atomica; take your pick) is the longest period of general peace (yes,there were exceptions) in europe since the Roman empire fell. That's a serious benefit (at least for Europe. But we got good trading partners and avoiding yet another war over there out of the deal).
Today, though, there's no serious threat of a massive European war; just a few skirmishes here and there. But I'd still rather spend money on being to big to fight than havingt to fight . . .
> The Wright brothers were the first people to fly. This guy isn't.
No they weren't; not even close. But they were the first to have a controlled, powered, heavier than air flight--but gliders (unpowered), balloons (lighter than air), and I think a couple of failed attempts by others (not controlled:) went up before them.
While I"m at it, the Wright brothers claimed that building an autogyro (helicopter) would have been easier, but the problem was making it move forward once it was up . . .
>Actually a lot of poor countries are poor while they have a fair bit
>of trade. It's not specifically because of government corruption, it's
>because they allow unrestrained capitalism. Some guy whose family was
>a little more ruthless, or who fenced off a huge piece of land, has
>many more resources than the poor living around him. That allows him
>to get cheap labour, producing cheap goods, and to keep the money to
>himself
That's not an accurate description of capitalism, but a straw man. To begin with, the Golden Rule (He who haveth the gold, maketh the rules) is anithetical to capitalism.
Captilism is not "the rich get to control things," but rather "the owner of a resource receives the proceeds" which is usually tied with a free market, the ability to buy/sell/refuse to deal at any price you can negotiate. Capitalism without a fee market is facism (Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, etc.--the owners still received proceds, but the state (which to varying extents *was* the government) makes the choices.
The distribution at any point in time has nothign to do with capitalism. An unequitable distribution is an unequitable distribution no matter what the economic system. In your example, the family did not accumulate their wealt from capital, bt from force. You could redistribute it and still be well within capitalist behavior. On top of that, in countries where that kind of accumulation is/was possible, the landowners tend to control the government either de jure or de facto. Again, fascism or even feudalism--governmental corruption in either case.
Note that they can't force the poor in the vicinity to work "cheaply" (by local, not international, standards) without some type of monopoly power: being the only employer, law binding them to that employer (serfdom), collusion with other employers, or a government keeping out foreign competitors. Captitalist thinking has despised all of these since day 1 (and now *I'm* mixing capitalism and free market together as "captilist thinking":). Adam Smith railed against this in "Wealth of Nations", and we haven't gotten any friendlier to it.
Also, you've shifted from "poor countries" to "countries with poor people". There's a difference (though countries that avoid large numbers of poor people tend to become wealthier.
.
>Reagan's trickle-down theory didn't work in most areas.
The question isn't *whether* there's a trickel-down, but *how much* trickles down--and answers very from "almost nothing" to "more than originally spent."
> If there are
>limited options for workers they basically have to take the jobs
>given, at the wages offered, or starve. In the USA/Canada we've got
>enough jobs to allow people a choice of low-level jobs which prevents
>their being trapped and exploited. In poor countries that are often
>few choices, or agreements between factory/plantation owners exist to
>keep the wages down low enough to deny the workers a real choice.
Again, this isn't capitalism, and can exist only with corrupt government.
>Just because a lot of money is flowing, and trade does benefit both
>parties, doesn't mean that anyone around the two traders is profiting.
No, it doesn't--but they have to spend their money somewhere:)
>And it doesn't mean that one of the parties isn't looting their
>country to supply those trade goods, hurting everyone else.
that's corruption.
>Just like NAFTA. It "created" wealth, if you listen to the wealthy,
>but that wealth didn't raise the standard of living for the poor and
>middle classes. Wow, the rich got richer. I'm so glad I could
>contribute to that.
Please don't confuse NAFTA with free trade--it does *not* take 400 pages to describe free trade. 400 *words* would be overkill. NAFTA is a set of rules to protect certain groups under the name of free trade. I'm a hard core advocate of free trade--but NAFTA doesn't qualify.
>, you got it right. Another reason dumping was made illegal is
>because in some industries it would make the prices go up and down
>like a yo-yo,
whereas the price of gasoline doen'st do that . . .
>making it harder for the local population to sell their
>wares. Let's take fish for example. I don't think very many fishermen
>would like the idea of countries like Norway selling them surplus fish
>for almost nothing.
Neither would the Norwegian fisherman. This would drive down
the price on the rest of their fish, too . . . The U.S. has
government programs for the destruction of small fruit, and
industry requested regulations for size minimums for sale to
keep supply down. Nonconforming fruit is typically plowed under.
If these same actions were taken without the governmental order,
they'd go to jail . . .
>Just too sad the fish is merely discarded instead
>of being fed to those who are dying of hunger in the world.
If you can figure out a way to get it to them, go collect your
Nobel Prizes for Peace and Economics (and possibly chemistry and
physics). The countries currently suffering from starvation
ar not doing so because there is not enough food, nor even because
they haven't been given enough in relief efforts. The problem is
in distribution. Typically, it is either corruption in government
or rebel forces/freedom fighters/whatevers either taking it for
themselves (often by force) or obstructing the distribution (not
letting relief workers in). Quite frequently these countries
are exporting food while their citizens starve.
>Some cold
>hearts even make the argument that giving the fish to poor people
>would disrupt the world-market.
world market? It would disrupt the local market, too. But the
distribution problem is still there.
>Aside
Much better to let the world bank keep
>heir stranglehold on the poor countries, and fake useless donations.
Donations? World Bank? It make sloans, not donations.
>(Question: Why are countries poor? Because of imperialism and its
>extension in the 21th century: the world market)
Huh? Countries our poor because of corrupt governments used by
whatever the local elite is (whether landowners or communists) to
transfer the existing wealth to themselves or their benefactors
(army, corporation, relatives, whatever). Imperialism needs
trade, not a poor country around. Trade benefits both parties
(or the transaction wouldn't occur). A good profit-minded imperialist
will cause the creation of wealth in the colonial lands (Although
I'm not sure any place but Britain ever got this straight. I
still haven't figured out what France, Belgium, Portugal, etc.
thought they wer doing.).
Lyx--though it's quasi-GPL, not GPL. (Even though it calls itself GPL).
Then again, if it could verify consent of every coder past and present, it *would* change licenses. The problem is figuring out patches more than a couple of years back . .
It's tough to find "journalism" that bad outside of Salon reporting on republicans . . .
Let's see, he misunderstood the basic issues, didn't bother to check the facts, and let his own politics dictate the solution. Hmm, why *is* this on Yahoo instead of Salon?
Apple drew Darwin heavily from NetBSD (though it's now intended to sync with FreeBSD). As even a little bit of fact checking would show, Apple sent back massive number of bug fixes. They weren't requried to do this, but they did.
The writer's complaint isn't that apple doesn't contribute back to open source, but that it doesn't turn over *all* of its projects, and fails to use the Holy GPL.
About 4 weeks ago, I think certain types of memory prices started tumbling. I'd just had a system specced out, and the next morning ddr memory fell through the floor. Initially, crucial.com (micron's retail subsidiary) wasn't merely below the best prices for generic memory on pricewatch (for generic!), but *way* below. It's about $140 for 256mb of ddr memory at the moemnt, regular or ecc..
. also down is sodimm memory (for laptops). We got a pair of 256mb's for $187 each for this laptop from crucial; they'd been noticably higher a few days earlier..
. hawk, economist, who loves price wars (but already moderated this thread and must post anonymously)
(but it unmoderated anyway, sohere it is without anonymity!)
Slashdot Mirror
To get to the 1Gb of ram I need with current motherboards, we had to use 2x256 + 1x512. THe latter runs abour $800. Going to 4x256 and not needing a u160 controller will pretty much cover the motherboard and extra processor.
However, I won't get cold . . . hey, wait a minute! my office is already too hot in the winter--though not as bad as poor Bill next door, who has to open his window when it's 10F outside . . .
ohh, and the noise. Not just all those fans, but I'm going to have 3x15k scsis in here, along with the 4ide drives.
I think this puppy only gets powerred up for the heavy runs, and I work on the laptop most of the time . . .
hawk
Anyone who has only been there in the last five years has never seen a bus from the former system . . .
In Iowa, it spends 2 months at 100. We just kept riding . . .
I love my crown victoria, but unlessi's icy I take a bicycle.
When I closed down my practice to go to grad school, we sold the second car. THis was because we'd be living cdloser than I could park
at my visiting professor gig last year, it was actually *faster* to bike than drive--I had to cdircumnavigate the campus with the car, and could take a straight line in by bicycle. (and bicycles tend to be faster than bus, too . .
I'm not against mass trnasit (though I still regret voting for the
hawk
sissy
I bicycled through the iowa winters, including heavy snow, rain, and days where I needed to swap sunglasses every mile because they had developed too much ice from my breath.
Ice, however, is another matter. That stuff *hurts*, and is how I broke the second helmet. Then again, one day when I had my wife drop me due to ice, when I stepped out of the car onto the curb, I discovered that *it* was covered in a sheet of ice (IIt was painted under the ice, so it wansn't obvious).
> Bicycle vs. Phoenix Summer.
Wimp!
It was Vegas, not Phoenix (OK, so that's about 5F cooler on average). The quack said my cholesterol was high, so to get aerobic exercise. The second evening, someoen didn't want to wait for a light, hit me, and sent me flying 20 feet. *that* hurt a lot more than ice (but my homeowners insurance replaced my laptop sfreen and the first helmet I broke). The bicycle landed on top of me, and I'm still using it . . .
hawk
> There gets to be a point where laptops become too small to be usable.
they're too *big* today. My first laptop had a 40x8 display (but you could use a shift key to see another 8 lines) and *no* popup lid; the display was above the keyboard. With slight reconfiguration, you could have fit a 512x392 display instead.
some days, I even filled the 24k memory . . .
hawk
there's only a handful of cities in the US dense enough for public transportation to be a practical alternative--SF, NY, Chicago, uhh . . . there must be a couplemore . . .
In many (most?) cities/towns, both the total cost *and* the energy consumed are *higher* on a per rider basis.
Too get people in to mass transportation for other than ideological reasons the system needs to meet at least one of these:
1) It's actually more convenient or faster than driving
2) The individual trip costs less than gas
3) mass transit supplemented with taxi and/or car rental costs less than the total cost of car ownership.
hawk
Still, I won't be happy until unleaded is back below $1/Gallon (yes, I'm one of*those* people
hawk
my new workstation will be u160 scsi, but we'll be tossing in 3x40G in raid-5 instead of a tape. I'll need 3 disks to fail to lose any data . . .
The next step seems to be using those warm swap front panel disk cages and just using hard drives as tape . . .
hawk
> As a side note, too many people who've never learned economics confuse
> demand with quantity demanded
*sigh*
Unfortunately, so do many taking economics courses . . . I drill it through them. I ask the question again and again. I call on random people to explain the difference. Still, come test time . . .
I'm not bothered by those who have trouble learning. It's those that *refuse* to learn that bug the daylights out of me . . .
hawk, econ professor
hawk
> done this - like read a newspaper in space through a telescope on earth.
And I thought *I* was cheap. Some folks will do *anything* to sa ve a quarter . . .
hawk, not the master cheapskate any more
> Wouldn't said diety just send his giant cow
nah, a deity might send a giant cow, but a diety would only have skinny cows . . .
:)
hawk
>Queensbury rules instead of punching for the balls without gloves,
Wait a minute--when you nuke someone, it's M of Q as long as youuse a missle?
>I don't like the idea, either, but it's the only useful thing the military industrial complex can do
The Pax Americana (or Pax Atomica; take your pick) is the longest period of general peace (yes,there were exceptions) in europe since the Roman empire fell. That's a serious benefit (at least for Europe. But we got good trading partners and avoiding yet another war over there out of the deal).
Today, though, there's no serious threat of a massive European war; just a few skirmishes here and there. But I'd still rather spend money on being to big to fight than havingt to fight . . .
hawk
No they weren't; not even close. But they were the first to have a controlled, powered, heavier than air flight--but gliders (unpowered), balloons (lighter than air), and I think a couple of failed attempts by others (not controlled
While I"m at it, the Wright brothers claimed that building an autogyro (helicopter) would have been easier, but the problem was making it move forward once it was up . . .
hawk
hawk
:)
hawk
>of trade. It's not specifically because of government corruption, it's
>because they allow unrestrained capitalism. Some guy whose family was
>a little more ruthless, or who fenced off a huge piece of land, has
>many more resources than the poor living around him. That allows him
>to get cheap labour, producing cheap goods, and to keep the money to
>himself
That's not an accurate description of capitalism, but a straw man. To begin with, the Golden Rule (He who haveth the gold, maketh the rules) is anithetical to capitalism.
Captilism is not "the rich get to control things," but rather "the owner of a resource receives the proceeds" which is usually tied with a free market, the ability to buy/sell/refuse to deal at any price you can negotiate. Capitalism without a fee market is facism (Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, etc.--the owners still received proceds, but the state (which to varying extents *was* the government) makes the choices.
The distribution at any point in time has nothign to do with capitalism. An unequitable distribution is an unequitable distribution no matter what the economic system. In your example, the family did not accumulate their wealt from capital, bt from force. You could redistribute it and still be well within capitalist behavior. On top of that, in countries where that kind of accumulation is/was possible, the landowners tend to control the government either de jure or de facto. Again, fascism or even feudalism--governmental corruption in either case.
Note that they can't force the poor in the vicinity to work "cheaply" (by local, not international, standards) without some type of monopoly power: being the only employer, law binding them to that employer (serfdom), collusion with other employers, or a government keeping out foreign competitors. Captitalist thinking has despised all of these since day 1 (and now *I'm* mixing capitalism and free market together as "captilist thinking"
Also, you've shifted from "poor countries" to "countries with poor people". There's a difference (though countries that avoid large numbers of poor people tend to become wealthier.
.
>Reagan's trickle-down theory didn't work in most areas.
The question isn't *whether* there's a trickel-down, but *how much* trickles down--and answers very from "almost nothing" to "more than originally spent."
> If there are
>limited options for workers they basically have to take the jobs
>given, at the wages offered, or starve. In the USA/Canada we've got
>enough jobs to allow people a choice of low-level jobs which prevents
>their being trapped and exploited. In poor countries that are often
>few choices, or agreements between factory/plantation owners exist to
>keep the wages down low enough to deny the workers a real choice.
Again, this isn't capitalism, and can exist only with corrupt government.
>Just because a lot of money is flowing, and trade does benefit both
>parties, doesn't mean that anyone around the two traders is profiting.
No, it doesn't--but they have to spend their money somewhere
>And it doesn't mean that one of the parties isn't looting their
>country to supply those trade goods, hurting everyone else.
that's corruption.
>Just like NAFTA. It "created" wealth, if you listen to the wealthy,
>but that wealth didn't raise the standard of living for the poor and
>middle classes. Wow, the rich got richer. I'm so glad I could
>contribute to that.
Please don't confuse NAFTA with free trade--it does *not* take 400 pages to describe free trade. 400 *words* would be overkill. NAFTA is a set of rules to protect certain groups under the name of free trade. I'm a hard core advocate of free trade--but NAFTA doesn't qualify.
hawk
Oh, maybe somewhere between 1940 and 1970?
you've also gutted corporate research spending in the process . . .
hawk
>because in some industries it would make the prices go up and down
>like a yo-yo,
whereas the price of gasoline doen'st do that . . .
>making it harder for the local population to sell their
>wares. Let's take fish for example. I don't think very many fishermen
>would like the idea of countries like Norway selling them surplus fish
>for almost nothing.
Neither would the Norwegian fisherman. This would drive down
the price on the rest of their fish, too . . . The U.S. has
government programs for the destruction of small fruit, and
industry requested regulations for size minimums for sale to
keep supply down. Nonconforming fruit is typically plowed under.
If these same actions were taken without the governmental order,
they'd go to jail . . .
>Just too sad the fish is merely discarded instead
>of being fed to those who are dying of hunger in the world.
If you can figure out a way to get it to them, go collect your
Nobel Prizes for Peace and Economics (and possibly chemistry and
physics). The countries currently suffering from starvation
ar not doing so because there is not enough food, nor even because
they haven't been given enough in relief efforts. The problem is
in distribution. Typically, it is either corruption in government
or rebel forces/freedom fighters/whatevers either taking it for
themselves (often by force) or obstructing the distribution (not
letting relief workers in). Quite frequently these countries
are exporting food while their citizens starve.
>Some cold
>hearts even make the argument that giving the fish to poor people
>would disrupt the world-market.
world market? It would disrupt the local market, too. But the
distribution problem is still there.
>Aside
Much better to let the world bank keep
>heir stranglehold on the poor countries, and fake useless donations.
Donations? World Bank? It make sloans, not donations.
>(Question: Why are countries poor? Because of imperialism and its
>extension in the 21th century: the world market)
Huh? Countries our poor because of corrupt governments used by
whatever the local elite is (whether landowners or communists) to
transfer the existing wealth to themselves or their benefactors
(army, corporation, relatives, whatever). Imperialism needs
trade, not a poor country around. Trade benefits both parties
(or the transaction wouldn't occur). A good profit-minded imperialist
will cause the creation of wealth in the colonial lands (Although
I'm not sure any place but Britain ever got this straight. I
still haven't figured out what France, Belgium, Portugal, etc.
thought they wer doing.).
hawk
Lyx--though it's quasi-GPL, not GPL. (Even though it calls itself GPL).
Then again, if it could verify consent of every coder past and present, it *would* change licenses. The problem is figuring out patches more than a couple of years back . .
hawk
Let's see, he misunderstood the basic issues, didn't bother to check the facts, and let his own politics dictate the solution. Hmm, why *is* this on Yahoo instead of Salon?
Apple drew Darwin heavily from NetBSD (though it's now intended to sync with FreeBSD). As even a little bit of fact checking would show, Apple sent back massive number of bug fixes. They weren't requried to do this, but they did.
The writer's complaint isn't that apple doesn't contribute back to open source, but that it doesn't turn over *all* of its projects, and fails to use the Holy GPL.
hawk
About 4 weeks ago, I think certain types of memory prices started tumbling. I'd just had a system specced out, and the next morning ddr memory fell through the floor. Initially, crucial.com (micron's retail subsidiary) wasn't merely below the best prices for generic memory on pricewatch (for generic!), but *way* below. It's about $140 for 256mb of ddr memory at the moemnt, regular or ecc..
.
also down is sodimm memory (for laptops). We got a pair of 256mb's for $187 each for this laptop from crucial; they'd been noticably higher a few days earlier..
.
hawk, economist, who loves price wars (but already moderated this thread and must post anonymously)
(but it unmoderated anyway, sohere it is without anonymity!)