Well, if you are ok with going totally no-frills, you can get a 8*10G switch for under 800€ from netgear:
Yes, I am, and thanks for the pointer.
I have two dual port 10Gb cards in the machine that is my SAN so that I can connect to 4 servers back-to-back, and the switch would allow me to replace them with single port cards and still have failover. I could then sell the two dual port cards for almost the cost of the switch.
The main reason why 10GbE took time to arrive is simple : connectors are not the good-old RJ45 used for 10Mb, 100Mb and 1GbE. The RJ45 connector is small, cheap and backward compatible. The 10GbE connectors are deep, expensive and not RJ45-compatible, hence cannot be used as a 1GbE port.
I use 10Gb over Cat6 in my home (to connect my servers to the SAN). It's really easy to find 10GbE with RJ45 connectors, like this card.
I'm sure a data center could make use of 10GbE, but I don't think consumer hardware will benefit even a few years from now.
10GbE would mean you could move your storage off your local machine to your NAS, since those remote disks would be as fast as the average local disk. There are a lot of uses for this, like saving money by only having programs/data on one set of disks, but still having very fast access.
No, not every home user could benefit from this, but not every home user benefits from 1GbE, either.
10GE Motherboards are still pointless when 10G routers & switches are still way too expensive.
Absolutely true. You can get a single-port 10Gb card that uses Cat6 cabling for less than $300, but the cheapest switch with more than eight 10Gb ports is around $8000. You can piece together a switch with 6-8 10Gb ports (using modules) for around $4000.
So, the reality is that you will pay 1x-3x the cost of the 10Gb NIC for a port to plug it into. Although that is less than the relative cost per port for high-end 1Gb managed switches, that's because the cost of a 1Gb NIC is basically pennies.
All fans of the show probably already know this. They made it obvious in the last episode of the season.
Just like they made it "obvious" with promos for The Next Doctor, right?
John Hurt may actually be a regeneration of the being known on the show as "The Doctor", or he may not. There is also no proof that he will be the "next" incarnation, nor does it prove he will be playing the part for very long.
Or if (a probably very naive) someone could get unintentionally cheated out of the copyrights on their work. I'd imagine some dodgy record companies have already done/tried that.
People have unknowingly signed away copyrights, but it's still not "theft of intellectual property" as the creator still has that property available to them.
It is only because of fraud (which, in the US is not covered by 17 USC, the section of the US code that concerns "intellectual property" like copyrights) that they can't legally use that property as they should be able to. Basically, if you have really have managed to "steal" intellectual property, you can't be prosecuted under any of the laws that are commonly referred to as "intellectual property laws", and which are being discussed by TFA.
Is there any legitimate, scientific/engineering reason why hybrid cars aren't set up the same way as hybrid trains (i.e., fossil fuel engine ONLY charges batteries, electric motors turn the wheels)?
Yes, because turbines are much less efficient when they are small enough to fit in a passenger car, so you'd use a normal internal combustion engine.
At that point, you have the equivalent of the mods of the Prius where the gasoline engine is decoupled from the transmission, and can only charge the batteries. This does give you much better fuel economy than the stock Prius, but you are stuck with a 36hp engine, with 0-60 times of "forever and a day". The only solution would be to greatly increase the size of the electric motor, and that would reduce economy even more, and it might make it so that you could run out of charge.
I dislike the fact that electric and hybrid are cars pretty much exclusively.
It's cool to hear that the Prius gets 60mpg, but it's replacing gas-powered vehicles that can easily achieve 40mpg. Replacing a 15mpg SUV with a 30mpg hybrid SUV would do much more good for the environment, but that's just not happening, as there just aren't that many hybrids (and no electrics, as far as I know) that aren't cars. And, when there are hybrid replacements for real gas guzzlers, they don't really do that much.
For example, the Lexus SUV hybrid gets 30mpg combined versus 21 for the non-hybrid, and almost all that win is in city driving, with highway close enough (25 vs. 28) that driving habits are more important. For a big SUV, the GMC Yukon only increases from 17 to 21 when you pony up the extra $12K for the hybrid version, and again most of the gain is from the city figures (15 vs. 20). This makes it that much harder to get to the 260,000 miles you need before you get your investment back. Sure, you can put that on a vehicle pretty quick, but not with just city driving.
Also, I'm a little peeved that the entire business model of Tesla is designed to get celebrities (who have plenty of disposable income to be able to afford a $100K car that can't drive for half a day without a fill up, which even the most gas-guzzling of SUVs can do) to pay Tesla for the privilege of advertising their vehicles.
I didn't own one, but I added features (or fixed bugs) on the BASIC games that they had running on the floor model at the local Radio Shack. The store manager "paid" for specific changes in the form of discounts on purchases.
I eventually wrote a complete Monopoly game for the Model III, including graphical dice rolling. It wouldn't run on the 16KB version, though, as it was about 28KB.
Presumably hilarious by way of the inclusion of the words "American" and "Intellectual" consecutively.
No, it's hilarious because you'd think that people writing opinions about what should or should not become law would understand that "theft" isn't possible with intellectual property.
Intellectual property can be copied (possibly in a way that violates one or more laws), but it cannot be stolen.
That's absolutely true, and an ISP could strictly enforce that as part of their TOS. Like all other TOS rules, as long as you don't cause the ISP a problem, they won't enforce it.
No the "all you can eat" specifies one person, if you distribute plates to other persons you are breaking that. Unlimited data plan doesn't specify that.
Yes, they do. The Verizon TOS has a clause that says you can't "distribute plates to other persons":
You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means.
But I do have to wonder how much of that 77 terabytes was seeding torrents.
Not that much, as he could only upload at 65Mbps, which would be 20TB/month.
Assuming that he did upload the full 20TB, and all of it came from downloads (i.e., it wasn't data he created in his home and then shared), he somehow managed to download at least 37TB that didn't go back out in any way. That's actually pretty astonishing. And it means that his torrent ratio wasn't particularly good.
Unless you start running 10s of terrabytes a month through it. Then you have to admit your being a bit abusive of a "Residential" plan.
For a 300/65 plan, "10s of terabytes a month" isn't actually unreasonable usage, as it would only take averaging 65Mbps to hit 20TB in a month. Since that's only about 20% of the max, I wouldn't call it abusive.
What this guy did was different in that being over 80% utilization got their attention, and then he admitted to violating the TOS in about a half-dozen ways to get to that utilization. I would be surprised if he could use more than about 40% without violating the TOS, even running some semi-servers (like torrents, or some games that require NAT configuration to work correctly. I pay for a seedbox with 80/80 speed and have a hard time sustaining more than about 50Mbps over the long term simply because there aren't enough leechers who want that much speed.
This mechanic being trivial to bypass is perfectly acceptable for purposes like preventing young children from accidentally shoot and killing people with them.
Except for the fact that anyone who doesn't want this misfeature would modify their gun to bypass it. Since there is literally no one who wants the feature (even police, who have more likelihood of being shot by their own weapon than civlilians), it would likely be bypassed on every gun after the sale.
They're just as reliable as the non-electronic paintball guns as well, so the only problem I really see lies in the actual authentication issues rather than just having electronics integrated.
The firing mechanism in a paintball gun is just a valve that opens to let pressurized gas run fire the ball and cycle the loading mechanism. Electronic control of a valve is pretty easy compared to the mechanics of a semi-automatic pistol, so it's not really a good comparison.
In addition, part of the reason for the electronic trigger on a paintball gun is so that idiots can fire faster without having to work at all. At this point, paintball guns with ultra-sensitive electronic triggers have a rate of fire that is as close the maximum that it would be if the gun was fully automatic. This is not a good thing in a gun that fires lethal projectiles.
Since we have been able to add breath sensor based steering wheel and ignition interlock systems to cars for preventing drunk driving, and the technology has worked out pretty damned well, both in terms of stopping DUIs with those vehicles and in terms of them still remaining normally functional otherwise
First, the reliability of ignition interlock devices has been questioned for a long time.
Second, nobody ever needs to start their car in less than 5 seconds, but it's not at all unreasonable to expect that a device that is used in self-defense should be available at least that fast, if not faster. So, even if the ignition interlock is 100% reliable, it's not a good example unless it did something like analyze the sweat on the key as it was turned.
Who the fuck said anything about some sort of whizbang electronically-ignited primers? Although that would probably be a pretty cool technology (if the primer required a signature that was tagged to a biometric property of the owner), that is not anything like what is being considered.
That's the problem with the legislation...it doesn't consider the fact that unless you have a full "fire-by-wire" setup, it's essentially impossible to implement a "smart gun" without it being trivial to bypass.
The integrated trigger safety on the various Glock handguns is a good example of how this would work, except that is purely mechanical, and this would be electronic. So, instead of a physical push of an extra lever to move a pin that blocks the trigger from being completely pulled (or possibly the firing pin from moving), there will be electronics, and they would have to be fairly seriously sophisticated. For example, unless the trigger is greatly enlarged, the sensor would have to be very small (less than 1/8" wide) and would have to deal with different positioning of the finger (since nobody is ever exactly the same on the grip), and should be able to accommodate at least two fingers in memory (for off-hand shooting).
Regardless of how sophisticated the electronics are, the problem is that this sort of thing is easily disabled simply by removing whatever is doing the blocking, which completely bypasses the electronics. So, although this might keep a gun from being fired quickly after someone who isn't the owner gains possession, it won't stop a real criminal with long-term plans for the gun.
BTW My company use to offer free soda but due to stupid employees opening cans then leaving them all over the office, soda is now 25 cents/can. Personally I would raise it to 50 cents but then again I rarely drink it so I don't care.
The solution to this is a soda fountain, which not only reduces initial costs (fountain soda costs about $0.25/liter, while cans are about $0.50/liter at best wholesale prices), but reduces waste. This further reduces costs, and has the added advantage of stopping people from stocking their home fridge with soda from the company.
In addition, as long as you purchase some minimum amount of syrup and soda water per month, you generally get the fountain hardware and maintenance for free.
The deductibles are 8-10k, which I can afford to pay out-of-pocket, but even if I couldn't most providers will setup a payment plan and you can pay it off over time with the savings from the premium.
At my current job, the difference between the plan with the least out of pocket and the most amounts to $1051.96/year.
That means I'd have to save that difference for at least eight years, making sure that I never spend it on any other emergency. Since the difference is less than 1% of my salary, some would say I can definitely afford to pay any such deductibles, but my attitude is that with no real out of pocket, I'll never put off going to the doctor (or having something done) because of possible cost issues, and I'll never need to worry about what might happen if I have a couple of separate major medical issues.
Furniture is even worse. Decent furniture should last a lifetime.
Back in 1987, when I was in college, I bought a fairly cheap couch at JC Penney. Last year, I donated it to charity, as it was a little too worn for me and I didn't have a good spot for it anymore.
Among other things, that couch lived through parties every Saturday night for 4 years, and later had to deal with 70-150 pound dogs using it as a takeoff and landing zone.
Admittedly, all furniture was made better back then, but to get 25 years out of something that cheap says that if anything, your statement about how long furniture lasts can't be emphasized enough.
I just bought a Nexus 4 for US$ 299.
Great phone. Big screen. No subsidy. Free to use any carrier.
And, if you use it in the US, you are getting ripped off, because you were better off getting a subsidized phone from the carrier.
That's because you are still going to pay the exact same monthly charges for your voice/data plan as if you had gotten a subsidized phone. The only thing that T-Mobile changed was that they are no longer requiring a long contract. But, you still have to pay for the phone.
Since you're posting on Slashdot, I assume that the stations you don't care about are things like The Disney Channel, Lifetime, and Country Music Television.
Guess what, there's a lot of people out there that don't post on Slashdot who care even less about SciFy (I hate typing that crap), Comedy Central, and Cartoon Network than you do about their favorite channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you are ok with going totally no-frills, you can get a 8*10G switch for under 800€ from netgear:
Yes, I am, and thanks for the pointer.
I have two dual port 10Gb cards in the machine that is my SAN so that I can connect to 4 servers back-to-back, and the switch would allow me to replace them with single port cards and still have failover. I could then sell the two dual port cards for almost the cost of the switch.
The main reason why 10GbE took time to arrive is simple : connectors are not the good-old RJ45 used for 10Mb, 100Mb and 1GbE. The RJ45 connector is small, cheap and backward compatible. The 10GbE connectors are deep, expensive and not RJ45-compatible, hence cannot be used as a 1GbE port.
I use 10Gb over Cat6 in my home (to connect my servers to the SAN). It's really easy to find 10GbE with RJ45 connectors, like this card.
I'm sure a data center could make use of 10GbE, but I don't think consumer hardware will benefit even a few years from now.
10GbE would mean you could move your storage off your local machine to your NAS, since those remote disks would be as fast as the average local disk. There are a lot of uses for this, like saving money by only having programs/data on one set of disks, but still having very fast access.
No, not every home user could benefit from this, but not every home user benefits from 1GbE, either.
10GE Motherboards are still pointless when 10G routers & switches are still way too expensive.
Absolutely true. You can get a single-port 10Gb card that uses Cat6 cabling for less than $300, but the cheapest switch with more than eight 10Gb ports is around $8000. You can piece together a switch with 6-8 10Gb ports (using modules) for around $4000.
So, the reality is that you will pay 1x-3x the cost of the 10Gb NIC for a port to plug it into. Although that is less than the relative cost per port for high-end 1Gb managed switches, that's because the cost of a 1Gb NIC is basically pennies.
Another example of why robotic surgeons should be a long term goal.
All that would accomplish is give Skynet yet another way to kill us.
All fans of the show probably already know this. They made it obvious in the last episode of the season.
Just like they made it "obvious" with promos for The Next Doctor , right?
John Hurt may actually be a regeneration of the being known on the show as "The Doctor", or he may not. There is also no proof that he will be the "next" incarnation, nor does it prove he will be playing the part for very long.
Or if (a probably very naive) someone could get unintentionally cheated out of the copyrights on their work. I'd imagine some dodgy record companies have already done/tried that.
People have unknowingly signed away copyrights, but it's still not "theft of intellectual property" as the creator still has that property available to them.
It is only because of fraud (which, in the US is not covered by 17 USC, the section of the US code that concerns "intellectual property" like copyrights) that they can't legally use that property as they should be able to. Basically, if you have really have managed to "steal" intellectual property, you can't be prosecuted under any of the laws that are commonly referred to as "intellectual property laws", and which are being discussed by TFA.
Is there any legitimate, scientific/engineering reason why hybrid cars aren't set up the same way as hybrid trains (i.e., fossil fuel engine ONLY charges batteries, electric motors turn the wheels)?
Yes, because turbines are much less efficient when they are small enough to fit in a passenger car, so you'd use a normal internal combustion engine.
At that point, you have the equivalent of the mods of the Prius where the gasoline engine is decoupled from the transmission, and can only charge the batteries. This does give you much better fuel economy than the stock Prius, but you are stuck with a 36hp engine, with 0-60 times of "forever and a day". The only solution would be to greatly increase the size of the electric motor, and that would reduce economy even more, and it might make it so that you could run out of charge.
Seriously, what do people have against them?
I dislike the fact that electric and hybrid are cars pretty much exclusively.
It's cool to hear that the Prius gets 60mpg, but it's replacing gas-powered vehicles that can easily achieve 40mpg. Replacing a 15mpg SUV with a 30mpg hybrid SUV would do much more good for the environment, but that's just not happening, as there just aren't that many hybrids (and no electrics, as far as I know) that aren't cars. And, when there are hybrid replacements for real gas guzzlers, they don't really do that much.
For example, the Lexus SUV hybrid gets 30mpg combined versus 21 for the non-hybrid, and almost all that win is in city driving, with highway close enough (25 vs. 28) that driving habits are more important. For a big SUV, the GMC Yukon only increases from 17 to 21 when you pony up the extra $12K for the hybrid version, and again most of the gain is from the city figures (15 vs. 20). This makes it that much harder to get to the 260,000 miles you need before you get your investment back. Sure, you can put that on a vehicle pretty quick, but not with just city driving.
Also, I'm a little peeved that the entire business model of Tesla is designed to get celebrities (who have plenty of disposable income to be able to afford a $100K car that can't drive for half a day without a fill up, which even the most gas-guzzling of SUVs can do) to pay Tesla for the privilege of advertising their vehicles.
Model I as well.
I didn't own one, but I added features (or fixed bugs) on the BASIC games that they had running on the floor model at the local Radio Shack. The store manager "paid" for specific changes in the form of discounts on purchases.
I eventually wrote a complete Monopoly game for the Model III, including graphical dice rolling. It wouldn't run on the 16KB version, though, as it was about 28KB.
Presumably hilarious by way of the inclusion of the words "American" and "Intellectual" consecutively.
No, it's hilarious because you'd think that people writing opinions about what should or should not become law would understand that "theft" isn't possible with intellectual property.
Intellectual property can be copied (possibly in a way that violates one or more laws), but it cannot be stolen.
That's absolutely true, and an ISP could strictly enforce that as part of their TOS. Like all other TOS rules, as long as you don't cause the ISP a problem, they won't enforce it.
No the "all you can eat" specifies one person, if you distribute plates to other persons you are breaking that. Unlimited data plan doesn't specify that.
Yes, they do. The Verizon TOS has a clause that says you can't "distribute plates to other persons":
Every other ISP TOS has a similar clause.
But I do have to wonder how much of that 77 terabytes was seeding torrents.
Not that much, as he could only upload at 65Mbps, which would be 20TB/month.
Assuming that he did upload the full 20TB, and all of it came from downloads (i.e., it wasn't data he created in his home and then shared), he somehow managed to download at least 37TB that didn't go back out in any way. That's actually pretty astonishing. And it means that his torrent ratio wasn't particularly good.
Unless you start running 10s of terrabytes a month through it. Then you have to admit your being a bit abusive of a "Residential" plan.
For a 300/65 plan, "10s of terabytes a month" isn't actually unreasonable usage, as it would only take averaging 65Mbps to hit 20TB in a month. Since that's only about 20% of the max, I wouldn't call it abusive.
What this guy did was different in that being over 80% utilization got their attention, and then he admitted to violating the TOS in about a half-dozen ways to get to that utilization. I would be surprised if he could use more than about 40% without violating the TOS, even running some semi-servers (like torrents, or some games that require NAT configuration to work correctly. I pay for a seedbox with 80/80 speed and have a hard time sustaining more than about 50Mbps over the long term simply because there aren't enough leechers who want that much speed.
No living thing on Earth has evolved to make use of that part of the spectrum like has been done for "visible" light, UV, and infrared.
Birds are sensitive to magnetism, and other species have shown some ability to sense similar things (like electric power lines).
With literally billions (at least) of species on the planet, saying "no living thing has whatever" has been found to be generally incorrect.
This mechanic being trivial to bypass is perfectly acceptable for purposes like preventing young children from accidentally shoot and killing people with them.
Except for the fact that anyone who doesn't want this misfeature would modify their gun to bypass it. Since there is literally no one who wants the feature (even police, who have more likelihood of being shot by their own weapon than civlilians), it would likely be bypassed on every gun after the sale.
They're just as reliable as the non-electronic paintball guns as well, so the only problem I really see lies in the actual authentication issues rather than just having electronics integrated.
The firing mechanism in a paintball gun is just a valve that opens to let pressurized gas run fire the ball and cycle the loading mechanism. Electronic control of a valve is pretty easy compared to the mechanics of a semi-automatic pistol, so it's not really a good comparison.
In addition, part of the reason for the electronic trigger on a paintball gun is so that idiots can fire faster without having to work at all. At this point, paintball guns with ultra-sensitive electronic triggers have a rate of fire that is as close the maximum that it would be if the gun was fully automatic. This is not a good thing in a gun that fires lethal projectiles.
Since we have been able to add breath sensor based steering wheel and ignition interlock systems to cars for preventing drunk driving, and the technology has worked out pretty damned well, both in terms of stopping DUIs with those vehicles and in terms of them still remaining normally functional otherwise
First, the reliability of ignition interlock devices has been questioned for a long time.
Second, nobody ever needs to start their car in less than 5 seconds, but it's not at all unreasonable to expect that a device that is used in self-defense should be available at least that fast, if not faster. So, even if the ignition interlock is 100% reliable, it's not a good example unless it did something like analyze the sweat on the key as it was turned.
Who the fuck said anything about some sort of whizbang electronically-ignited primers? Although that would probably be a pretty cool technology (if the primer required a signature that was tagged to a biometric property of the owner), that is not anything like what is being considered.
That's the problem with the legislation...it doesn't consider the fact that unless you have a full "fire-by-wire" setup, it's essentially impossible to implement a "smart gun" without it being trivial to bypass.
The integrated trigger safety on the various Glock handguns is a good example of how this would work, except that is purely mechanical, and this would be electronic. So, instead of a physical push of an extra lever to move a pin that blocks the trigger from being completely pulled (or possibly the firing pin from moving), there will be electronics, and they would have to be fairly seriously sophisticated. For example, unless the trigger is greatly enlarged, the sensor would have to be very small (less than 1/8" wide) and would have to deal with different positioning of the finger (since nobody is ever exactly the same on the grip), and should be able to accommodate at least two fingers in memory (for off-hand shooting).
Regardless of how sophisticated the electronics are, the problem is that this sort of thing is easily disabled simply by removing whatever is doing the blocking, which completely bypasses the electronics. So, although this might keep a gun from being fired quickly after someone who isn't the owner gains possession, it won't stop a real criminal with long-term plans for the gun.
BTW My company use to offer free soda but due to stupid employees opening cans then leaving them all over the office, soda is now 25 cents/can. Personally I would raise it to 50 cents but then again I rarely drink it so I don't care.
The solution to this is a soda fountain, which not only reduces initial costs (fountain soda costs about $0.25/liter, while cans are about $0.50/liter at best wholesale prices), but reduces waste. This further reduces costs, and has the added advantage of stopping people from stocking their home fridge with soda from the company.
In addition, as long as you purchase some minimum amount of syrup and soda water per month, you generally get the fountain hardware and maintenance for free.
The deductibles are 8-10k, which I can afford to pay out-of-pocket, but even if I couldn't most providers will setup a payment plan and you can pay it off over time with the savings from the premium.
At my current job, the difference between the plan with the least out of pocket and the most amounts to $1051.96/year.
That means I'd have to save that difference for at least eight years, making sure that I never spend it on any other emergency. Since the difference is less than 1% of my salary, some would say I can definitely afford to pay any such deductibles, but my attitude is that with no real out of pocket, I'll never put off going to the doctor (or having something done) because of possible cost issues, and I'll never need to worry about what might happen if I have a couple of separate major medical issues.
Furniture is even worse. Decent furniture should last a lifetime.
Back in 1987, when I was in college, I bought a fairly cheap couch at JC Penney. Last year, I donated it to charity, as it was a little too worn for me and I didn't have a good spot for it anymore.
Among other things, that couch lived through parties every Saturday night for 4 years, and later had to deal with 70-150 pound dogs using it as a takeoff and landing zone.
Admittedly, all furniture was made better back then, but to get 25 years out of something that cheap says that if anything, your statement about how long furniture lasts can't be emphasized enough.
I just bought a Nexus 4 for US$ 299. Great phone. Big screen. No subsidy. Free to use any carrier.
And, if you use it in the US, you are getting ripped off, because you were better off getting a subsidized phone from the carrier.
That's because you are still going to pay the exact same monthly charges for your voice/data plan as if you had gotten a subsidized phone. The only thing that T-Mobile changed was that they are no longer requiring a long contract. But, you still have to pay for the phone.
I could care less if 1/2 of the stations go away.
Since you're posting on Slashdot, I assume that the stations you don't care about are things like The Disney Channel, Lifetime, and Country Music Television.
Guess what, there's a lot of people out there that don't post on Slashdot who care even less about SciFy (I hate typing that crap), Comedy Central, and Cartoon Network than you do about their favorite channels.