Except that they limited themselves to a 60HP engine (from the article) whereas this unit uses a 200hP engine and produces 600LBs of thrust. I'd bet they would have got off the ground if they went with the bigger engine.
As I remember it, they were following a kit. Perhaps they'll revisit it.
Sounds like you want a NAS unit with capabilities for a Small Office, Home Office (SOHO). Strangely, I find no mention of the Thecus line of NAS units. http://www.thecus.com/ These would be worth investigating. I personally run the thecus N5200, and two of my clients run the N5200 PRO's. The N5200 series are the only SOHO NAS units with 5 available slots and raid 5.
One of my clients has a ReadyNAS, so I've had the opportunity to compare all 3 units directly. Note that this unit wasn't a ReadyNAS+, but from what I've read, there's been no increase in speed. The largest difference is speed of file serving, although the web-based configuration is a factor as well. The Thecus blows the ReadyNAS out of the water. ReadyNAS gets about 10MB/s on a good day, and the Thecus N5200Pro units approach 30 MB/s. My older N5200 unit does about 20MB/s over gige.
The N5200's have other advantages- 5 bays for instance. They also run linux, with the source for each model available at Thecus.
They also have modules for special types of file serving, and you can even ssh to the box while it's running.
Here's the thing. I fell into NAS because I needed more storage space at home, to hold all my business data. And system backups. And stuff. I started with a home-built linux server running samba, but quickly realized that stock linux raid fails in the areas of raid expansion (adding more drives) and raid migration (let's run raid 5, now that I have enough cash to actually buy 3 drives). You can migrate, but you have to put the data somewhere else while you're doing it. I wanted a simple box that would do those things for me. On my N5200 unit, I have personally migrated from raid 1 to raid 5, and expanded the raid from 250GB to 320 GB drives. I now have 5 drives, will be expanding the raid with 750's soon. That would be have rather painful on a simple linux based server. I don't know about Freenas, but the hardware it supports is rather limited. Same thing for a zfs solution, not to mention that I'd have run Solaris -yuch.
If you're going to fully populate the unit from the start with the biggest drives available, raid migration and expansion won't mean much. The Thecus N5200PRO still wins as it's the only unit with 5 bays, so you get the full 4 TB's possible. That being said, the linux/freenas/zfs server options can be nice, because you'll have more control over your server, and can possibly be cheaper.
The big point here is that raid is not backup. raid is high availability, and you'll need some way to back it up. What do I do? Well, since the raid is HA, all I need is simple windows box with raid 0 or spanning and a few drives. That's if I'm doing CIFS. It'd be a linux box and nfs if that were what all my home/office boxes were. As long as the Thecus or the backup is up, I'm good.
Hmmm, adblock does work with rc1 & rc2. I have noticed, however, a significantly higher incidence of browser crashes with it, about 3 crashes a day while doing general browsing. It appears that some sites are extremely allergic to having their adds blocked. Note that I'm running on Opensuse 10.3 with an ext3 filesystem most of the time. I haven't seen a crash for the windows XP version.
In the meantime, I moved to the 3.1 alpha (minefield) in an attempt to address the crash frequency. That seems to help, but I haven't done any testing to see if the increase in stability can be attributed to newer version or the lack of adblock, since adblock isn't supported for the 3.1 series yet. I should probably check that.:)
Firefox 3 is faster, does things nicer, and is more useful in general. Firefox 3 is a no-brainer for windows. For linux, there are a few issues left for some specific configurations. If you're using an ext3 filesystem, ensure that your about:config setting for toolkit.storage.synchronous is set to 0, and that you do regular backups of your ~/.mozilla directory. Otherwise, it's all good.
That's nice. But what do your troubles with some outdated regulation about individual kiosks have to do with First Sale doctrine?
We're talking about the sale of items that don't require inspection.
We're talking about the sale of items that require the protection of copyright, as they are trival to copy, and the value of the item lies in it's wide distribution.
We're talking about items that do have a specific time value on that distribution, unlike your kiosks, which require a significant amount of time to fabric and distribute.
We're talking about items that have not been ordered by the receipient.
In short, your example here isn't relevant to the discussion. Do you have a better one?
Now, the usefulness of being to send out an advance copy of a book, a cd, a press release or something similar with the expectation that the item will not be further distributed is a subject which might be worthy of discussion. I would submit to you that such usefulness is of relative little use to the general population, and as such, is not worthy of any new laws or regulation. I might suggest that those entities which would find value in such restrictions prepare contracts in advance with parties that would receive these items so that the owners' current copyrights are upheld.
I find no value in suggestions that the public good is enhanced by automatic restrictions on redistribution. Can you provide an example or a case in which the public good is better served by such changes? If not, then why suggest that the court has made a mistake in this court?
Read the white paper, look at the load Vista puts on all hardware operations to enforce DRM. Everything you do on Vista is slower so that MS can "protect" DRM files, even when you are using them, or have no intention to do so.
Sure, the DRM infestation on Vista doesn't break things if you personally have no DRM "equipped" media- no itunes, no netflicks, etc. But you still get the overhead and consequent slowdown.
The change in sound API (Application Programming Interface) and the underlying sound models means that the older sound cards won't work without updated drivers. Creative sound card owners get screwed as the sound hardware (DSP) on the card that they already paid for isn't utilized, because the DRM on Vista can't trust it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear- Vista is useless on older hardware that only supports 512 MB of ram. You know, those 3 & 4 year old systems most people are using. Yes, I've used vista on low end Dell with just 512 of ram, and it took minutes just to open menus.
Completely unuseable. On a brand new dual core with 512MB, it might be acceptable, I dunno.
Most experienced Windows users and 95% of businesses (that being a large portion of MS installs) wouldn't touch a new MS OS until SP1. As SP1 only has been out a month, that implies that it's had about 1 month of testing by the people who need it work, and aren't just playing games with it. I get paid to work with bleeding edge HPC systems- I just want my home PC to run well.
If you already have 85-90% of the market with your current OS, I wouldn't be crowing about your new OS getting to just 10% of the market, given that it's been released to the general public for over 15 months. Here's what businesses (the largest part of MS sales remember) are doing:
By December 2007, only 6.3% of enterprise users working in Windows reported that they were on Vista, according to Forrester. Although that was an increase from only 0.7% in January 2007, Windows XP's share didn't move during the year: It started 2007 at 89.5% of all Windows users and ended at 89.8%.
It appears that Vista made headway only at the expense of the even older Windows 2000, Iqbal said. "Vista's increase mirrored the decrease in Windows 2000," he said. "The statistics speak for themselves: They're holding on to XP." http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9073540&pageNumber=2
In the past, when MS released SP1 & SP2 for XP, they weren't competing with themselves.
Microsoft has a lot of staff, but they don't have infinite resources. You're joking right? Microsoft has cash reserves of over $40 billion, and in today's IT world, that's as close to infinite as it gets. If MS felt the need to so, hiring enough people to do more SP releases for XP would have been trivial.
I suggest to you that no service packs were released during the last 3 years so as to not interfere (i.e. make XP more desirable and easy to use) with the release of Vista. Just poor execution that Vista's release was delayed for so long.
I'm not claiming that the specific group of packages, updates, & changes known as SP3 could have been released 3 years ago- I'm claiming that an appropriate group of packages, updates, & changes for the timeframe could have been released 3 years ago, and should have been. MS simply choose not to do so.
Feel free to document (well, to that extent that I've documented) this lack of pain for the users of XP.
And:
broken sound API's (change for change sake)
Lack of drivers for older hardware
Useless on older machines with just 512 MB of RAM
too many versions
SP1 released just last month
Did I mention the DRM? http://practical-tech.com/entertainment/vistas-multimedia-mess/
As someone already mentioned, MS has 2 OS's in competition, and the newer one is losing. Why is it surprising that they would provide a "fix" to XP that makes it less desirable? Let's face it- they could have put out SP3 at any time in the last three years, and should have. They took the time to pull SP3 last week when it was conflicting with some MS Point of Sale software, but they don't have the resources to test it on any HP systems with AMD cpus's?
No, the none cipher is targeted at HPC clusters with private networks- When I want to use ssh as an rsh replacement, and don't need encrypt the same thing 100 times to 100 different machines.
Well, I know that.45 ball ammo won't penetrate a maxtor 40 GB drive casing- just makes a nice big dent with a nicely mushroomed round. Fired the round myself. Try it out. we had a guy with a.44 magnum and his shot punched clean through the spindle. We had a tachometer at the range that day, and the.45 was doing about 900fps. No holes in the drive though.
Now, that doesn't mean that a.45 doesn't have more stopping power than 9mm, just that it wouldn't penetrate the aluminum casing of a hard drive. Fortunately for us, the bad guys don't use old drives as armor.
No, those are appropriate hdparm numbers. Maybe not useful, but appropriate. You just have to know what's being measured.
The first number is entirely using cache- both what's on the drive and any available system ram. Max theoretical, downhill, wind-at-your-back, instantaneous speed.
The second one is measured transfer speed. The 55MB/s is a "real" number in that you can read that much real data from the platter in that time. I do a lot of drive tests (running an a 4yr old linux cluster) and 55Mb/s is just over U320 drive speed for 10K scsi drives (My drives tend to max out right at 50MB/s)
Don't knock hdparm too much- it's a decent but rough first approximation, and most linux distros install it by default. Plus, it's quick.
First off, people have already died due to the release of classified information- that's partially why we have a system to protect that kind of information in the first place.
Second off, we're already in a war, and people are dying now. Releasing more classified information might increase that total, but not perhaps, more than making uninformed or misinformed decisions. See: Invasion of Iraq, part II, faulty intelligence, current death tolls.
Thirdly, to paraphrase you, "you can't just have vital information withheld because some fuckwad decides to do so." That person might not have the best interests of the country in mind. They might decide to withhold information for personal gain, political reasons or revenge. See: CIA agent outing, Valerie Plame, lack of document release about the leak source by White House.
For every 2-bit wiki and website out there that publishes a classified or FOUO document, we have warehouses, and I mean warehouses, full of stuff that somebody in the government decided to hide away, for one reason or other. Democracy is based on the proposition that the citizens are informed about the matters on which they decide. They are conflicting reasons to release and to hide information, and the idea that we should simply take the government at it's word is silly. Case in point: J. edgar Hoover's use of the FBI to find and keep damaging information on US citizens- http://www.crimelibrary.com/hoover/hoovermain.htm
In the end, those people who do decide to release vital information are prosecuted, see: Rosenbergs. Walker. et. al. The thing is, without the extraordinary release of information that our society allows, we wouldn't have known about Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. Or Abu Garib. Or, in this case, potentially illegal acts at Guantanamo. Or, for next week, the illegal intercepts by NSA of all US traffic, before 9/11. (fat lot of good that did us)
If it's not classified, it's not a threat to national security. Given the amount of useless info the Bush administration has classified (White house emails, papers documents and political strategies), one could easily make the case that even classification no longer implies the threat of danger to national security for some items.
Having held a clearance, one requiring special background investigation, in the military for 8 years, I will say that it's really important to protect some information. It's just as important to determine what information must have protection, and what information doesn't require it.
What's interesting in this matter is that the document in question is marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only(U/FOUO).
Check out this link http://www.ioss.gov/WhatDoesFOUOMean.html for an explanation. To summarize, U/FOUO simply means that the material is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, this is material not intended to be available to the public, but not a threat to national security. That's simple enough to understand. Now that it has been released to the public, we can access whether the U/FOUO rating was justified. In general, operating instructions for military installations are not for public consumption, simply due to operational security concerns. On the other hand, this document relates to allegations concerning illegal behavior by members of the US Armed services, and their commanders, much in the same manner as those prosecuted for their actions at Abu Garib.
So here's the question- does the normal concern for operations security override the need to expose and investigate potential illegal activities? One could argue either way- but having seen the document in question, this looks more like a case of "let's not let the light of day into our questionable activities", rather than a genuine need to protect sensitive information.
No reasonable person would claim that this is a case of national security, as not even the government considers this material relevant to national security, but simply asks that the material be treated as such. Actually, that's fairly useful view into the government mind- "We have this information here, and it's vital to national security, so we will classify it and ask that all who handle it treat it that way. OK, so now we have this other information, which isn't vital to national security, but we're going to ask all who handle it to treat it that way too." It takes a certain mindset to think that way, and I don't have it.
Conversely, think about how nice it would be for someone who's never driven a car if the manual and further driving instructions were projected on the windshield? Rather than having to pick up a phone book, they'd be able to just hit their On-Star(tm) button and have a driving instructor come out an help them.
Of course, after 5000 miles of driving, it might be less fun. Let's not even talk about how annoying it would be on your second car.
Bad analogies aside, how time does a "complete newbie" spend on a computer before he/she isn't a newbie anymore? What percentage of the total time they spend on the computer is that? How much should we annoy people who know how to use a computer pampering to those just learning? I'm thinking that skying does it right: "bunny slopes" and "ski instructors" allow newbies a graceful environment without impeding those heading to normal slopes.
Besides, don't we already have Macs for the computing impaired?:)
While I like SystemRescueCD a lot, and use it for almost every windows install now, you have to see the humor in a set of instructions (from the link, not the disk) that say:
Note: Before we begin, know that 1.) there is command line work ahead, and 2.) partitioning an existing hard drive is a risky undertaking that could go all kinds of wrong. Make sure your hard drive is well backed up before you begin. when the point of the instructions is to help you make that first backup.
It's a better idea to use the systemrescuecd in combination with a usb drive, and have partimage write the image to the usb drive, rather than try to repartition the image on the first go.
Another caveat with any of these backup tools is that they may have issues with Vista, and it's changed format for the MBR. Make sure that any imaging tool backs up the MasterBootRecord as well.
As I haven't done any Vista saves restores yet, I can't talk about that. For XP and earlier I still find the old ghost 2003 app to be the best bet for restore disks.
Ok, so it's not for HPC systems. I'm betting that the number of servers/server farms out there may make this attractive for the non hpc users, if the 3 way is significantly cheaper than a 4 way. If you can get this on a blade, you get a 50% increase in CPU power for non-parallel tasks.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, a three way box might be really interesting for some HPC loads as well. The low latency is a really big issue for some codes, and the three way could be more scalable (with some hand coding and profiling) than a 4 socket box with non-uniform latencies. The would apply to MPI code written and optimized for specific tasks- not the simple parallelization that some compilers can do. There's a significant number of HPC users who are happy running non-parallel code on hundreds of dual socket systems who might be able to scale fairly easily to 3 way systems. Actually, the code is parallel, to the extent that it runs on both cpus, but these particular users don't want the network latency for MPI code, even on fast networks. They could scale to three way with little loss of performance on one of these.
Hmmm, a third thought occurs to me. A 3 socket system might also be really,really useful for codes that are I/O intensive- let the traditional mpi code run on the first two cpus and let the third handle OS tasks, network operations and high performance filesystem operations. The latency is less of a value in this case, but simply keeping the OS from interrupting the 2 cpus running MPI could be a big win as well. Call it 2N+1 computing.
Ok, I admit it- I like options when it comes to designing systems to meet the needs of different users.
Nyah, you can get a Force 10 e1200 router with 14 slots for about $50k plus what ever the current cost per blade is, probably $100K per blade or so. They have blades with 4 10Gb ports and ones with 16 10Gb ports for a total of 224 10Gb. Check out the Eseries Routers
That's less than $10k per 10Gb port for the hardware. Given that google returns about $20K per port per month, the hardware cost is pretty inconsequential.
Then again, I'm not a network engineer, so I may be reading these price sheets incorrectly. Of course, the trick is to use dark fibre and then find some way to attach to the internet, without having to pay the $80k for the 40Gbs bandwidth you're using.
Uh, duh, the OOXML spec simples says "Do this the way Word95 did". That's it. That's the extent of the "standard" and the "documentation" for the process of "doing it the way Word95 did".
How the heck do you implement that?. The trouble will come if OOXML isn't quite so open if and when these tags are used.
Isn't quite so open? ROTFLMAO. This "standard" is a bloody nightmare of not being open. Here's a quote from Groklaw that sums up the openness of this "standard:"
"Fully documented? Open XML? Sir, you jest. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't need to make Novell and Xandros and Linspire sign NDAs and then write translators for them, now, would they?"
Perhaps that's the way it was a decade ago.
When I worked for the USAF during the cold war, spying on americans was illegal. Evidently, those in charge now believe that spying on Americans is acceptable now.
Currently, the US intelligence infrastructure seems to have new missions.
It gathers intelligence from and about the American people.
It makes justifications for actions of the current administration.
I thinking that we should a lot more information about the amount of our taxes that are being used for these purposes, don't you?
Of course, if the President didn't actually have a hand in this incident, that would imply that no "Executive Privilege" was at stake, se he wouldn't have consulted with these folks. And, of course, the president obviously didn't have a hand in the firing of these US attorneys, because that would mean that they were fired for political reasons. So why is the White House claiming "Executive Privilege" again?
LOL- you're complaining about wattage for 1 TF when they did it on a pair of friggin' video cards?? That's gotta be what, 500 watts total for whole PC?
We've run several PC clusters and IBM mainframes that didn't have a 1TF of capacity. You don't want know much power went into them. Yes, our modern blade-based clusters are more condensed, but they're still power hogs for dual and quad core systems.
Blue gene is considered to be a power efficient cluster and the fastest, but it still draws 7kw per rack of 1024 cpus. At 4.71 TF per rack, even Blue Gene pulls 1.5kw per teraflop.
Yes, it's a pair of video cards, and not a general purpose cpu, but your average user doesn't have ability to program and use a Blue Gene style solution either. They just might get some real use out of this with a game Physics Engine that taps into this computing power.
No, they did. The article talked about the need to destroy some of the material for testing. Fortunately, one collector of swords donated 4 of them for the effort.
After destructive testing of those, and more on some other fragments from previous testing, they were able to devise a method that does not destroy the sword. The new method
strips off a surface layer on a spot the size of a dime, which can then be polished out. The authors claimed that the spot was almost indistinguishable from the rest of the sword.
What's really interesting was that there was information in the article that seemed to claim that they could duplicate the process. They had the alloy composition required to recreate the molecular structure, specific heat treating techniques and listed some ideas on the actual working of the blade needed to build one. They also gave a very plausible theory as to why the knowledge was lost- the swords would require ores with a vanadium or Molybdenum content in the 100s of ppm, which was available only from certain mines in that era. Once those mines had played out, the heating and folding techniques the smiths learned would not produce the wootz on "normal" ore, so the smiths wouldn't bother to teach their apprentices secrets that didn't work.
There were 2 articles. The original, which nothing about upgrades, and a follow-up which had information about performance after upgraded. The slashdot summary is correct- the article noted that upgrading produced a much slower system in several cases.
What I found interesting was the default install size- A clean install of Vista 64 bit is sitting at over 12GB!! That's 3 times the size WinXP. I note that the author of the article reported that without comment. Ouch.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow. I just swapped the world 'Israel' in the above with 'Palestine' in the comment above. Scary how well it reads. I'll bold any other changes for readability.
Just to be sure, I'm not an Israeli or Palestinian. I'm not a Jew, a Christian, or Muslim. I'm an American, and it's always amazing to me to see
how much American effort goes into protecting the interests of the Israeli state. (and the Big Oil companies, can't forget them.) What's also interesting is how much misunderstanding goes into any conversation along these lines.
So consider Palestine's situation. They are as legitimate a nation as any other. There are tons of border and land disputes in the world and Palestine is obviously not an exception. But they exist, they have sovereignty and are a democratic, legitimate state.
It is also worth noting: Palestine does *not* try to invade and expand into is neighbors for the purpose of getting more land. In fact, since its occupation in 1948, Palenstine has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it (sometimes with extreme responses, it is true) but hasn't declared war first itself. Granted, one of those cases was a neighbor closing Palestine's access anywhere, which internationally is recognized as an act of war.
My point is: Palestine is fighting for recognition and survival. Its neighbor which attacks it is fighting to kill every Palestinian man, woman and child. They want its land. They want its people dead. Furthermore, a lot of the violence is carried out by military groups that have no accountability internationally. Palestine on the other hand has to answer to the world (or at least, they are a government that makes decisions and the world can hold Palestine accountable for them...there is nobody to even negotiate with or hold responsible on the Israeli side because nobody has any leadership or control over the military apparatus...it is all different factions).
Now, to address the point about U.S. media. Palestine is critized ALL THE TIME. In fact, my big complain with Fox News is that they always run Israeli human-interest stories and report on facts as "Israeli sources say" without giving any of the Palestinian perspective! CNN is the same way.
The international community certainly (or U.N.0 doesn't seem to be stepping up to say "Palestine has the right to exist as a Muslim state; we will defend this right". I mean, you can hate the muslims or not but your hatred shouldn't give you the right to kill them and take away their land does it?
As I said, it's scary how the same statements work for either side.
Sorry to hear you had such a problem with your linux install. Good idea to try linux, and points for recognizing that linux could handle all your needs.
I have linux running on 2 separate LCD-equipped workstations, as well as my laptop. No issues, no fuss. Installed it myself.
I also have windows XP and windows 2000 running on three of my systems, which I also installed myself. No more or less issues than the linux.
Just because you had a problem doing your first install of new OS doesn't imply world shattering implications for the usability of linux for the "common man". Perhaps the issue is not the ability of linux to do the work, but your lack of experience installing it? Did you install your windows machine from scratch? If so, how did that go?
It's important to note that the common man doesn't install his OS these days. I'm not complaining about your lack of linux knowledge, just your decision to decide that linux isn't ready for everyone after just bad experience. You've used Windows- would you say that your last crash or hang was due to windows OS issues or World of Warcraft?
If we are going to discuss whether linux is ready for desktop use, perhaps we should look at many data points, and try and do comparisons on things that are in the same category.
That is good summary of what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately for the average user, and at variance with standard Car owner's manual practices, Microsoft still retains "control" of the software via "validation". If Microsoft chooses to deny validation, then the owner no longer has "fair use" rights. It's not unlike GM putting the owners manual on a chain, so you can't take it out of the car.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that they limited themselves to a 60HP engine (from the article) whereas this unit uses a 200hP engine and produces 600LBs of thrust. I'd bet they would have got off the ground if they went with the bigger engine.
As I remember it, they were following a kit. Perhaps they'll revisit it.
Sounds like you want a NAS unit with capabilities for a Small Office, Home Office (SOHO). Strangely, I find no mention of the Thecus line of NAS units. http://www.thecus.com/ These would be worth investigating. I personally run the thecus N5200, and two of my clients run the N5200 PRO's. The N5200 series are the only SOHO NAS units with 5 available slots and raid 5.
One of my clients has a ReadyNAS, so I've had the opportunity to compare all 3 units directly. Note that this unit wasn't a ReadyNAS+, but from what I've read, there's been no increase in speed. The largest difference is speed of file serving, although the web-based configuration is a factor as well. The Thecus blows the ReadyNAS out of the water. ReadyNAS gets about 10MB/s on a good day, and the Thecus N5200Pro units approach 30 MB/s. My older N5200 unit does about 20MB/s over gige.
Today's prices are even more convincing- The N5200PRO is available for about $750 at http://www.eaegis.com/, http://www.newegg.com/ has the ReadyNAS+ for about $900.
The N5200's have other advantages- 5 bays for instance. They also run linux, with the source for each model available at Thecus. They also have modules for special types of file serving, and you can even ssh to the box while it's running.
Here's the thing. I fell into NAS because I needed more storage space at home, to hold all my business data. And system backups. And stuff. I started with a home-built linux server running samba, but quickly realized that stock linux raid fails in the areas of raid expansion (adding more drives) and raid migration (let's run raid 5, now that I have enough cash to actually buy 3 drives). You can migrate, but you have to put the data somewhere else while you're doing it. I wanted a simple box that would do those things for me. On my N5200 unit, I have personally migrated from raid 1 to raid 5, and expanded the raid from 250GB to 320 GB drives. I now have 5 drives, will be expanding the raid with 750's soon. That would be have rather painful on a simple linux based server. I don't know about Freenas, but the hardware it supports is rather limited. Same thing for a zfs solution, not to mention that I'd have run Solaris -yuch.
If you're going to fully populate the unit from the start with the biggest drives available, raid migration and expansion won't mean much. The Thecus N5200PRO still wins as it's the only unit with 5 bays, so you get the full 4 TB's possible. That being said, the linux/freenas/zfs server options can be nice, because you'll have more control over your server, and can possibly be cheaper.
The big point here is that raid is not backup. raid is high availability, and you'll need some way to back it up. What do I do? Well, since the raid is HA, all I need is simple windows box with raid 0 or spanning and a few drives. That's if I'm doing CIFS. It'd be a linux box and nfs if that were what all my home/office boxes were. As long as the Thecus or the backup is up, I'm good.
Good luck on your search
Hmmm, adblock does work with rc1 & rc2. I have noticed, however, a significantly higher incidence of browser crashes with it, about 3 crashes a day while doing general browsing. It appears that some sites are extremely allergic to having their adds blocked. Note that I'm running on Opensuse 10.3 with an ext3 filesystem most of the time. I haven't seen a crash for the windows XP version.
In the meantime, I moved to the 3.1 alpha (minefield) in an attempt to address the crash frequency. That seems to help, but I haven't done any testing to see if the increase in stability can be attributed to newer version or the lack of adblock, since adblock isn't supported for the 3.1 series yet. I should probably check that. :)
Firefox 3 is faster, does things nicer, and is more useful in general. Firefox 3 is a no-brainer for windows. For linux, there are a few issues left for some specific configurations. If you're using an ext3 filesystem, ensure that your about:config setting for toolkit.storage.synchronous is set to 0, and that you do regular backups of your ~/.mozilla directory. Otherwise, it's all good.
That's nice. But what do your troubles with some outdated regulation about individual kiosks have to do with First Sale doctrine?
We're talking about the sale of items that don't require inspection.
We're talking about the sale of items that require the protection of copyright, as they are trival to copy, and the value of the item lies in it's wide distribution.
We're talking about items that do have a specific time value on that distribution, unlike your kiosks, which require a significant amount of time to fabric and distribute.
We're talking about items that have not been ordered by the receipient.
In short, your example here isn't relevant to the discussion. Do you have a better one?
Now, the usefulness of being to send out an advance copy of a book, a cd, a press release or something similar with the expectation that the item will not be further distributed is a subject which might be worthy of discussion. I would submit to you that such usefulness is of relative little use to the general population, and as such, is not worthy of any new laws or regulation. I might suggest that those entities which would find value in such restrictions prepare contracts in advance with parties that would receive these items so that the owners' current copyrights are upheld.
I find no value in suggestions that the public good is enhanced by automatic restrictions on redistribution. Can you provide an example or a case in which the public good is better served by such changes? If not, then why suggest that the court has made a mistake in this court?
Sure, the DRM infestation on Vista doesn't break things if you personally have no DRM "equipped" media- no itunes, no netflicks, etc. But you still get the overhead and consequent slowdown.
The change in sound API (Application Programming Interface) and the underlying sound models means that the older sound cards won't work without updated drivers. Creative sound card owners get screwed as the sound hardware (DSP) on the card that they already paid for isn't utilized, because the DRM on Vista can't trust it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear- Vista is useless on older hardware that only supports 512 MB of ram. You know, those 3 & 4 year old systems most people are using. Yes, I've used vista on low end Dell with just 512 of ram, and it took minutes just to open menus. Completely unuseable. On a brand new dual core with 512MB, it might be acceptable, I dunno.
Most experienced Windows users and 95% of businesses (that being a large portion of MS installs) wouldn't touch a new MS OS until SP1. As SP1 only has been out a month, that implies that it's had about 1 month of testing by the people who need it work, and aren't just playing games with it. I get paid to work with bleeding edge HPC systems- I just want my home PC to run well.
If you already have 85-90% of the market with your current OS, I wouldn't be crowing about your new OS getting to just 10% of the market, given that it's been released to the general public for over 15 months. Here's what businesses (the largest part of MS sales remember) are doing:
By December 2007, only 6.3% of enterprise users working in Windows reported that they were on Vista, according to Forrester. Although that was an increase from only 0.7% in January 2007, Windows XP's share didn't move during the year: It started 2007 at 89.5% of all Windows users and ended at 89.8%. It appears that Vista made headway only at the expense of the even older Windows 2000, Iqbal said. "Vista's increase mirrored the decrease in Windows 2000," he said. "The statistics speak for themselves: They're holding on to XP." http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9073540&pageNumber=2
Microsoft has a lot of staff, but they don't have infinite resources. You're joking right? Microsoft has cash reserves of over $40 billion, and in today's IT world, that's as close to infinite as it gets. If MS felt the need to so, hiring enough people to do more SP releases for XP would have been trivial.In the past, when MS released SP1 & SP2 for XP, they weren't competing with themselves.
I suggest to you that no service packs were released during the last 3 years so as to not interfere (i.e. make XP more desirable and easy to use) with the release of Vista. Just poor execution that Vista's release was delayed for so long.
I'm not claiming that the specific group of packages, updates, & changes known as SP3 could have been released 3 years ago- I'm claiming that an appropriate group of packages, updates, & changes for the timeframe could have been released 3 years ago, and should have been. MS simply choose not to do so.
Feel free to document (well, to that extent that I've documented) this lack of pain for the users of XP.
the theory- http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
the goal http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html
a practical consequence -http://davisfreeberg.com/2008/01/03/bad-copp-no-netflix/
And:
broken sound API's (change for change sake)
Lack of drivers for older hardware
Useless on older machines with just 512 MB of RAM
too many versions
SP1 released just last month
Did I mention the DRM? http://practical-tech.com/entertainment/vistas-multimedia-mess/
As someone already mentioned, MS has 2 OS's in competition, and the newer one is losing. Why is it surprising that they would provide a "fix" to XP that makes it less desirable? Let's face it- they could have put out SP3 at any time in the last three years, and should have. They took the time to pull SP3 last week when it was conflicting with some MS Point of Sale software, but they don't have the resources to test it on any HP systems with AMD cpus's?
No, the none cipher is targeted at HPC clusters with private networks- When I want to use ssh as an rsh replacement, and don't need encrypt the same thing 100 times to 100 different machines.
Now, that doesn't mean that a
The first number is entirely using cache- both what's on the drive and any available system ram. Max theoretical, downhill, wind-at-your-back, instantaneous speed.
The second one is measured transfer speed. The 55MB/s is a "real" number in that you can read that much real data from the platter in that time. I do a lot of drive tests (running an a 4yr old linux cluster) and 55Mb/s is just over U320 drive speed for 10K scsi drives (My drives tend to max out right at 50MB/s)
Don't knock hdparm too much- it's a decent but rough first approximation, and most linux distros install it by default. Plus, it's quick.
Second off, we're already in a war, and people are dying now. Releasing more classified information might increase that total, but not perhaps, more than making uninformed or misinformed decisions. See: Invasion of Iraq, part II, faulty intelligence, current death tolls.
Thirdly, to paraphrase you, "you can't just have vital information withheld because some fuckwad decides to do so." That person might not have the best interests of the country in mind. They might decide to withhold information for personal gain, political reasons or revenge. See: CIA agent outing, Valerie Plame, lack of document release about the leak source by White House.
For every 2-bit wiki and website out there that publishes a classified or FOUO document, we have warehouses, and I mean warehouses, full of stuff that somebody in the government decided to hide away, for one reason or other. Democracy is based on the proposition that the citizens are informed about the matters on which they decide. They are conflicting reasons to release and to hide information, and the idea that we should simply take the government at it's word is silly. Case in point: J. edgar Hoover's use of the FBI to find and keep damaging information on US citizens- http://www.crimelibrary.com/hoover/hoovermain.htm
In the end, those people who do decide to release vital information are prosecuted, see: Rosenbergs. Walker. et. al. The thing is, without the extraordinary release of information that our society allows, we wouldn't have known about Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. Or Abu Garib. Or, in this case, potentially illegal acts at Guantanamo. Or, for next week, the illegal intercepts by NSA of all US traffic, before 9/11. (fat lot of good that did us)
By being unclassified, the release of this material is officially not "material that would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available." See the wiki page on US classification levels- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information#Classification_levels
If it's not classified, it's not a threat to national security. Given the amount of useless info the Bush administration has classified (White house emails, papers documents and political strategies), one could easily make the case that even classification no longer implies the threat of danger to national security for some items.
Having held a clearance, one requiring special background investigation, in the military for 8 years, I will say that it's really important to protect some information. It's just as important to determine what information must have protection, and what information doesn't require it. What's interesting in this matter is that the document in question is marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only(U/FOUO). Check out this link http://www.ioss.gov/WhatDoesFOUOMean.html for an explanation. To summarize, U/FOUO simply means that the material is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, this is material not intended to be available to the public, but not a threat to national security. That's simple enough to understand. Now that it has been released to the public, we can access whether the U/FOUO rating was justified. In general, operating instructions for military installations are not for public consumption, simply due to operational security concerns. On the other hand, this document relates to allegations concerning illegal behavior by members of the US Armed services, and their commanders, much in the same manner as those prosecuted for their actions at Abu Garib.
So here's the question- does the normal concern for operations security override the need to expose and investigate potential illegal activities? One could argue either way- but having seen the document in question, this looks more like a case of "let's not let the light of day into our questionable activities", rather than a genuine need to protect sensitive information.
No reasonable person would claim that this is a case of national security, as not even the government considers this material relevant to national security, but simply asks that the material be treated as such. Actually, that's fairly useful view into the government mind- "We have this information here, and it's vital to national security, so we will classify it and ask that all who handle it treat it that way. OK, so now we have this other information, which isn't vital to national security, but we're going to ask all who handle it to treat it that way too." It takes a certain mindset to think that way, and I don't have it.
Of course, after 5000 miles of driving, it might be less fun. Let's not even talk about how annoying it would be on your second car.
Bad analogies aside, how time does a "complete newbie" spend on a computer before he/she isn't a newbie anymore? What percentage of the total time they spend on the computer is that? How much should we annoy people who know how to use a computer pampering to those just learning? I'm thinking that skying does it right: "bunny slopes" and "ski instructors" allow newbies a graceful environment without impeding those heading to normal slopes.
Besides, don't we already have Macs for the computing impaired? :)
It's a better idea to use the systemrescuecd in combination with a usb drive, and have partimage write the image to the usb drive, rather than try to repartition the image on the first go.
Another caveat with any of these backup tools is that they may have issues with Vista, and it's changed format for the MBR. Make sure that any imaging tool backs up the MasterBootRecord as well.
As I haven't done any Vista saves restores yet, I can't talk about that. For XP and earlier I still find the old ghost 2003 app to be the best bet for restore disks.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, a three way box might be really interesting for some HPC loads as well. The low latency is a really big issue for some codes, and the three way could be more scalable (with some hand coding and profiling) than a 4 socket box with non-uniform latencies. The would apply to MPI code written and optimized for specific tasks- not the simple parallelization that some compilers can do. There's a significant number of HPC users who are happy running non-parallel code on hundreds of dual socket systems who might be able to scale fairly easily to 3 way systems. Actually, the code is parallel, to the extent that it runs on both cpus, but these particular users don't want the network latency for MPI code, even on fast networks. They could scale to three way with little loss of performance on one of these.
Hmmm, a third thought occurs to me. A 3 socket system might also be really,really useful for codes that are I/O intensive- let the traditional mpi code run on the first two cpus and let the third handle OS tasks, network operations and high performance filesystem operations. The latency is less of a value in this case, but simply keeping the OS from interrupting the 2 cpus running MPI could be a big win as well. Call it 2N+1 computing.
Ok, I admit it- I like options when it comes to designing systems to meet the needs of different users.
That's less than $10k per 10Gb port for the hardware. Given that google returns about $20K per port per month, the hardware cost is pretty inconsequential.
Then again, I'm not a network engineer, so I may be reading these price sheets incorrectly. Of course, the trick is to use dark fibre and then find some way to attach to the internet, without having to pay the $80k for the 40Gbs bandwidth you're using.
How the heck do you implement that?.
The trouble will come if OOXML isn't quite so open if and when these tags are used.
Isn't quite so open? ROTFLMAO. This "standard" is a bloody nightmare of not being open. Here's a quote from Groklaw that sums up the openness of this "standard:"
"Fully documented? Open XML? Sir, you jest. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't need to make Novell and Xandros and Linspire sign NDAs and then write translators for them, now, would they?"
When I worked for the USAF during the cold war, spying on americans was illegal. Evidently, those in charge now believe that spying on Americans is acceptable now.
Currently, the US intelligence infrastructure seems to have new missions.
It gathers intelligence from and about the American people.
It makes justifications for actions of the current administration.
I thinking that we should a lot more information about the amount of our taxes that are being used for these purposes, don't you?
Of course, some scholars http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/21583
And the really fun part is watching the White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, trying to explain http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_displa y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560724 why this was bad for the Clinton Administration, but OK for the Bush Regime.
We've run several PC clusters and IBM mainframes that didn't have a 1TF of capacity. You don't want know much power went into them. Yes, our modern blade-based clusters are more condensed, but they're still power hogs for dual and quad core systems.
Blue gene is considered to be a power efficient cluster and the fastest, but it still draws 7kw per rack of 1024 cpus. At 4.71 TF per rack, even Blue Gene pulls 1.5kw per teraflop.
Yes, it's a pair of video cards, and not a general purpose cpu, but your average user doesn't have ability to program and use a Blue Gene style solution either. They just might get some real use out of this with a game Physics Engine that taps into this computing power.
This is cool.
After destructive testing of those, and more on some other fragments from previous testing, they were able to devise a method that does not destroy the sword. The new method strips off a surface layer on a spot the size of a dime, which can then be polished out. The authors claimed that the spot was almost indistinguishable from the rest of the sword.
What's really interesting was that there was information in the article that seemed to claim that they could duplicate the process. They had the alloy composition required to recreate the molecular structure, specific heat treating techniques and listed some ideas on the actual working of the blade needed to build one. They also gave a very plausible theory as to why the knowledge was lost- the swords would require ores with a vanadium or Molybdenum content in the 100s of ppm, which was available only from certain mines in that era. Once those mines had played out, the heating and folding techniques the smiths learned would not produce the wootz on "normal" ore, so the smiths wouldn't bother to teach their apprentices secrets that didn't work.
What I found interesting was the default install size- A clean install of Vista 64 bit is sitting at over 12GB!! That's 3 times the size WinXP. I note that the author of the article reported that without comment. Ouch.
Just to be sure, I'm not an Israeli or Palestinian. I'm not a Jew, a Christian, or Muslim. I'm an American, and it's always amazing to me to see how much American effort goes into protecting the interests of the Israeli state. (and the Big Oil companies, can't forget them.) What's also interesting is how much misunderstanding goes into any conversation along these lines.
So consider Palestine's situation. They are as legitimate a nation as any other. There are tons of border and land disputes in the world and Palestine is obviously not an exception. But they exist, they have sovereignty and are a democratic, legitimate state.
It is also worth noting: Palestine does *not* try to invade and expand into is neighbors for the purpose of getting more land. In fact, since its occupation in 1948, Palenstine has only responded to its neighbors declaring war on it (sometimes with extreme responses, it is true) but hasn't declared war first itself. Granted, one of those cases was a neighbor closing Palestine's access anywhere, which internationally is recognized as an act of war.
My point is: Palestine is fighting for recognition and survival. Its neighbor which attacks it is fighting to kill every Palestinian man, woman and child. They want its land. They want its people dead. Furthermore, a lot of the violence is carried out by military groups that have no accountability internationally. Palestine on the other hand has to answer to the world (or at least, they are a government that makes decisions and the world can hold Palestine accountable for them...there is nobody to even negotiate with or hold responsible on the Israeli side because nobody has any leadership or control over the military apparatus...it is all different factions).
Now, to address the point about U.S. media. Palestine is critized ALL THE TIME. In fact, my big complain with Fox News is that they always run Israeli human-interest stories and report on facts as "Israeli sources say" without giving any of the Palestinian perspective! CNN is the same way.
The international community certainly (or U.N.0 doesn't seem to be stepping up to say "Palestine has the right to exist as a Muslim state; we will defend this right". I mean, you can hate the muslims or not but your hatred shouldn't give you the right to kill them and take away their land does it?
As I said, it's scary how the same statements work for either side.
I have linux running on 2 separate LCD-equipped workstations, as well as my laptop. No issues, no fuss. Installed it myself.
I also have windows XP and windows 2000 running on three of my systems, which I also installed myself. No more or less issues than the linux.
Just because you had a problem doing your first install of new OS doesn't imply world shattering implications for the usability of linux for the "common man". Perhaps the issue is not the ability of linux to do the work, but your lack of experience installing it? Did you install your windows machine from scratch? If so, how did that go?
It's important to note that the common man doesn't install his OS these days. I'm not complaining about your lack of linux knowledge, just your decision to decide that linux isn't ready for everyone after just bad experience. You've used Windows- would you say that your last crash or hang was due to windows OS issues or World of Warcraft?
If we are going to discuss whether linux is ready for desktop use, perhaps we should look at many data points, and try and do comparisons on things that are in the same category.
Do you have an md5-sum with that? Be nice to know that I got the right one.
That is good summary of what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately for the average user, and at variance with standard Car owner's manual practices, Microsoft still retains "control" of the software via "validation". If Microsoft chooses to deny validation, then the owner no longer has "fair use" rights. It's not unlike GM putting the owners manual on a chain, so you can't take it out of the car.