Look no further, check out the ION offerings. They can be run fully passively without any moving parts (although manufacturers tend to build complete systems with a single (smallish) fan, you can get a passive Ion mobo with a passive fan from Zotac) yet fully capable of playing back anything. And yes, it does run Linux (http://www.xbmc.org/).
If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this, written by the wife: "I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high)."
So we can take this "their friend sold their photo out" theory to rest.
It's interesting to see that bullshit like this is taken seriously by the/. community. Of course, you can say that "intellectual property" is just a "social construct". It is - just like any other property. But you should not forget that all that stuff (software, entertainment, etc) are stuff that people find useful - and they are even useful in the sense that they enable us to make more (or more advanced) stuff. If you go down this 'ony real stuff counts' path, soon you will arrive to the point that only work that actually produces "real stuff" counts - so management, engineering, R&D etc is absolutely unneeded. I don't know if it's necessary to point out that if the world would be really so focused on "producing real stuff" it would itself real soon in the stone age. If you need actual evidence, take a look at the socialist countries of the second half of the 20. century: the prevailing idea was there that farmers and blue-collars are the ones that really do something - the "intellectuel" class was considered suspicious and kept as small as possible. Well, needless to say, it didn't do any good to the economy.
It's interesting, how the reviewer first talked about the MacBook being a different class than the el cheapo laptops yet in the comparison one the most defining characteristics of a business class laptop, construction (you know, the reason that (ex-)IBM laptops cost so much) did not have its own category, it was lumped together with "asthetics". (And yes, construction-wise the old MacBook was some weak plastic shit, I have not seen the new one yet, though.)
They don't want half the price of the card be the cost of the card itself
Well, actually they want all of the price to be the price of the card itself, since they are selling memory cards, not music. The music part is just some "freebie" thrown in to make the product more appealing to buyers - it more or less serves the same purpose as the Batman action figure that I found in the box of my breakfast cereal. I know that it is hard to grasp this concept since traditionally it has worked the other way round, but it is not exactly novel - for example the Kingston USB drive I bought a few months ago came with some stupid games on it - and I certainly did not pay for the games but for the drive.
There is such a thing (google for replaygain), but it's not about that, it's simple compression, i.e. making the really quiet sounds nearly as loud as the loudest ones.
There are AV engines that do this emulation stuff for heuristic virus detection (and also as a general way to handle exe packers and various anti-debug techniques).
New ideas get shared because they are very hard to keep secret.
And that, my liege, is why patents were not meant to apply to ideas but to actual inventions. Having the idea that some elastic stuff would come really handy, but that's just an idea that anyone can come up with. But, on the other hand, the process of vulcanization is an entirely different beast: it can be kept a secret rather effectively and it really takes some hard work (or huge luck) to come up with that.
So, in a few years' time I will be using keyboards lacking tactile feedback and glossy, fingerprint-stained displays. I just can't find words to express how eagerly I wait this:)
OK, so touch keyboards were really a wave of the future in the early 80s and I was somewhat disappointed that my C=64 had conventional keys - at least until I actually got around to try to use a touch keyboard (and decided that it totally sucked).
You DO test your product with malformed archives, don't you? I know I do. And our product - if possible at all - ignores the problems and extracts the archive anyway or if it's borked beyond recovery then report it as such. But crashing?... Please.
Of course, the smart thing would be that ISPs distribute the content themselves, so it does not really cost them in terms of external bandwith. That's exactly what the major ISPs here plan to do with IPTV.
That is utter bullshit. Basically all the components you list are compatible through the whole T4x range, just check out the Hardware Maintenance Manual. Yeah, the memory was upgraded from PC2100 to PC2700 in the T41(p), but that's all (and you can use PC2700 instead of PC2100, though mixing them may not work). And the T42 and T42p DO have compatible components.
Care to prove that by linking something relevant?...
However, submitting a format for standardization and running around buying votes and playing dirty tricks all the way are two rather distinct things and MS is being investigated for the latter (which, sure as hell, was not suggested to it by the EU).
Well, the question is: what do you want to preserve?
If just a DVD-quality copy of the final cut, then it's certainly not a problem. If you are aiming at preserving the final cut in its glourious uber-HD, lightly compressed form, things get a bit trickier. If you want it all - all the shots, the various data (textures, models, etc) used in digital production in their raw, original form, well, in that case we are speaking of storage space well beyond what you found even in a heavy torrent user's computer.
Let this be a lesson to the makers of these types of machines
No, let this be a lesson for the voters: if something as obvious as a modell with physical alterations and - for crying out loud! - a different type designation could be sold to the districts bypassing all the security measres that should have been in place preventing this, then how do you trust these exact same security procedures to catch subtle modifications of the software?
I would like to see these "supercomputers" run a simple parallel benchmark
But the thing is, these clusters are not made for running benchmarks, but for real (and specialized) calculations. My home server processes data for the World Community Grid and I see that the client is silently numbercrunching for a few hours and then communicates for a few seconds (at the amazing speed of about 50 kB/s). And for this, actual usage the grid shows a performance that could only be replicated by a powerful supercomputer.
Where does that definition come from? And anyway, history gives us ample proof that no right is irrevocable. None.
To point out that Capitol is not defending its rights here.
But, they do. You might disagree with how they defend them or with the implementation of these rights (or even with the concept of copyright itself) but there's no denying that in the current legal framework they do have a right that they are defending.
I have only seen this on write back caching vs journaled filesystems (ext3 and reiser) and while it's almost four years it seems that wb caching CAN damage journaling filesystems (probably because the journal itself is also only partially written)
That's probably because write-back caching is enabled on your HDD but disabled in your OS (that's the default with Linux). Turning on write-back caching on your OS which will probably will make much more difference than a larger HDD cache.
However, write-back caching is dangerous, since in case of a power failure, it may seriously damage your filesystem.
Slashdot Mirror
Look no further, check out the ION offerings. They can be run fully passively without any moving parts (although manufacturers tend to build complete systems with a single (smallish) fan, you can get a passive Ion mobo with a passive fan from Zotac) yet fully capable of playing back anything. And yes, it does run Linux (http://www.xbmc.org/).
If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this, written by the wife:
"I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high)."
So we can take this "their friend sold their photo out" theory to rest.
Of course, that quote (like much of the Zeitgeist movie (which is just a collection of internet garbage)) is pure fabrication.
I was not aware of the fact that Microsoft also makes guns. Or did he shot his parents dead with the Xbox controller?...
It's interesting to see that bullshit like this is taken seriously by the /. community.
Of course, you can say that "intellectual property" is just a "social construct". It is - just like any other property. But you should not forget that all that stuff (software, entertainment, etc) are stuff that people find useful - and they are even useful in the sense that they enable us to make more (or more advanced) stuff. If you go down this 'ony real stuff counts' path, soon you will arrive to the point that only work that actually produces "real stuff" counts - so management, engineering, R&D etc is absolutely unneeded. I don't know if it's necessary to point out that if the world would be really so focused on "producing real stuff" it would itself real soon in the stone age.
If you need actual evidence, take a look at the socialist countries of the second half of the 20. century: the prevailing idea was there that farmers and blue-collars are the ones that really do something - the "intellectuel" class was considered suspicious and kept as small as possible. Well, needless to say, it didn't do any good to the economy.
It's interesting, how the reviewer first talked about the MacBook being a different class than the el cheapo laptops yet in the comparison one the most defining characteristics of a business class laptop, construction (you know, the reason that (ex-)IBM laptops cost so much) did not have its own category, it was lumped together with "asthetics". (And yes, construction-wise the old MacBook was some weak plastic shit, I have not seen the new one yet, though.)
Well, actually they want all of the price to be the price of the card itself, since they are selling memory cards, not music. The music part is just some "freebie" thrown in to make the product more appealing to buyers - it more or less serves the same purpose as the Batman action figure that I found in the box of my breakfast cereal.
I know that it is hard to grasp this concept since traditionally it has worked the other way round, but it is not exactly novel - for example the Kingston USB drive I bought a few months ago came with some stupid games on it - and I certainly did not pay for the games but for the drive.
There is such a thing (google for replaygain), but it's not about that, it's simple compression, i.e. making the really quiet sounds nearly as loud as the loudest ones.
There are AV engines that do this emulation stuff for heuristic virus detection (and also as a general way to handle exe packers and various anti-debug techniques).
But, the thing is, AFAIK the Wiemar Republic also had similar anti-hate-speech laws. And we all know how much good did it.
Well, telecom (and railway) systems were never exclusively C, CHILL, for example, was (is) also popular.
And that, my liege, is why patents were not meant to apply to ideas but to actual inventions.
Having the idea that some elastic stuff would come really handy, but that's just an idea that anyone can come up with. But, on the other hand, the process of vulcanization is an entirely different beast: it can be kept a secret rather effectively and it really takes some hard work (or huge luck) to come up with that.
So, in a few years' time I will be using keyboards lacking tactile feedback and glossy, fingerprint-stained displays. I just can't find words to express how eagerly I wait this :)
OK, so touch keyboards were really a wave of the future in the early 80s and I was somewhat disappointed that my C=64 had conventional keys - at least until I actually got around to try to use a touch keyboard (and decided that it totally sucked).
You DO test your product with malformed archives, don't you? I know I do. And our product - if possible at all - ignores the problems and extracts the archive anyway or if it's borked beyond recovery then report it as such. But crashing?... Please.
Of course, the smart thing would be that ISPs distribute the content themselves, so it does not really cost them in terms of external bandwith. That's exactly what the major ISPs here plan to do with IPTV.
That is utter bullshit. Basically all the components you list are compatible through the whole T4x range, just check out the Hardware Maintenance Manual. Yeah, the memory was upgraded from PC2100 to PC2700 in the T41(p), but that's all (and you can use PC2700 instead of PC2100, though mixing them may not work). And the T42 and T42p DO have compatible components.
Care to prove that by linking something relevant?...
However, submitting a format for standardization and running around buying votes and playing dirty tricks all the way are two rather distinct things and MS is being investigated for the latter (which, sure as hell, was not suggested to it by the EU).
Well, the question is: what do you want to preserve?
If just a DVD-quality copy of the final cut, then it's certainly not a problem.
If you are aiming at preserving the final cut in its glourious uber-HD, lightly compressed form, things get a bit trickier.
If you want it all - all the shots, the various data (textures, models, etc) used in digital production in their raw, original form, well, in that case we are speaking of storage space well beyond what you found even in a heavy torrent user's computer.
Since ID is not a science but poses as one, it has a lot to do with the board and it was absolutely right that she did not remain neutral.
No, let this be a lesson for the voters: if something as obvious as a modell with physical alterations and - for crying out loud! - a different type designation could be sold to the districts bypassing all the security measres that should have been in place preventing this, then how do you trust these exact same security procedures to catch subtle modifications of the software?
But the thing is, these clusters are not made for running benchmarks, but for real (and specialized) calculations. My home server processes data for the World Community Grid and I see that the client is silently numbercrunching for a few hours and then communicates for a few seconds (at the amazing speed of about 50 kB/s). And for this, actual usage the grid shows a performance that could only be replicated by a powerful supercomputer.
Where does that definition come from? And anyway, history gives us ample proof that no right is irrevocable. None.
But, they do. You might disagree with how they defend them or with the implementation of these rights (or even with the concept of copyright itself) but there's no denying that in the current legal framework they do have a right that they are defending.
"[i]Copyright is not a right (despite its name). It is a legal privilege[/i]"
And a legal privilege is... a right, right?
What was the point of your post, again?
I have only seen this on write back caching vs journaled filesystems (ext3 and reiser) and while it's almost four years it seems that wb caching CAN damage journaling filesystems (probably because the journal itself is also only partially written)
That's probably because write-back caching is enabled on your HDD but disabled in your OS (that's the default with Linux). Turning on write-back caching on your OS which will probably will make much more difference than a larger HDD cache.
However, write-back caching is dangerous, since in case of a power failure, it may seriously damage your filesystem.